Committee of the Whole – May 11, 2026

00:20:27
Good morning. My name is Rory Nissan, counselor for W 3, and I would like to call to order the committee of the whole meeting for Monday, May 11, 2026. Burlington as we know it today is rich in history and modern traditions of many first nations and the Matei. From the Anosa to the Hodnoni and the Matei, our land spanning from Lake Ontario to the Niagara Scarment are steeped in indigenous history.

00:20:51
The territory is mutually covered by the dish with one spoon walam belt covenant and agreements between the Iricqua Confederacy, the Ojiway and other allied nations to peaceibly share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. We acknowledge that the land on which we gather is part of the treaty lands and territory of the Missagas of the Credit.

00:21:11
In the event of an emergency, please evacuate the council chambers by the nearest exit staircase, which is located through the doorway marked with the exit symbol. Once you have evacuated the building, please gather at Veteran Square outside of City Hall. All City of Burlington committee and council meetings are live webcasted and archived on the city’s website.

00:21:30
Today’s meeting is being captioned digitally through our agenda management software reminding everyone to slow down and speak clearly. I would also ask everyone attending virtually to use appropriate microphones. We do have rules of engagement in committee meetings. We ask everyone to please be respectful while others are speaking and listen as you would want to be listened to.

00:21:51
Reminder to committee members to limit your questions to two at a time. A member may ask a question only for the purpose of obtaining facts relevant to the matter under discussion necessary for a clear understanding. We’re not making decisions at this meeting, only recommendations that will go to city council for final consideration on May 26, 2026.

00:22:15
The public is welcome to see when the final decision-making happens uh by attending the meeting in person or watching the live stream. Delegations are welcome. By way of introduction of our members, our first order of business for today’s meeting is to conduct a roll call.

00:22:29
I’ll now turn it over to the clerk. >> Thank you. Councelor Galbre, >> present. >> Councelor Karns, >> present. >> Uh, councelor Stoaltce has sent her regrets. Councelor Benta >> present. >> Um, councelor Charman. >> His hands up. >> His hands up. >> I’ll take it. >> Okay. Um, >> sorry. Present. Thank you. Mayor me Ward will be joining us midm morning and councelor Nissan >> here.

00:22:59

We have quorum. >> Thank you. Uh staff joining us today include our chief administrative officer Kurt Benson and our committee clerk Suzanne Gillies. Other staff in attendance will be introduced as needed. The schedule for today is the usual. short breaks midm morning and afternoon lunch from

00:23:16
12 till 1:00 p.m. We will deal with confidential items after lunch at 1:00 p.m. The meeting is scheduled until 4:30 p.m. today and set to continue tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. On to approval of the agenda and please note that item 9.2 confidential update regarding a labor relations matter has been withdrawn by staff.

00:23:35
So we’ll not be considering that item today. We will uh we do need a motion to suspend the rules for section 45.1 of the procedure bylaw 592024 as amended to allow an extension of delegation speaking time beyond the 10-minute maximum for the consultant presentation for item 8.2 community survey follow-up presentation CF0526.

00:24:02
Would a member like to move that motion? Councelor Karns. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Any uh requests to change the agenda as presented? I am seeing none. Ask for a member of committee to move the approval of the agenda. Councelor Galbreth. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries.

00:24:30
Declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of pecuniary interest? Councelor Galbreth. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair. I’m going to declare an interest on item 13.1. Um >> uh item 13.1 um due to property I own in close proximity to it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Charvin.

00:24:55
Uh do you have a point of order or do you have a declaration? >> No, no, my my I’m sorry. I just can’t get my sound system working. >> Okay, it’s working great. Okay. Uh reminder to delegates as we move to delegations at this time that their items will be discussed in the order of the approved agenda which may be later today.

00:25:13
You may remain in the chambers or if you choose to leave you can watch the meeting live uh live stream online. You can find the link to the live stream at burlington.ca/meings. All public attendees must uh maintain order and not engage in any behavior that may be considered disruptive. Each delegate will have 10 minutes to provide their comments.

00:25:36
We’ll be using the time clock in chambers to keep track of your time, which you will be able to view at the podium or on your screen if attending remotely. Once you are done, please remain to answer any questions committee members may have for you. And reminder to committee members for questions of clarification only.

00:25:52
Thank you. So, two registered delegations. One is the Burlington Downtown Business Association represented by Brian Dean, Barry Glazer, and Kim Nadernney who are joining us in person to speak regarding motion memorandum regarding parking supply structure downtown east of Branch Street, CO26. I understand you have a presentation that’ll come up uh momentarily and uh you can wait for that or just get going when you’re ready.

00:26:22
We’ll get the mic on for you as well. Just give it one sec, Brian. And >> yes, >> and there we go. I can try to project. Uh, good morning, chair, members of the committee. Uh, yes, my name is Brian Dean. I am executive director of the Downtown Business Association. There are two co-delegates with me this morning, uh, sitting in council chambers.

00:26:45
One is Barry Glazier, uh, business owner of the, um, Martini House on Elizabeth Street, a member of my board of directors, and also a member of the downtown advisory committee to this council, and also Kim Naturnney, uh, who is a business owner of um, Son of a Peach Pizzeria, also a member of my board, and with your permission, we’ll ask them to come and join me at the end should committee have any specific questions.

00:27:10
Uh we’re here today as representatives of the downtown business membership and importantly as funders to the defined parking area levy. The purpose of our delegation is to demonstrate our support chair for the motions that are tabled in the motion memorandum and of course to encourage committee and council to adopt them as well.

00:27:33
The memorandum aligns very very well with the strategic priorities of my board of directors and the data that we’ve collected through our surveys and e petitions is also aligned with this work. So we do have a brief PowerPoint presentation transition slide for me please. Uh much like with city council chair, the board values an evidence-based understanding of the issues that are affecting our business community’s competitiveness.

00:28:01
Our survey, which was submitted as appendix A, brought critical insights into the lived experiences of our business community in relation to the availability of public parking in the downtown core. The results of this survey were shared also with this committee on March 3rd. So we are resurrecting them. The survey helped my board to quantify the following assumptions.

00:28:25
That there is unequal distribution of public parking assets throughout our downtown BIA. That there is insufficient structured parking supply east of Branch Street. 70% of the respondents to our survey say their employees today cannot find adequate parking nearby, resulting in their staff competing for the exact same spaces of their customers and patrons.

00:28:57
And that addressing the availability of convenient parking is identified by our membership, our paying membership as the most critical factor for sustaining downtown vitality. slide, please. At the April 1st meeting of my board of directors, also stakeholders, four motions were passed. You can see them on the screen.

00:29:20
They were included also in the motion memo on page five. They were tabled in response to a significant ground swell of concern from downtown business membership that was evidenced through our aforementioned survey. The most salient of those four is number three. Our board declares that the city of Burlington be directed to conduct a detailed financial analysis to confirm the long-term availab excuse me long-term affordability, the capacity of our reserve and the overall sustainability of the downtown parking system in order to support underlined and expedited planning, design, and construction of new off- streetet parking supply east of Brand Street. The motion memo before you that we’re supporting replaces chief administrative officer with finance department. We’re very supportive of this change. And the

00:30:19
motion memo also outlines a phased approach to infrastructure planning. You will see that a Q3 report is the ask to come back which can and we believe will lay the groundwork for a feasibility study again for future parking supply east of Brand. Slide please. To cement our position with committee this morning and to respond to the growing concerns that were raised by our membership, we also circulated an e petition that was done out of my office knocking on doors as well as through our communication channels. And we’re very pleased to present to you that 60 downtown business and property owners have signed on to deliver the very clear message to this chamber today. New parking supply is a communitywide priority and several of the respondents to that petition and also to the survey

00:31:19
are joining us in council chambers this morning. The petition will be circulated to council for your regular meeting on the 19th. Here is the agreed to statement. You can clearly read it, but in short, the messaging is this. Our membership is clear in our belief that the public parking supply in the core has not kept pace with the development pressures here.

00:31:46
This condition is acutely true east of Brand Street and our membership also is very supportive of the work that the city of Burlington’s transportation team and integrated mobility team have done. We have echoed our support for that and I do it again this morning. But we differ with them on one key conclusion and that is this.

00:32:09
New parking supply in the downtown must be viewed as a short-term priority. That is the chief reason we are here today. It is absolutely critical to the health of our future and our current communities of business in the downtown core. As you know, chair, final slide, please. Our levy paying members understand that we have a pulled parking supply system in the downtown core.

00:32:35
That our parking supply must support the needs of tourists and it must support the needs of our cultural venues. And of course, as a funer, it must support the needs of our small business bricks and mortar who call downtown home. This need for new parking supply is not new. This is a campaign of concern.

00:32:56
We have echoed to this chamber and to council over many delegations. It is in our view as a funer priority number one. This is the most urgent concern. Our members strongly encourage committee and council to adopt the tenants in the motion memorandum. That concludes our delegation. share. I would like the opportunity to call my co-delegates to the platform should committee have any questions. Thank you.

00:33:28

Yep. They’re more than welcome. But first, let me see if we have any questions today. >> Councelor Karns, >> thank you very much for your delegation. Can you share with us a little bit more about what you mean by a downtown parking levy on your businesses? >> I can start.

00:33:47
The rate payers are right behind me. In 20 2007 was the initiation of policy called defined parking area levy and that was in response to at in that environment what were known to be projected significant infrastructure projects by which the consultants in 2007 felt that our current parking infrastructure was insufficient.

00:34:15
There was not enough money in the kitty. So we went to our membership, our commercial property owners downtown within the BIA and their tenants explained that if we want to fasttrack building future parking supply, we all need to take a bit of a hit or more specifically a tax. It started as a volunteer tax and it spelled out this way.

00:34:36
In exchange for paying a levy to contribute to pool parking, said commercial property owner is not required to provide on-site parking to accommodate the needs of their of their commercial entities. That was the trade-off. From 2007 on, counselor, this has been spread across approximately 260 commercial property owners in the core and hundreds of their tenants.

00:35:02
We have contributed steadfast even through co to the quantum of approximately $233 to $237,000 having contributed as of next year 5.4 million to the parking fund and no new supply east of Brand Street to show for it. I’ll ask if my co-delegates have comments or if that was satisfactory. Please. Uh yeah, I at this point I mean there’s a lot of concern about the payment of this because we’re frustrated really frustrated that uh what we’re paying is we’re not getting and we just want to the voices to be heard that this growth is is basically the retail and the hospitality end has grown significantly since 207. So we also now the downtown is a lot more vibrant. So there’s a huge there’s a huge pressure point right now that’s been it’s been a big big issue like yesterday was a prime example that

00:36:01
downtown was just on fire people trying to find places to go. So it it is it definitely is a concern that we’re paying into something then we’re we’re just asking for for some kind of relief and somewhere of of to make the future successful. >> I’m sorry I do have one more comment because I think you asked a really gerine question.

00:36:23
These surveys that we send out to our membership aren’t just a paper trail. We engage them. We bring them to meetings. We discuss them. We invite them to our board. We go to their place of business. The frustration about the levy is a return on investment. Even we do our very best to explain counselor where the money goes and how it does positively contribute to poolled parking.

00:36:41
The response that we’re getting at our door, and you may hear it from others, is if we were a shareholder in a company and the company was taking this direction, we’re seeing significant diminished returns on our investment, we would love the opportunity to get out of the system. It’s not working for us.

00:36:58
If we could possibly, this is the commentary we’re hearing significantly, repeal the legislation. We just take our money with interest and go home and do business somewhere else. That may not be practical in this scenario, but for those that are paying the bill and feeling that the parking supply that they’re contributing to is letting them down daily, I’d feel the same way, too.

00:37:21
So, just a follow-up point of clarification from what I think I just heard. Are you saying that you’re carrying the voice of the businesses you represent to say that they’re at an inflection point where the parking is becoming an issue that they would seek out uh investment opportunity in other municipalities outside of downtown Burlington? >> You can speak on that.

00:37:42

Thank you. Hi, delegates. Um, my name is Kim Net attorney and yes, Lisa, that we are looking at other areas. For example, my husband and I that own Sunshine Donuts and Son of a Peach Pizzeria, we’re at a max capacity for growth. And within our buildings and our parking structure, we look at the whole vision of downtown as a really special place of independent businesses that you don’t have in a lot of places.

00:38:07
And with that, we need the support of the city in order to accommodate the vast tourism and destination that this golden horseshoe of Burlington has become. So my whole thing with our staff and our patrons that come, we have new customers every single day. Yesterday was one, as Barry was saying, it was an example of just the chaos that could ensue.

00:38:32
A lot of people come to downtown Burlington now on the weekends at nine o’clock in the morning so they can have their spot and we notice it because we’re all early birds in our businesses and we see it and to accommodate the population growth and the tourism. We need parking. A lot of people don’t have access to the go train and it’s not easy for them to come from Fair View down downtown.

00:38:56
But downtown has now become a huge destination as the vision of Burlington is. And growth is key for not only the city but for all businesses involved. So where we’re at is a stump in growth with our independent businesses. It’s different when we’re just major corporations, but we’re all independent businesses trying to accommodate between two places.

00:39:21
For us, we have about 60 employees and they do commute. there’s only few of them that live within the neighborhood that actually walk and bike. So that’s an example of just my 60 employees that need to accommodate their parking spaces and that doesn’t include the hundreds and thousands over the weekend that we serve every single day.

00:39:41
So with growth for us, it’s really important to accommodate this ongoing issue that’s been going on for a long time. Since a peach just turned 12 on Friday, we see the rapid growth but also a stump in a lot of things. Thank you, Brian. My second question is this. I’ve gone back and re-reviewed the um parking assessment that was presented previously, and I’m uh very confused as to why this lived experience is not matching up to the data that’s coming uh to us by way of the um parking assessment report. Can you help uh help us reconcile those two pieces? >> I can try. Um when I indicated that it was not new that this delegation would bring um a chorus of concerns and raise the alarm bell about diminishing parking supply, we have done that. It was this committee and council that tasked the downtown parking committee and transportation

00:40:39
services to come back with independent and objective data that provided uh a real-time snapshot about the uh current and future anticipated parking supply. That was the Stantech study that came in May in in March of this year. Having participated in the study and having been involved in developing the the the um the scope of reference for the work, we knew how absolutely imperative it was that we bring the real-time lived experiences to the table in in full grandeur through multiple channels and to communicate those themes to the committee because the quantifiable analysis is one thing. The stent work is good work. It does project what the anticipated supply and demand may be through minor or aggressive planning scenarios throughout the year but it fails to understand or let me rephrase

00:41:37
that it is not corroborated properly with the qualitative lived experiences that our merchants and small businesses have here. So we think through communicating our voice having a dedicated chapter about what those experiences were in the last report committee was presented with something more balanced.

00:41:56
Our chief point of departure is not the scenarios that they’re presenting. It may be quantifiably correct. Our issue is this is an immediate short-term priority and having it presented as a longer term priority while other lowhanging fruit projects take place is a challenge for us.

00:42:16
We can eat our cake and do it too or rather eat our cake and have it too. We’re definitely supportive of the tactics to try to make the experience better, but if we do not address parking supply, it will be a moot point. So there is a point of disconnect in terms of priorities. counselor, but also a point of convergence in terms of a fuller appreciation of what the real-time experiences are and not just a snapshot of what our members said, but the common theme that we’re hearing, which is I may not renew my lease.

00:42:44
There is no show me, you know, show me where this is going to be. Show us a point of hope. Give me an opportunity as an independent business to say I want to continue to choose downtown to grow. So, >> I hope that answers your question. >> As a followup, who is behind you and do they agree with the the statements you just made? >> I can I think I’ve introduced my co-delegates.

00:43:09
There are four or five independent small business owners, one of which is going to be opening in Village Square inside of a week and is obviously here to learn about the environment and a number of veteran business owners from across various disciplines as well. Councelor >> Councelor Bentovenia, you’re up next. Councelor Bentovenia, >> thank you chair and uh thank you Brian for the u delegation and uh certainly uh understand what the business community is going through.

00:43:41
Having said all that, we’re talking about short-term, we’re talking about real time, we’re talking about all the nice buzzwords and and this report um emphasizes the parking structure. >> Mhm. In your opinion, how long do you think that would take if in a perfect world in Burlington things progressed accordingly? How long would that take? >> That is a loaded question.

00:44:09
You’ll appreciate. Let me start by saying the very first thing we need is what we’re asking for today, a financial analysis. I think the answer to that question respectfully counselor will be dictated by where, how big, what are the cities, what are the municipal needs out of this structure.

00:44:28
Is the land available on public land? Is it available for sale from the private sector? I’m I’m slightly reticent in telling you what I think from this point now it would be. I can tell you that the plan that relegated it originally to a long-term um priority for the city would have seen us having this conversation up to 2032.

00:44:56

Okay, thank you for that. And that leads up to my next question. So you mentioned 200 plus businesses in the city. We discussed one employer with 60 employees. So, I don’t want to do the math here, but we’re talking thousands of staff, >> thousands looking for a parking spot. What can we do today so that all 200 plus businesses feel better about staying in Burlington and growing in Burlington rather than waiting as you had just mentioned >> time wise? >> Well, we the this conversation is to try to figure out where we’re going to put these people. I can give you a prime example what Pearl’s done to the empty lot right across the street from us. All

00:45:54
the Pearl staff park there and it’s 80% full one is because it’s free on Saturdays cuz it’s a joint effort that we share with the community. So now every every Saturday that lot is full. So that’s telling you how many how many employees are coming from that one hotel.

00:46:08
So where we’re going to put them is is obviously a real problem for all of us. I’m fortunate I have parking in the back of the restaurant which helps 99% of my my problem. Um but all the other uh hospitality uh and retailers don’t have that same luxury. So uh it it’s finding space. We’ve been I mean parking we’ve been talking about this for years and everyone that from whatever age group and whoever’s been on the parking committee for years, parking has always been an issue.

00:46:32
I think the city now has to make a decision is how do we protect the future of what’s coming? Like what’s coming at us? like some of the outside counselors should take a look at the development that’s coming. The amount of dots that are showing that’s coming on on the bottom of each one of those dots is retail or commercial of some sort.

00:46:49
You know, uh it it’s uh once the water waterfront does its its deal, it will be Pearl 2. It’s going to dump the same problem onto our streets that we don’t have an answer for. So my suggestion if how long this is going to take could take two three years but we should really think about it because once the building world starts to kick in again we all know we’re fortunate the recession or whatever’s going on that put these gentlemen on hold or in builders uh that’s saving us.

00:47:17
But once they all start popping up and if you take a look at the stat sheet of what’s coming on downtown there’s 10 units there’s 10 towers of 200 units per thing. So depending on what you decide for parking for the resident and the commercial, where are these where are they coming? I need I need destination to survive because we’re tapped out.

00:47:37
So we’re now we’re relying on people to come and help with the expansion of all the retail the amount of retail and restaurants. >> So what you can do today for those members is the reason we’re here councelor. We’re hearing to ask this committee and council to adopt these motions in a timely manner.

00:47:54
We certainly are would not be pleased to come back and have this same discussion with council a year from now having missed a full budget cycle. So, we’re asking for an opportunity to kickstart the process and that’s the intention of the motion memo this morning. >> Thanks for that. My follow-up question on that subject is rather than working in silos.

00:48:22
This agenda, this recommendation calls for reports. Reports take time. Reports come back and we not sure if they’ve answered our concerns. Should we have everyone in one room, downtown parking, BIA staff to say, “Here’s what we’re looking for today. Here’s what we need today. How do we solve that problem with the intention of doing what we need to do through your recommendations so that the businesses feel we’re working together?” I would never say no to a meeting of stakeholders and regulators that could assist us in getting where we want to go because we have 400 members in a board of 12. It rests on those 12 board members to speak on behalf of those in the district and my board chair is here

00:49:19
and three board members today. Of course, we would be pleased to, as I said, get into room to discuss this, but not to supplant the efforts that we’re asking for today. We could see these processes running concurrent. We have a good working relationship with the transportation department at the city daily. So there’s no frictions there.

00:49:41
What we’re seeking is the direction to have the folks your your staff start the process of looking at a financial analysis. Then we can talk more tangibly when that comes back. Then we’ll have a better sense of where, when, how much, what is it going to look like. Those are the more critical meetings when we can ride one horse out into the sunset and then we broadcast to entire membership that we’re working in partnership with the city to expedite the delivery of of parking supply to give them hope. >> Thank you for that. I have questions for staff later. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Galbra. >> Thank you, chair. Thanks for the presentation again, Brian. Um just uh can you refresh my memory as to how much is actually in the parking reserve fund? >> I would ask staff to corroborate this because I don’t have the same letters behind my name that they do. >> I I heard you say you’ve

00:50:50

your members have raised 5.4 four million, but there’s there’s where did the rest there’s more money in there, isn’t there? >> Sorry, I would be clear. I think the motion memo does a really good job of explaining uh how the the reserve fund is broken down and where things go. >> I believe once expenses are netted out as of this year.

00:51:07
Again, please do confirm this with staff. The defined parking area reserve stands at about $12.5 million. >> Okay. Yeah, that’s what I thought. So that that is uh and that all of that money has come from your membership. >> No, no. Uh there are about three revenue streams. So we have a dedicated 270 plus K that we have um that additional tax that we’ve borne.

00:51:31
It comes from users daily, monthly. It comes from permits. It comes from infractions. Uh does not come specifically, in fact, I don’t think at all, from the general tax base counselor. It’s a self-supporting debt. Okay. Um, thanks for that. And then uh my next question is um so in in reading the motion um there’s there’s talk about um you know partnership opportunities.

00:51:59
Just wondering I is your ask that the city initiate those partnership opportunities or will your organization attempt to do that as well? >> Both. Our ask is that we define uh what’s uh what’s what’s plan A and what partnership opportunities are required. That could come in the form of uh commercial property owner.

00:52:19
Incidentally, one has sent correspondence in support of our motion today. If it’s city-owned, obviously there will still be partnership opportunities available. Um of course, we’re happy at the table. We know our membership better than anyone else. We just want to have meaningful conversations where we know what sort of land is in play.

00:52:39

Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Brian. >> Thank you. We have uh councelor. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Just if you could be brief because three delegates >> just on the when you do these partnerships, the the biggest hold up in my conversations with the developers is that it’s the working together with the city.

00:52:57
There’s a lot of lot of things to make this happen is really outside of the box. So, I think we have to come in as as a plan here and say, “Look, we want to do a partnership. How do we make it work? and how do we make this successful for the for the builder that he was willing to do this? I know he’s the one of the young gentlemen I was talking to, he said, “We struggled in Hamilton.

00:53:16
There was a ton of ton of roadblocks.” So, it’s the building department and the council have to work together on how to make this successful. I don’t know if that’s a give to the builder to make them want to do it, incentify, but at the end of the day, I think we have to come up with a plan and an idea that the building department isn’t constantly throwing the roadblocks to to to make it difficult for it to happen and then they pull out because re realistically, they’re here to make money. They’re just going to build if they don’t need to do a shared, they’ll just build their own. >> Thank you. >> Hey, thank you, Councelor Charman. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much, the delegation. uh having been involved with this conversation now for a long time um we’ve seen this coming and um but but there always been the question about what’s the population growth and we know that in 2015 the Burlington population growth kind of abated massively as we ran out of green field space and our total population has only been about you know maybe a

00:54:13
thousand a year. My point is if if are we are we clear about the cause of the consumption of the parking spaces downtown? Two of our delegates have talked about employees taking up the space. Is is am I missing that? Is that is that is that correct statement that is is it more about employees than it is about um customers at this point? I’ll tell you what I know, uh, both anecdotal, observational, and I think I’ve had it confirmed, but I would encourage you to ask staff.

00:54:47
Our pool parking system, Paul, is on a on a, um, payby-plate scenario. That means it’s incredibly challenging to delineate if a car in any particular space is a residence, a patron, a business owner, a staff member, a contractor. This is pulled parking. It is any and all. Undoubtedly with the growth pressures downtown specifically to the east of Brand Street and what we’ve seen as we consider the erosion of some of the requirements for those new developments to pitch one for one.

00:55:17
There is spillover parking. We know full well that is coming from the residents. There’s also we understand insufficient visitor parking for some of the existing build uh buildings to the east of Brand Street. We know that they’re parking there. There’s a difference between long-term and park and short-term parking assets.

00:55:37
So, this desire to want to build a a structure east of Brand Street, ideally, Paul, would be dedicated to long-term parking spaces for that group that wants them. That would be business owners and that would be staff that require uh parking requirements greater than 3 hours to free up the on street spaces for quick turnover.

00:55:59
Well, certainly thank you very much for that and I I clearly understand the long-term need. Um that’s that’s a given. The question in my mind is actually could we could we could the employer group uh work out some sort of car car pooling arrangement where we have remote parking for the next few years and have have have a bus system um some sort of uh vehicle way to get them from there down to to where they work.

00:56:25
uh rather than and and that might help us short term. >> Barry, >> I I Paul I think I think the the focus on the employee isn’t the isn’t uh it’s an addition to the problem and the employee definitely we’re seeing especially these large developments which pearls was an example the amount employees it takes to operate that that uh concept and and then waterfront’s going to have the same problem.

00:56:47
So what we’re saying is that there’s for them to be successful he needs to get staff there. Will they transit? probably a lot do but not not as many as you think. Um I think I only have a couple employees in my in that take transit. So most of it but what we’re saying to be successful in all these future builds and future businesses and and even existence is we need the destination customer to get here.

00:57:10
And if it’s getting to the point where it’s inconvenient or impossible, we see a lot of no-shows and so and so on. So, it’s the end of the day, it’s if you want the businesses to be successful and so we need we need opportunity to help help grow with with the uh with the 10 possible condos that are coming our way and and a massive hotel.

00:57:32

Thank you. I I agree with that. If I can just ask a quick follow up on that uh chair, if I may. The um question going through my mind is is is really um when we have hotels coming um we allow we we don’t really require space parking space and we certainly don’t allow parking space for the uh for the for the employees and I’m wondering if the bit if the problem we’re addressing is actually bigger than we’re suggesting.

00:57:54
I I I I totally agree. We need the numbers. Thank you. >> Statement. >> Oops. Oops. All right. First one’s for you, Councelor Charman. >> Thank you. Okay, I have a uh I have a question along the same lines as councelor Charman and then we’ll we’ll go to the second round. So, uh I’m I’m seeing a I see we see the quantitative, we see the qualitative. Uh fair enough.

00:58:21
We hear that employees are part of the problem here. Do you have you looked at the possibility? We also know that the parking garage, which is not conveniently located for a lot of businesses on the east side of Brandt, but that it is uh uh empty is the wrong word. It has ex it has capacity available.

00:58:42
So uh in addition to everything that is being proposed through this motion, I’m I’m all for exploring things and looking at financing and opportunities. Uh what about uh working with the city to have a system for employees to park in the parking garage to work to work that out or um or business owners asking their employees to do that because it’s only going to be a 2 to three minute walk from wherever this new parking garage may go.

00:59:10
So uh I understand how important convenience is from a business perspective, but from an employee perspective, two or three minutes maybe isn’t so bad. So, what do you think? >> Hi. Um, from the employee perspective, I do have a lot of employees that commute. And currently, when we can’t find park it within our one or two block facility, they actually park down at Brock Avenue in the public lot.

00:59:39
So, they do walk four, five, six blocks. And I encourage them to even park on our property when space is available at Sunshine. Um, yes, employees are a huge factor in parking, but they’re very minimal for this for the cause of all of this, meaning population growth. as

01:00:00
As we grow in population in downtown, our businesses are going to grow. Everything is a chain effect. So, as owners of these businesses, we’re always looking for a solution base. And so, we’re returning to the table now years and years later with the same issue. And the difference this year and just the vision of the future is continual population growth.

01:00:24
And Burlington now is the darling of the golden horseshoe as you guys know and everybody is coming from Toronto. At least our customer base is a lot of people from Toronto and Niagara and they’re visiting Burlington for the first time especially during the cherry blossoms and all these events that we have that encourages tourism and because of that yes employees are a whole thing but my current employees already walk in the snow in the rain.

01:00:52
They do park in lo at Locust as well when it’s available. So, it’s not even about that length that they have to go and get into work. It’s about just accommodating just the population in general. So, any solution, we’re here for a solution. And so the next step, if council can help us with that, the next step would be, I think, a a really grand step in opening a lot of growth for not only businesses, but people that live in the area as well.

01:01:22
Our number one complaint from our customers is, “I can’t find parking.” And this is on a daily basis. And this is what our our hostess here every single day. It’s a complaint. So when summer hits heads, which is summer almost next week now, uh it it’s just our growth has continually been a challenge to answer these questions.

01:01:46
So we point people in parking wherever we can in public parking spaces everywhere, but they are walking, our customers are walking several blocks to, you know, reach these destination businesses. Barry’s is a destination business. Ours is a destination business. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh councelor Karns, want to wrap us up? Thank you.

01:02:09

Your delegation references a petition. However, we don’t have that petition yet. And I’m wondering if you will be using the formal uh petition process to possibly bring it forward after this committee uh to council, which is in a couple of weeks. >> The answer is yes. We’ve been instructed through clerks that that’s the appropriate process and it will be ready by council.

01:02:31
And you have do you need movers and seconders or you’re going to just do it through the process? >> I was unaware uh if that would be helpful to ensuring that council has the full benefit of information. I’d welcome that this morning. >> We’ll find out. Thanks. >> That concludes your delegation. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

01:02:53

Thank you. Our second and last uh delegation is Ethan Soma in joining us in person to speak to the update on indigenous advisory services work CAF0226. Thank you for being here and uh go ahead whenever you’re ready. Hello everyone. Um, counselors, I wanted to say thank you for having me at this table and allowing me to speak on what the indigenous advisory circles kind of brought to my attention as a citizen.

01:03:32
I’ve grown up in Burlington my whole life as has my mother. Um, she grew up in Mount Forest area near MM High School. I grew up towards >> bit better. >> Much better. Thank you. >> Okay. Sorry. >> No worries. No worries. Go ahead. Please continue. >> But yes, uh I’ve grown up in Burlington. I’ve lived over in Elizabeth Gardens area for my whole life here.

01:03:56
And I remember in grade school coming on a field trip here to city hall and getting to experience what the council room was like and how the eb and flow of city hall works and getting to experience the work that each and every one of you do. and to be in this space now is kind of like a full circle moment from that.

01:04:16
Um, I wanted to say that to each person who is able to bring this indigenous advisory council to this place, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart because it’s so important to see us as indigenous people being represented where we live and especially with the history of the area like you know six nations is near us.

01:04:38
For me, my home it’s out in the east coast. So for any time that there’s indigenous representation, indigenous gathering, it’s a huge thing for me. And I know especially with the initiatives that have been put through the city in having um indigenous gatherings like orange shirt day, red dress day, um the art exhibits that are now downtown now, all the indigenous art that’s down there.

01:05:07
It’s very heartwarming to see all of this color that’s coming into Burlington. And some of the other delegates were saying how people are visiting us from Toronto, from Niagara, from Hamilton. These are all places that also kind of lead in the GTA and having an indigenous representation, right? So, I feel like as a whole, this is a very important thing to have for the city because it shows not only the diligence of the council and the city at large, all of you showing up to the events and everyone partaking in that and learning that it’s something that can move forward at an exponential rate and something that can make this city very, very great. And through the experience I’ve had with myself and working with the different elders that are on the council, you’ve got a tripart of the most like different people and their lived experiences, but

01:06:05
they’re able to bring so much to the city and what it needs. And for me myself, maybe one day when I get a little bit more well-dressed that I might be able to partake in that one day. But it was something I didn’t think possible when I came here back in grade school.

01:06:22
So, I want to say thank you for bringing that that concludes what I’d like to say. >> Thank you very much, uh, Ethan. Really appreciate it. I’m just going to see if we have any delegates on the board here. Councelor Karns, go ahead. >> Thank you so much for being here through the chair. Um, so just want to give you a heads up when we’re in this horseshoe.

01:06:47
Our questions have to be direct. So, please just give us some patience. Um, one of the concerns that I have around the uh, indigenous advisory circle, the indigenous landing page, etc., is that it’s very difficult to find a series of uh, when events are happening. And my fear is this, when we don’t know that they’re happening from a city voice or a city lens, people could miss them.

01:07:10
For example, I did not attend um, red dress day um, and it could be interpreted as not being supportive. So, how would you recommend a landing uh page or um a portal or a something like that that can help people who want to be involved have better knowledge around what is happening uh outside of just the more formally delivered events which would be um National Indigenous People’s Day which is the 21st which is at Central Park and um the one in September as well.

01:07:43
So, how how how can you help us do that or give us an idea? >> That’s a really good question. I’d like to say thank you for that because there are a lot of people in that position, right? They’re not aware that these events are happening or taking place and they want to be there to show their support, but something may come up in terms of um not knowing where the event is.

01:08:05
I I guess not finding parking. Um but it would be a mixture of things. I think it would be up to the people leading those events to be able to broadcast that information and say this is where these events are happening, but then also maybe a public place for those things to be posted as well.

01:08:24
Like off the top of my head, since I’ve only been here like twice in my life, I’m not 100% sure if there is an information board, like a public access information board that we as people can come and post things on or speak to someone to have these initiatives of these events put forth. I know like through my own journeys through the downtown square that there are lots of different posting boards through the cafes.

01:08:48
A lot of the businesses have things like that there. So, I mean, yeah, if we wanted to do it as a public portal, that could be possible, but I think with important events like this, it’s better to have it in a more intimate setting. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I guess my second question is this. So, the the report that we have before us is just a receive for information which doesn’t have any specific actions associated with it.

01:09:15
Are do you have any comments related to that? Um, for me like I wanted to come and speak on at least just the citizens aspect of what I’ve seen from this council and how it’s brought different things forth and for me um may you please uh rephrase like reassure. So the report that we have before us today which you’re speaking to it does not give us any specific actions that we’re endorsing or refuting.

01:09:56
It’s just for information. Um is is do you have any comments on that you’re fine with it just being for information or is there something you want us to do today? I figure just as long as everyone kind of hears out what’s being said and what’s being felt and seeing through their own experience of what’s gone on through the city already and kind of thinking in the future like I don’t want to say a yes or no to anything but I want to say what could we build from this? I want to say that this is an important thing and to have this exponential force just stop it it it wouldn’t be very very good for a lot of people I don’t think. >> Thank you so much for being here. >> Thank you Ethan. That concludes your delegation. Appreciate it. Thank you counselor. All right on to item seven consent items. We have three consent items on today’s agenda.

01:10:56
Item 7.1 2025 treasurer statement for development charges reserve funds parkland dedication reserve fund and the community benefit charge reserve fund FIN1426. Item 7.2 resource funding agreements for fiber network buildout PWS 2426. Item 7.3 tender award ES 2606 Walker Line Renewal North Service Road to south of Dundash Street PWS 2126.

01:11:29
Reminder, if you’re just commenting, you don’t need to pull the item. All members will be able to comment prior to the vote and any pulled items will be discussed at the beginning of their respective sections. Anyone have questions and want to pull an item? Councelor Bentia. >> Thank you, Chair.

01:11:46
I’d like to pull uh 7.2. >> Okay. Anyone else? Seeing none, >> uh could I have a member move the balance of the consent agenda? Having pulled item 7.2, Councelor Bentovenia, would you move the balance? Thank you. Uh before calling the vote to approve the consent agenda, would any member like to comment on an item? Councelor Karns.

01:12:15

Thank you so much. And uh through the chair, I’ve been waiting on the treasurer statement related to the development charge reserve fund. And I just want to highlight a note for the public that it is continuing to sit around $51 million. Um that is a far far stretch from what we need uh to de to deliver all of the um infrastructure that is related to fire, library, transit, transportation, storm, and parks and recreation.

01:12:40
So, um, we need to continue to be very prudent and to protect this balance, uh, within the reserve fund. Um, and again, it’s it’s extremely extremely low, uh, in comparison to the amount that’s projected, uh, to support all of our infrastructure requirements. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I’ll now call a vote on the two consent items.

01:13:06
All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. All right. Over to community and corporate services regular items. The first item is 8.1 status update on indigenous advisory services work CAF0226. There are no presentations. So any questions for staff on this item? Seeing no questions, could I have someone move the motion, please? Uh, Mayor Mean Ward, are you moving the motion or asking a question? >> Yep. Please go ahead.

01:13:50

Thank you very much, chair. I wanted to uh thank a number of people involved in bringing this report forward. And uh first of all, I would really like to thank the members of the indigenous advisory circle. um a group of folks that gathered together uh at the beginning of this term of council to advance truth and reconciliation and ways that the city could uh be more visible and active in indigenous uh matters.

01:14:18
And uh one of the most um uh visible and uh I think proud accomplishments of this group is being involved in designing and uh implementing the Sweetgrass Park uh ceremonial fire with the uh ceremonial plantings of sweetg grass uh with the uh moccasin bench um in the in the park which really does uh add um add a space uh in recognition of the name change that we did a number of years ago as well and they were very involved uh in every element of that of that park.

01:14:53
Of course, they continue to deliver the uh events that we have here in the city, the orange shirt day on September 30th, Indigenous People’s Day on June 21st, uh and in many other ways have added programming to our uh to our parks, to our facilities. Mountainside Park of course has a dedicated indigenous space where a number of uh events happen there led by indigenous people in our community.

01:15:23
Uh the um full moon ceremony which happens in various parks um and has done for a number of years. Uh and so much more. And this uh this report really does recognize uh the work but also recognizes that we’re on a journey with the city and that’s okay to be on a journey that we have more to learn. We have more to discuss and we uh we need to take time and these things move at the speed of trust and the speed of relationship and there’s more uh relationship to be built with um indigenous people in our community uh to continue to advance this work. So I want to thank the indigenous residents who have stepped forward to lead in these areas. Uh I want to thank our staff who have done an outstanding job of uh recognizing what we’ve done but also the work that remains and the trust that continues uh and education that continues to be not done uh to

01:16:20
appropriately advance the right path uh with our uh indigenous residents. So I’m um very happy to see this and and see the resources that have been uh drawn upon including Association of Municipalities of Ontario uh and other municipalities. So uh it’s a very thorough report and more work to be done.

01:16:45

Thank you. Uh next, Councelor Curtis. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Um I echo uh the comments of the mayor and I thank the staff that have brought this forward as well. Um the one piece that still continues to be an opportunity I believe for improvement is around um working towards truth and reconciliation and the work that has been done in our communities.

01:17:07
Uh the report does note in the background in 2025 and uh 2026 members contributed approximately 100 to 110 hours in meeting preparation resourcing events and advisory with a significant portion of this time provided on an unpaid basis and when I had brought uh discussions forward during the budget that’s the piece that I would like us to identify an opportunity for input on.

01:17:34
So when we have uh communities that are um marginalized or are working towards stronger and strengthened equity, that needs to be done in a way that um brings an equitable approach. So asking people to advise us on something that’s making them feel less a part of our community and then not paying them for it uh is certainly an opportunity for us to uh improve.

01:17:59
And so I’ll continue to hold that position and advance it uh through advocacy. We don’t have a financial section within this report because it is just a receive for information. Um but I’m hopeful that those comments can be carried forward and uh in future we can be properly um resourcing and recognizing in a financial way people who are helping us be a better city.

01:18:22

Thank you councelor Charman. >> Thank you very much. I want to just echo the comments made by the mayor and by by councelor Karns, but I also want to I also want to comment on the the amount of work that’s been done over the term I’ve been on council as the mayor um to recognize the uh the indigenous community and uh and and and and make it part of our culture and and and that’s important.

01:18:48
I think it’s also important to recognize that that while at the same time we are building an increasingly diverse community and that as we recognize different uh groups uh cultural groups um across the uh the changing nature of the city of Burlington, we have to think broadly and thoughtfully and carefully as is being proposed by this report.

01:19:12
uh and in fact we need to think of it more broadly indeed about all the diverse um uh changes that are occurring um because in 40 years time you know if you take a take a look at maybe 100 2100 probability is that 60% of the population of Canada will be immigrants that have arrived and their offspring after 2025.

01:19:35
So there is massive change going on and we have to start thinking carefully about how we we begin to address the needs of different cultures in general and especially the indigenous ones. So I appreciate this thoughtful um report. Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no more comments, I’ll now call the vote. Item 8.1 status update on indigenous advisory services work.

01:19:58
uh receive for information corporate affairs report CAFO226 providing an update on work undertaken to date related to indigenous relationships and engagement. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries? On to item 8.2, community survey follow-up presentation, CAF526. I think we’ll do the presentation and then probably take our break and then do questions.

01:20:28
So come on up for your presentation. Yeah. Uh good through the chair. Good morning members of council, staff, and residents in attendance. Uh my name is Andrew Pion, and I’m the manager of engagement and marketing, and I’m joined by my director, Ashley Hearnden, uh director of communications and engagement. and we’re back pleased to be back in front of you uh to present the results of the 2025 community survey.

01:20:57
This time with our partners from Deote to help us walk through the results of CF0526 community survey follow-up presentation. Our community survey is an important tool that helps us establish bianial benchmarking or more plainly, it’s our voice of the community every two years. The results of the survey are used to make decisions about what services and supports we invest in and to understand resident perceptions of how we are doing as a city.

01:21:26
Our last presentation of the results helped to inform budget decision-making and in that regard we hope that it was useful. With that said, I’d like to turn it over to Chris and Simon who are joining us virtually to walk through the 2025 community survey results. >> Thank you so much. Uh Chris Bandak here. I’m a managing director at Deote and I head up our market research and analytics uh department and very happy uh to have been able to complete this study on behalf of Burlington.

01:21:55
Uh once again results um have actually been quite steady. I’d say overall they’re quite positive. There are some areas that have declined slightly. Um I will just point out that that’s a trend that’s happening across Canada. Um, it’s related, I think, to many things including the political environment coming out of COVID and and many other factors.

01:22:21
Um, I’m going to pass it over to my colleague, Simon, who’s going to go through all of the the details on the slides, but um, yeah, uh, over to you, Simon. >> Great. Thanks very much, Chris. And, uh, good morning, mayor, members of council. Thank you very much for hosting us here virtually. Um I I’ll move right into the methodology slide here.

01:22:48
Um so one I think two more slides uh ahead here and one more. There we go. So um the the survey was done um in a consistent way to how we’ve done it um kind of over the last um um five or six cycles uh basically since the start. Um it was done through a randomized telephone uh methodology.

01:23:13
So our our team of live interviewers um call through the the list of numbers um within the city um in a randomized order. And really the the important part there is that each um community member has an equal probability of being selected to participate in the survey. And what that does, it creates a really good representative cross-section of uh community members so that we can say that the data is representative of the community as a whole.

01:23:42
So we call through landline and cell phone numbers. Um we get responses from all six uh municipal wards um in in equal um proportions and uh what resulted was uh 755 completed surveys um with margin of error of plus or minus 3.5% which uh in plain English means we expect the results to accurately represent the uh the population as a whole within a small margin of error.

01:24:10
Um, as a final step, the results are also weighted to so that they exactly match the proportions of the population by age and gender according to uh uh the census. Uh we can move right into some results here. So we’ll move to um we’ll skip that slide and one more slide here. So these are uh questions related to quality of life and service satisfaction.

01:24:36
Um so on the top left there um that’s the how would you rate the overall quality of life in the city of Burlington. Um throughout this presentation you’ll see we tend to call out the top two box or basically the top two most positive response answers. Um so 71% here rated the quality of life in Burlington as excellent or very good.

01:24:56
Um now that’s that’s quite a positive score. Um you can see in the top right you are still above the the national average. Um, as Chris uh mentioned briefly earlier, this this is a bit of a decrease from the last year and you do have a history of very strong scores um kind of looking back um at some of the older surveys.

01:25:18
But again, this is a trend that we’re seeing kind of all across the country um largely due to some um kind of trends that are that are at um at a higher level and not just um localized within your your municipality. Um you do see that supported again in that bottom right graph. um where we ask the the perceived change in the quality of life over the past two years and there was a net negative in that measure.

01:25:44
Um so again something we’re seeing across the country not necessarily a a big cause for concern I think in terms of local things based on the the other responses in the survey um but definitely something to um to acknowledge there. We can move to the next slide. This one we get a bit more information. So if individuals felt that the quality of life had improved, um recreation and programming, transportation and public transit and environmental conditions were some of the top reasons.

01:26:15
Um some of the reasons that they provided that the quality of life had worsened over the past 2 years were cost of living or affordability. Again, one of those things we’re seeing all across the country. Um traffic, that one’s pretty common in in the GTA as well. um and uh transportation and public transit. Um population growth and public safety and crime were also mentioned which again are are we are seeing in a lot of communities in in southern Ontario.

01:26:42
Um if we move to the next slide here um now this is our key performance indicator and so it’s overall satisfaction with the services provided by the city and here you have a very strong score. So 91% um and historically you’ve had very strong scores there in the in the city um looking backwards.

01:27:05
Um again you can see you’re well above the national average. Um so some of those decreases again being in quality of life and less so in um in this um the services provided by the city. So um I think that’s also good news in terms of what you’re doing there locally. Um if we move to the next slide here we ask satisfaction with more specific factors um in the city.

01:27:29
Um something to so basically all those um percentages you see on the graph on the left um that’s again those top two measures. Um something to call out here is that across the board you have very positive scores um compared to a lot of communities. you do typically see even in the lower end that get into you know 40s or 50s for some of the the lower rated factors.

01:27:52
So overall doing quite well. Um wreck facilities, maintenance of parks and green space, parks, sports fields, festivals and events being some of the really really strongly rated um factors. Uh you might look at the at the graph and relatively speaking see that um you know council rating was a bit lower compared to some of these other factors.

01:28:13
But if you if we think about how that’s rated in terms of um other municipalities that we we do this survey in um that’s a bit less of a the political type uh questions are are less unanimously um positive compared to some of these other things like um you know festivals and events. Uh so that is actually that’s quite a strong score um compared to when we we ask this in other communities.

01:28:38
Um I’d say our averages are are usually in in the 60s or so. So that’s that’s quite good. Um and yeah, with that I’ll move to the next slide. Uh so we take this one step further and we take each of those individual u ratings or or factors and we do a statistical analysis called derived importance where we link it back to overall satisfaction.

01:29:06
Um so in other words um if something’s very important that means that if a community member is very dissatisfied with that factor then they’re definitely dissatisfied overall or almost definitely um overall with the the services provided by the city. If it’s um a lower importance that essentially means that overall satisfaction doesn’t get impacted by by the change in that factor as much.

01:29:29
Um, so it’s essentially the the high importance factors are are ones where they’re going to be very impactful if you’re able to um to build on them or make improvements. Um, and it factors into this priority matrix that we make. So um the priorities here are things where um the satisfaction was relatively lower.

01:29:51
So there is room to keep building upon and they’re high importance um factors. Um so uh you do see council u being up there on on um priorities and again that’s because you can see the importance score that’s an extremely important factor to to community members. Um it clearly shows you have quite an engaged community and that council matters are um really resonating with with individuals.

01:30:17
So um that is yeah on the top of the priority list. um roadways and sidewalk maintenance, um snow removal, parking management, and and bylaw enforcement were also in the top five. And we can move to the next slide. And it just shows how some of those priorities have shifted. You can see council has always been a big priority for your community.

01:30:42
Again, I think that really shows the level of engagement in your community. Um and but a lot of similar things in that top five. Um transit service did drop down. Um and snow removal did come up as well as uh roadways and sidewalk maintenance. If we move on to the next one, um this one’s customer service. So, uh 42% of the um community members had an interaction with the city over the past year.

01:31:15
Um and then the primary method was through phone um but also some through email or in person. Move on to the next. Um the reason for contacting the city um reporting an issue um public works or uh or a general inquiry were were the top options. Um, so you can see uh when they’re contacting the city, it’s, you know, it’s not always inherently a positive um um subject that they’re contacting about.

01:31:48
Um, which is why it’s great that you had such positive scores um on the right there when they’re rating those interactions. Uh, so staff professionalism at 93%, staff’s ability to understand your needs at 88. Um even on the bottom there speed and timeliness of service that 77% is quite good when you consider the the nature of a lot of those inquiries.

01:32:11
We can move on to the next slide. One more. Perfect. Um the preferred channels for receiving information. Direct mail still coming out as as the most selected option. The city website and e- newswsletters also chosen a lot. And then on the right, we’re looking at um ratings of city communication.

01:32:30
So 71%. This is another one of those scores where when we run it across communities, um uh communication isn’t always as uh well understood by community members or or the scores do tend, I would say, to be, you know, between 50 and and 70 is is kind of the typical band. So 71% is quite a good score on u on city communication.

01:32:58
Um on the left we asked if they had participated in engagement activities um based on a list that was there. So completed online survey about city initiative um attended an inerson or online openhouse uh or delegated at council. Um and 79% hadn’t selected any of those options.

01:33:16
And I think that there um also highlights the importance of doing this type of outreach um because we are capturing a lot of people who wouldn’t necessarily seek out opportunities to provide feedback unless you know we came to them with the the option to provide um um feedback. So again highlighting the importance of of who we’re capturing through this survey.

01:33:38
Um those people who had done uh participated in engagements um I had the opportunity to share my thoughts, ideas and perspectives. um I was given information that I needed to participate uh meaningfully. There there’s quite positive scores across the across the board there. Um the one on the bottom there, I felt my input would be used to inform decision- making.

01:33:59
Um again, still fairly positive given the nature of the survey. Um but of course uh always room to keep uh keep building on that as well. Community safety, we’ll touch on quickly here. Um so um this was overall how would you describe community safety in the city of Burlington. Um so at 48% being very safe and 45% um kind of on the somewhat safe.

01:34:26
Um we don’t we don’t call it the top two box there because those are you know fairly different options in terms of those tiers. Um but um kind of that net negative that you see in the in the description of community safety. Again that’s something that we are seeing in communities kind of all across the the GTA GTHA. um particularly but um but really across the the country there is a bit of a trend going on.

01:34:53
Um on the taxation questions um so 82% um still feel that they get uh they get good value for the the tax taxes. Um we asked about preferred options for managing uh the city budget. Um so the top one being improve services by raising property taxes a bit more than inflation. Um keeping current service levels by uh raising uh property taxes to match inflation.

01:35:19
So those top two are would constitute small increases to the tax rate and you there is 54% who would be kind of on that um positive side of that or the the increase side. Um the the options below were for um decrease um either um just enough by limiting services or or cutting taxes by cutting services. In the last few slides here um we gave residents the opportunity to um kind of describe uh on the left there what do they think about um quality of when they think about quality of life today which area matters most to you? Uh so transportation and infrastructure, nature, parks and outdoor spaces, the services and amenities were the things that um that they mentioned the most. Um the one on the right a little bit looking at longer term as our city grows over the next 25 years. Uh which of the

01:36:17
following should be top priorities? So again, investing investing in infrastructure um protecting natural areas and green spaces and keeping neighborhoods safe and welcoming were the top options. And this one’s um somewhat similar, but building on that, it was phrased as by its 201, the city of Burlington is projected to have a population of um 265,000 or an increase of 40% compared to today, what do you think the city should focus on to make life better uh now and for future generations? Um so essentially what what the most uh common response was was a balance of uh a number of these options. Uh managing growth in a way that protects our current quality of life um growing up in other words adding more housing in in urban areas or growing out um outwards from the downtown um or maintaining the character

01:37:16
and charm of our city. And the last thing we show is some demographics. This is really justformational um just to show that our our random sampling uh kind of accomplished its job um that we did get a a good representation from different age groups um on both genders um those genders listed the uh household income as well as on the next slide here um household tenure um years living in Burlington and um um a question about identity um if they identify as a member of any of the following um groups. So with that that’s the end of the presentation. We’re we’re happy to take any questions and I’ll I’ll just end by saying um thank you very much um to the city and and to the project team. It’s been an absolute pleasure working with

01:38:14
with all of you and very much um appreciate your your trust in in letting us complete this uh survey. >> All right. Good. Thank you very much. So, uh, we will take a break. I just want to see if we have a lot of questions or if we could finish the item. So, uh, if you have a question that you’re ready, you would be ready.

01:38:39
Councelor Karns, do you want to ask your questions now or would you rather take the break depending on how long you think it’ll take? Five minutes. Okay, go for it. Thanks. Uh thank you so much for presenting this today through the chair. So one of the pieces that I wasn’t able to uh reconcile was that the community survey shows the decline in the percentage of residents rating Burlington’s quality of life as very good or excellent.

01:39:04
So 79 down to 71. Um but then they say that the overall satisfaction remains high which is 91%. So, I’m trying to understand um you know, what strategies does the city need to consider to address this because it’s looking like the qualitative part of the survey and the the quantitative part of the survey data and the qualitative feedback from these community panels aren’t matching up.

01:39:31
Are you of the same interpretation? >> Uh through the through the chair, um thanks for the question. I I don’t know that I exactly agree with that because those are two very different measures. The measure you’re speaking about is um satisfaction with service delivery and the services that they receive versus overall quality of life.

01:39:54
So, one is far more encompassing when it comes to uh what it’s like to live in the Burlington community versus just service delivery. So clearly there’s there’s not like they’re pretty satisfied at 91%. That’s a very high rating for for the delivery of core services. Um but it’s more in the measure of quality of life which takes into account um other areas um you know that the that that’s provided as part of being a citizen within a community.

01:40:27
I I don’t know if that was clear. >> Okay. I I think that that’s helpful. Well, I was really looking to understand how we could use that data to inform new strategies. So, I’ll take that back with the with the uh community engagement team. Uh my second question is also related to community engagement. So, I just want to be sure I’m interpreting the numbers correctly.

01:40:47
So, if uh and it is slide number the slides are not numbered maybe I think it might be 19. um if we’re seeing that participation included none of the above for 79% of the respondents and then of that 66% felt that their input was used to inform decisionm that means if I put those two pieces of data together it sounds like only 13% of people feel that they’re heard would that be an accurate interpretation of that data >> through the chairs Simon, do you want to take that question? >> Sure.

01:41:30

Yeah. Um, yeah, through the chair here. So, um, the the graph that you’re referring to on the right, so that would only be asked to individuals who had participated in some kind of engagement. Um, so that’s the the percent out of that group that felt their input would be used to inform decision-m.

01:41:47
The others, I I don’t know if you could say that um, you know, if it was I think you said 13% or something like that. I don’t think you could apply that to the the individuals who said none of the above just because they they weren’t you know asked the question um about that specific thing.

01:42:04
Um they wouldn’t um um yeah that I think you know if uh based on their interaction um you know they kind of haven’t uh given the been given the opportunity I guess to to check if their if their decision was uh kind of taken into account. Um so anyways just wanted to clarify that that was only asked to those uh individuals who had participated in that in that engagement.

01:42:28

Okay. So then just as a a follow-up brainstorm uh of the none of the above representing 79% um had you asked a significant amount of more options like uh did you go to a counselor’s uh town hall? Did you walk into city hall and ask a question? I I don’t know. Um, would there be more things or or engagement tools that could have been listed in the survey that would have helped to reduce that 79% of none of the above? And again, maybe it’s to staff or maybe it’s to the consultants. Um, but I just I’m not in love with the 79% number. >> Yeah, through the chair. We’re happy. We look at the questions every year. Uh, councelor and thank you for the question. uh we’re happy to look at that measure in particular and change the question that we’re asking and the responses that are available um at at any time and like I said we do that

01:43:27
every year. So if uh there’s an expansion of that that you’re considering I I’d love to discuss it. >> Okay. Thank you. I I see more questions so I’m going to uh stand down. Thanks >> through the chair if I could just add to that. Um, I would like to point out that none of the above, I think, isn’t necessarily a bad thing in in that particular question, and Simon alluded to this um during the presentation, but there is always a large proportion of every community’s uh population who, you know, they go to work, they come home, they’re taking their kids to soccer, they’re taking kids to hockey, whatever it is. um but they’re very busy and they don’t always look to participate in these types of things. And quite frankly, that’s the majority. Um but I think what happens is you’re often bombarded by that very small percentage of the population who’s very outspoken. They come to council meetings, they want

01:44:26
their opinions heard. And so I actually don’t think that’s a negative thing. I think that’s a very normal part of a community. But because we do this using a scientificbased methodology, you are always going to have that group of people. In fact, I’d be worried if that number was really low because it would mean that we’re not really doing a random sample.

01:44:50
So, I’ll stop there, but I just I wanted to add that. I thought it was important. >> All right. Thank you very much. I see more questions on the board. Why don’t we take our break and come back at 11:02. Thank you. Okay, we’re back from our break,

01:51:50
continuing the discussion on 8.2 community survey. And next on the board is Councelor Charman. >> Thank you very much, um, Chair. Thank you very much. the uh the presentation. My question is for staff. Um as I look at the uh results of the formal report done by Deote um which I actually sincerely appreciate, my question is for staff when we talk look we talk about the less formal um surveys we’ve done at places like food for feedback.

01:52:21
Are we seeing dramatically different results here than we see on uh from those kind of uh surveys that we’ve been performing? uh through the chair. Thank you for the question, counselor. So, the the short answer is yes and no. And I know that’s frustrating, so I’ll contextualize. Um the results that we observed online compared to the survey that Deote facilitated uh were more negative, but thematically very similar.

01:52:50
uh as well based on our observations and our anecdotal feedback received over the last fall uh particularly as we were prepping for the launch of the community engagement charter we heard some very common themes affordability traffic etc. So in that particular regard, yes, I would say it holds up.

01:53:08
And I think one of the signals we heard most significantly is that residents want to know from us what did you hear? Like did you hear my feedback? And then how did you use it? And I hope that that came through very strongly in the refreshed community engagement charter and has certainly come through as a theme in both Deoit’s results and all the results that we’ve collected over the last few months.

01:53:32

Thank you very much. The um the second question is with respect to community safety uh where where we’ve seen um you know a significant decline in the in the feelings of people that it is less safe in Burlington than it was 2 years ago. Um when I check in with the police they they seem to think that that may be more uh more based on anxiety and and I don’t know quite how to to read that.

01:54:01
Do you have any comments on that >> through the chair? I mean, not based on, you know, factual data from the survey, but I would say anecdotally, we see what’s happening uh throughout the GTA with the breakins and the home invasions. And it’s pretty sensualized on social media. It’s sensationalized on uh on the media itself.

01:54:31
And I think there is a heightened nervousness that’s kind of making its way into these kinds of results. And we’re seeing uh these metrics across all kinds of communities, especially in the GTA. So even though you’re probably uh you’re correct, like from a from an actual break-in standpoint, they might not be as high as everyone thinks. I think it’s that fear.

01:54:58
you know, they hear a story, they hear about someone else getting broken into, and I think it’s just created this uh this overall sense of uh sense of heightened uh fear. >> Yeah. And it’s tough to provide any more details on that. I think I think we read it the same way. Thank you very much. >> Council Gal, >> thank you, chair.

01:55:19
Um this is a very helpful survey. Thank you for all the u the data and the results. um you know it’s really helpful to see the national scores and in compared to ours and you described it very well that um some of the economic conditions that that are beyond our control or affecting quality of life and whatnot.

01:55:40
Um you know Canada is such a big country we have such you know coast to coast different ways of life and living. Do you do any I I I think what I would love to see would be a national score and then maybe a Ontario or GTA score uh to see where we line up in our sort of you know in context to you know where our city is located to surrounding municipalities.

01:56:08
Is is that something that that you do at all or or would consider doing in the future >> through the chair? Um, yeah, absolutely. That that is something we can do. We do we do tend to avoid direct comparisons cuz we don’t always think that’s a fair thing to do um to both communities or all communities involved because a lot of the time the questions are asked slightly differently um they’re asked at different times of the year and and you can have slightly different results based on that. So, we’re very careful about um doing direct comparisons, but we could absolutely do an Ontario metric um or, you know, southern Ontario metric. I’ll I’ll pass it over to Simon. We would need a certain amount of data, but it’s it’s 100% feasible. >> Yeah. And through the chair, I totally agree. um we can we can provide some uh numbers to the the project team there to have on hand on this one and then

01:57:08
definitely we’ll take that uh um back with us um for future iterations. >> Yeah, thank you. I I would really love to see that uh that data as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Bentovenia. >> Thank you, Chair. And uh thank you for the uh report. Surveys are always uh more questionable than you get the answers on from many people, I’m sure.

01:57:31
Um there was a note in the report about the online and the computer assisted telephone version of it. So two different ways of doing things and you say the results varied. How did they vary and and why would they vary through the chair? Um they they vary for the very reason that we pointed out in that one slide.

01:57:57
So doing it by telephone is what we consider to be scientific. So everyone in the population has an equal probability of being selected based on the randomization. And proof of that is actually that slide that we had a question about earlier where it was none of the above. Right? So we’re really getting to those people who don’t typically provide their input and their feedback. So that’s great.

01:58:25
That’s what you want. What happens with the online surveys where it’s, you know, just on the website, you’re really attracting the small proportion of people who are extremely vocal. They often have a lot to say. Uh they go there on purpose. They’re probably at meetings. And so it it tends to be a little bit more polarized.

01:58:45
And I think Andrew alluded to this. That’s probably why those results are more negative. even though the thematically they were similar but the overall scores are more negative and it’s for that reason. >> Thank you for that. My followup to that is in today’s world we talked about perceptions and whatnot if people people don’t answer the phone if they don’t know who’s calling and I know it said whatever said Burlington survey but scams are using all kinds of RBCs.

01:59:15
Could that be part of the how does that affect the results that we just talked about negative versus the person maybe who didn’t answer says I’m not getting involved here I’m okay. >> Yeah. Through through the chair again it’s still one of the best ways to reach people like our interviewers are very very well trained.

01:59:38
They know how to manage those situations. People have now put on their cell phones. they have that mechanism for screening the call. You know, we would politely um answer that and let them know that it’s a survey on behalf of Burlington. And we still get reasonably high response rates relative to the response rates that other market research

02:00:00
companies get in these types of general population telephone surveys. So I no concerns on my end in terms of the quality and and how successful we’ve been um based on that and I still think it is the best way online um again until there is a way to do a perfectly scientific methodology online it’s still anecdotal and it still tends to be very skewed.

02:00:29
Um if I could add as well through the chair, um an additional big step that we do to make sure that people do are as likely as possible to answer the call when we when we um call them is we work with your your project team there to get communications out about the survey that’s coming.

02:00:47
So they know um they’ll know the the phone numbers. They’ll know the the display name that that’s going to be on the phone. Um, we kind of do everything possible to make sure that that it’s known that these calls are happening um and they’re u they’re not just uh you know spam calls or um you know telling them they’ve won a cruise or something like that.

02:01:07
It’s uh it’s you know research it’s engagement for the the uh the community and yeah because of that we do get we do get quite high response rates. >> Thank you for that. My second question has to do with um the worst results that we saw were surface damage and snow remov sorry snow removal. They went down consistently between five and 6% which was the most in in in all the categories.

02:01:39
Again um we talked about perception earlier. the areas that we have seen evidence of in the last couple of years are we all know them in in Burlington. How does that affect and sway the results on those two particular things? And then second question, my followup will be can you identify by ward where these responses come from? um through the chair we can definitely identify by ward we can split those uh those things out by ward and happy to provide that um yeah if that’s helpful um in terms of the changes um not sure if I can speak to the mechanism locally but um but I know it was it was a very tough winter uh in terms of uh weather um it’s um I know the roads are

02:02:37
are um particularly hard hit across a lot of uh cities I myself am up in Kingston um roads are are um you know got got quite a hit um kind of over the course of the winter but um in terms of specific mechanisms um >> yeah I don’t know if I can speak to that specifically >> I look forward to uh that information thank you >> okay second time councelor Kurts >> thank you very much and uh just as a followup to what councelor Bentovenia said which was my next question is about the compilation of the data and the delivery of the data, which is why you’re um here today uh in a consultant capacity and in a staff capacity. And this builds on the circulation of a couple of uh council information package pieces of information that sequence in and alongside the budget process. So my question to staff would be um how might we build out a template or a SOP for future delivery in the next two years of

02:03:36
the same survey results that can both be uh consistent in terms of delivery forward- facing to the community and consistent in delivery in the same questions that can be benchmarked against previous year uh performance. And you know, even as an example, I just pulled up the email from the community survey results uh broken out by Ward that was delivered by the uh engagement manager Michelle Dwire on January 26, 2022.

02:04:00
So in the past, we actually in fact had that information circulated as part of this report. So what might we be doing in the next tender and circulation >> uh through the chair? So, um, for this upcoming community survey, for example, um, we received some feedback from council that we need to change the timing and delivery of the survey so that it better equips you for decision-m on a typical budget cycle.

02:04:30
Um, in addition to that, my my team is is committed to delivering those reports on a regular cadence. So, we’re not in a position where we’re delivering information multiple times in kind of disperate CIPs and disperate presentations. So, um I I guess all of that to say that we’re committed to putting this on a regular schedule and giving you the data you need uh when you need it.

02:04:54
With regards to the questions, uh that is I think a a challenge year-over-year. When you look at the the history of the community survey, all of the questions have been slightly modified uh based on the will of council and the staff involved to get the best response and to understand the perception of the community in the best way possible.

02:05:15
So our team is always open to revising those questions. The advice you’re going to get from us broadly is we think you should word it this way because it it gets the best results and we work in partnership with Deote um to do that to create a really robust set of questions. So we’re open to keeping some benchmarking questions in there as well.

02:05:32
And then one thing I just want to add on to that is that the community survey represents one engagement measure and one benchmarking tool that we use throughout the year. Uh but we have other measures that we can rely on as well. So, if there’s an answer that you don’t feel is covered within the community survey or that you want to know more information about, we have other uh programs and initiatives like the community panel program where we can delve into the information a little bit more on a qualitative basis. >> Okay. Thank you. So, just as a followup, um for clarity, we do the community survey every two years and it’s usually 20 $30,000 something like that. Um so, do you So, we will not be here in two years. Uh we’ve had a lot of staff turnover in the engagement department which has caused some of this um cadence. What do you need to put into place today? Do you need an a d staff direction for an SOP on what needs to be included and when or will you come back

02:06:27
to us with an information memo on that? >> Thank you chair. Um through you to the counselor. We don’t need uh any direction from from council. I think we’ve heard very clearly from members of council uh the value that you put in this information uh and your desire to have it uh at the cadence uh and in the manner that it’s come forward.

02:06:50
So um we will do that. >> Okay. Thanks. >> With that, would you like to move the report, Council Kurts? >> Yeah, I’d like to move the report. >> Okay, it’s moved. Any comments? Go ahead if you would like, councelor Kurts. >> Uh, thank you very much. So, uh, every two years for as long as memory can serve us, uh, the community survey responses, which are statistically valid, so I don’t want to get in the con the conversation about is it n equals 755, is that enough? Etc.

02:07:24
We’re going to agree it’s statistically valid. Um, it adds a an element of reflecting the community’s voice into uh, city hall and the services that we deliver. and it gives us basically our report card. So I haven’t asked the consultants to give us a report card mark even though we’ve done that in the past.

02:07:41
Um but it is a way in which we can see how the services we’re providing are meeting the needs of our end users and we use this as a tool to uh improve to identify opportunities and to make sure that the resources that we’re allocating are resulting in the outcomes that are being asked of uh through our community.

02:08:00
So I think it’s a really important thing to do and many of our municipalities that are neighboring are doing the same things all across Ontario just as we heard. So we’re benchmarking our performance against our neighbors which we do continue to come out up top. Uh and it’s a little different than some of the surveys that just talk about weather.

02:08:16
So that’s really exciting that this is more uh uh qualitative and quantitative. Um I do want to see the consistency and one of the reasons I asked to have this brought back into council is so that the community could see this in a more transparent and accountable way uh both across the number of services that we deliver the the priorities that our community has assessed them with and the performance that they have you know anonymously been able to uh report on.

02:08:43
So, uh, this is really a hallmark of accountability and transparency through city hall under an engagement lens. And I just look forward to this continuing to go every two years so that our community can know, uh, that we are listening, um, and that they, um, they’re getting the service uh, responses that they need.

02:08:59
Uh, improvements that I’ve heard from the CEO is that, uh, the cadence of bringing it closer to the budgeting time is very helpful every two years. Um the breakout and making sure that we have a consultants presentation. Uh having it within an agenda that’s in public forum as a committee of council is important.

02:09:19
Uh and then as councelor Bentovenia said, we do want to see those um issues broken out by ward because that’s going to allow us to hone in on areas where we need to either increase communications uh response times, customer service information and knowledge uh pieces and or if we need to do interim resource allocation, it can help to improve those in a very specific location versus the whole city.

02:09:41
So, uh, I find this to be one of our most important documents and I’m so grateful that it came back to us, uh, in this discussion which you’ve heard from pretty much everyone. So, thank you to the consultants and to staff for doing this. >> Thank you, Mayor Midwart. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you uh, to our consultants for your work and to our staff uh, for bringing this forward and making sure that we’re asking the questions that people care about.

02:10:07
Uh I think the uh overall is something that we can all be proud of and this is uh by we I mean staff I mean community I mean council uh these um the fact that even under the anxiety that people have which is significant around affordability around safety what’s happening in the global context creates a lot of uh context for people to feel worried and even with that backdrop we have uh very high ratings on um delivery of service which which is not easy in a time of increasing tariffs, increasing inflation uh you know erosion erosion of purchasing power that includes us here at the city as well but that uh remains very high. The uh the quality of life uh remains high and uh and that’s quite significant given the anxiety that people have which would affect how uh

02:11:05
how how folks answer that. Uh it is interesting to see uh conversations around resourcing and what people uh prefer. Do they want uh deep tax cuts? Do they want uh continued services or a balance? Uh certainly the the um what we’re hearing is a balanced approach to how we deal with uh the trust that people put into us for their dollars.

02:11:28
Uh and certainly there’s uh ways to improve and I think that’s one of the benefits of the city is that we’re always looking for any way that we can improve even when we’re even when we’re getting up in the 90s. So, uh good for us and I think one of the issues that we continue to uh to need to work on is how do we tell folks when they’re input actually has made a difference, right? Uh we we don’t always close that loop with people.

02:11:56
It’s really hard. uh sometimes to do that. I think there’s a way that we can and I think that’s when those numbers would uh change a little bit uh even if people don’t like the decision we’ve made and and that happens. Uh there’s no unanimity uh about perspectives in our community, there’s no unanimity uh around the best way to approach things and so there will be people who agree with the final decision or not.

02:12:21
Uh, but I think what people really appreciate is the ability to know that their input made some sort of difference or change to the ultimate decision even if it wasn’t where they were hoping for it to go. So, um, I think there’s there’s definite opportunity to um to provide some transparency and accountability and reassurance to the community there.

02:12:42
So all in all, uh a really um a very positive uh report on on the city and the work that we do here uh collectively for our community and always looking for ways we can do better. >> Thank you, Councelor Bentinho. >> Thank you, Chair. Just uh quick comment um on these uh results. Generally speaking, you can look at the results and say things are okay.

02:13:12
But that’s because we’re used to whether we’re at the school, our mom’s telling us, our dad’s telling us, our neighbors telling us 70%, what is that in school these days? C C minus and then you got right up to 90 plus% which is your A or A+. How can we readjust that calculation and say this is the results that we got? 90 is an A, maybe 70 is an F or an D or whatever because I think it’s important for all of us here to put something quantitative to say, okay, this service needs work.

02:13:59
And typically, when you get a A, B, C, D, whatever in your report card, you know how much work you need to work ahead to do to to improve. So I’m wondering if there’s somehow we can incorporate pick a letter that we can all understand to say okay this service needs work and then our you know we can work with staff to say okay what tools do we need to make this happen.

02:14:29

Sorry is that a comment or a question? >> That’s a comment. Okay. All right. Uh thank you very much. So I’ll just make a couple of uh comments. Um, listen, I think there’s a lot a lot of things to be proud of uh in the survey results. I’m glad we had this more detailed breakdown because uh you know, we can’t uh wrap this in a bow either.

02:14:54
71% is an 18 point drop over four years and uh and it and quite precipitous. I fully recognize that there are other factors involved, but um what I was surprised about was actually the municipal comparator. So I think the request for a breakdown in the GTA in Ontario would be important because it’s showing us right on the national score 7.10 versus 7.07.

02:15:24
Now when we were getting 89% I don’t think any of us thought we were average at that point. I thought we we all thought we were quite exceptional. And so this is showing a more average uh score. So that’s something worth uh worth breaking down further, I think. And uh um fully recognizing the larger environment.

02:15:45
I just don’t think that uh I’m certainly not used to Burlington being average uh in quality of life rating. So um that’s a uh that’s a challenge for us to do better. With that, I will uh call the vote. So, let me read the uh read the motion here. Receive for information corporate affairs report CAF0526 regarding the presentation of the final results of the community survey.

02:16:10
All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Thank you very much. So item 8.3 guidelines for the use of strong mayor powers and amendments to the council staff relations policy lls2526. No presentation here. Uh I do see our clerk Mike Dond at the podium lectern. Uh any questions for Mike Das. The dis councelor Karns I see you motioning.

02:16:43
Go ahead. So, I’m just waiting for my report to load. So, I apologize for that in escribe. But I will ask the most pointed question there is. If between now and the new um administration coming in, the new council, will they be bound to a percentage of strong mayor’s budget at that time and have no opportunity to adjust a budget once they’re elected in? Well, I’m not sure, Council Karns, how that relates to the report.

02:17:16
Would you just clarify how it does and then we’ll go ahead and ask the question? >> Uh, I I can clarify. So, is this the one that says that the decisions that are made can carry forward into a new council? >> Um, that might be somewhere in the report. I don’t >> Okay, let me hold Let me just let it load up. Sorry. Yeah, no worries.

02:17:41
I I’ll ask a question seeing no one else on the board. It’ll give you time. Council Kurts, uh the guidelines for strong mayor powers, are those uh is there a precedent for those in in Ontario at this point? And uh other than a staff direction, why are we going ahead with them? >> Uh through you, chair, to you, chair.

02:18:04
Uh no precedent for those in Ontario. We took a good look, did a very wide jurisdictional scan um and could not find anybody. I talked to a couple other clerks as well and they no one’s even aware. Our integrity commissioner wasn’t aware as well. So, uh we are just responding to the direction from me from council, but uh yeah, like I said, not um no precedent for that type of policy in Ontario that we that we found.

02:18:30

Okay. Um Okay, councelor Kren, go ahead. >> Okay. So it is in appendix A and it’s underneath the principles and it says when considering the use of strong mayor’s powers knowing that many can be delegated and some cannot. The ones that cannot are related specifically to the budget the mayor as in the new mayor coming in should have regard to the the following any previous decisions made by council on the matter of in question.

02:18:57
So with our cadence and related to budget decisions that usually happens through the course of the summer and into the fall, would the new mayor have to take into account that type of a decision under this appendix and this sort of principle. For example, let’s say there’s a a strong mayor’s power directive to say bring the budget in at 20%.

02:19:24
and a new mayor comes in and says, “Let’s do five.” Would staff look and turn to this type of a policy and say, “No, because these are the principles that you are to keep in consideration a previous strong mayor power decision already made >> through your chair.” Um, no, the policy is for me the policy is it’s non-binding.

02:19:48
So, um, you know, just because a previous mayor has, uh, you know, ruled in a certain way or, you know, uh, operated in a certain way as it comes to marold decisions, that does not bind the new a new mayor from doing, um, that as well. >> I’m going to go back into Q. Thanks. >> Okay, Councelor Sherman. >> Thank you.

02:20:10
Uh thank you for that last question from the uh councelor Karns and I think perhaps the city manager or the CFO can respond to the question as to whether the strong mayor powers have been adjusted in the last term uh the last year of uh of a term uh such that the strong mayor power doesn’t apply to the budget.

02:20:29
Is that correct? >> Yeah through you chair. Thanks for the question councelor. We are aware of a proposal uh from the uh provincial government to apply uh or uh introduce a regulation to suggest that strong mayor powers um will be uh I guess rendered uh to to to not be in effect uh as it relates to uh the budget in the last term uh entering into or the last year of the term entering into the election.

02:21:03
So, we are monitoring uh the status of that regulation and we’ll report back uh to council once we uh once we hear more. >> Thank you for that. And are you confident that with the information that we’ve just provided by the clerk uh as well as that what might be arriving very soon that we should not be too anxious about uh making rules now and that will be carried over >> with respect to the budget.

02:21:27
uh uh through you chair. Um yeah, I I yes, I would agree with that. I I I’m not too concerned about that change. I think the um the the policy uh that we have developed uh in response to the direction I think is an appropriate one and and we stand by the policy. >> Thank you very much. >> Checking the queue here.

02:21:52
Anybody else? Okay, I’m not seeing uh seeing anyone here. I will just uh confirm with uh with my clerk beside me. Uh if we are looking if there’s a recommendation to adopt these guidelines, but we perhaps want an opportunity to not adopt the guidelines, would this be preferable to vote that down or to have a refer referral of that um of that paragraph? >> Uh you would just vote this down.

02:22:25

Just vote. This would not pass if this was on the floor. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If it’s on the floor, it doesn’t pass, then it’s it’s done. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Uh thank you very much. So, when the time comes, I will split the uh recommendations to vote on separately. >> And I do see more questions.

02:22:39
I see councelor Charman. >> No, I’m just moving the report. >> Okay. We’ll uh have you as the mover. Uh councelor Karns, do you have a question? >> Sure. I’m I’m just going to ask the staff if they can give me a bit of a real life experience or or situation in which uh some of this could be used as it relates to the strong mayor’s powers because we already have a significant amount of these things in our uh code of good governance and I just want to understand in a practical way.

02:23:08
Show me an example of of when this would be utilized. Uh perhaps I’ll take this one through the chair. Uh the report uh goes to uh at several uh locations to identify it’s a nine a non-binding policy. So certainly a mayor uh who’s in place with this policy in place and they’re going to make a strong mayor decision with their authority under the municipal act.

02:23:46
uh this policy would suggest that they should take a look at the uh the contents of the guideline and consider that in making their decision. There’s nothing that holds them to following the policy. It’s a it’s it’s a guideline really but to that the policy would suggest that they look at the guideline and consider its contents and then make the decision.

02:24:10
But there isn’t anything uh that is here that would suggest that a strong mayor’s powers that are under the municipal act and its regulations are in any way limited because we can’t do that. Uh we can’t take away uh uh policy that is granted by the municipal act uh through our own local uh policy. >> Can you just give me an example of when this would actually happen? like when would we use this >> real life example? >> Turn it to the clerk.

02:24:42

Certainly. Uh through you chair. That’s if council passed a motion about adding something to the budget and then the mayor the mayor would think or presumably if the policies in place this is a council direction. Um but it it’s up to the mayor’s budget to add that. So, um, you know, the giving past reg or giving regard to past examples would be like would be something where council has said, “We want this added in the budget.

02:25:02
” And then the mayor either does that or chooses not to. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Bentia. Uh, yeah. Go ahead. And then we’ll do councelor Charmin after. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair. So, we have an election coming up and the residents are going to make that decision as to who the mayor is going to be and then that mayor is going to make that decision as to what they want to do.

02:25:33
How did this report get on the agenda? I’m not sure. >> There was a staff direction. We an approved staff. >> I don’t recall that. I don’t recall this portion of it. Yeah, I was in it was in a suite of uh requests actually as I as I recall, Mike. Correct. >> Through chair. Yes, that’s correct. >> Yeah.

02:25:57

So, we all reviewed it and majority approved it. >> Okay, that’s good. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Charman. Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. I just want to make some comments having moved the report. But it was I who brought forward uh as as the motion uh because frankly we were having lengthy conversations in committee meetings uh and a council uh based on anxiety over strong mayor powers and how they might be being uh and how indeed staff may be being adversely influenced by um by um suggestions uh by a strong mayor. Um and and when we had this conversation with the uh integrity commissioner about that um the comment came back was actually you could just change you could just give some advice to staff uh that in the event that uh there is any suggestion coming from from the strong mayor to count uh to staff that they should do something uh they were had no obligation to do it unless it was in writing and

02:26:57
hence got what you got here. Um, frankly, I think we spent a lot of time on on on talking about strong mayor powers and some of those of you in this room, actually you in this room, uh, were were were the source of those discussions and I was respectful of your concerns and and this is, uh, this is the action we took in order to address those concerns.

02:27:18
We gave staff the opportunity to think about it. We gave the opportunity to the integrity commissioner and this was the recommendation and I’m hoping it will give everybody a little more confidence that staff do not have to uh do anything that is not approved by st by uh is not clearly documented by the uh strong may powers documentation as required by law.

02:27:38
So we will not be having things going on under water or in secret or private. So here we are at that point and I I strongly support what we what we have here. Um and I think it should all give us a degree of comfort that we are doing the right thing. Thank >> you very much. Uh I did have one more question then we’ll go on to more comments.

02:27:58
The uh the question was about this some this issue of strong mayor using strong mayor powers on the budget in an election year. I hadn’t heard of that yet. So I just wanted to know where that information is coming from. I might have missed it. Uh that would be my my first question. >> Yeah. three chair.

02:28:17
Um it is a live proposal as I understand it. We can certainly provide um more information at council. Um we’ll be prepared to kind of walk council through what’s proposed and the status. >> Thank you. And maybe that’ll come with my second question. What what justification has been uh mooded about why they would do this in an election year in particular? >> Yeah. Through you chair.

02:28:44
We’d be happy to to come back with that type of information as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I see Mar Ward question or comment just so we’ll let you know. Okay. Comment. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you, chair. And uh I want to say uh thanks to Paul for including me uh working on this together uh to bring this forward.

02:29:06
I certainly always um support additional principalbased decision- making uh additional opportunity to uh set some policy whether they’re binding or not they still reflect uh a desire of the council uh should this pass uh and certainly of myself that these uh having lived under this for a couple of years now the principles around uh that are articulated in the policy are really important and valid certainly something that I’ve tried to do uh myself informally but to have it articulated I think uh is really helpful. So uh considering previous decisions uh certainly advice from staff is always helpful. Uh looking at timelines I know a very recent uh strong mayor decision to bring information for decision-m to council was uh a time uh time issue. We wanted to have that information in place. uh and then if there are other um

02:30:06
opportunities for decision making and making sure that wherever possible council is included uh in the decision- making as we’ve done uh for example with our uh previous CAO so uh and and certainly around the budget there’s lots of opportunities um what we’ve received in terms of uh recent information from the province is there’s a suite of things that are trying to align with the uh general restrictions leading into an election.

02:30:34
There are already restrictions related to lame duck provisions, spending provisions. Those have existed for some time. Uh and aligning the um the authority of strong mayors with that is part of the intent as we have uh understood it. Uh including things like not hiring and firing staff uh when you might be on your way out or uh giving that to uh to a future council.

02:30:57
So all of those uh restrictions I think are absolutely important and we’ll hear from uh the province on whether those actually become real but uh but certainly those are um areas where the guidelines could be made more clear. So I think uh this is uh this is really important for us uh as a council as we continue to have to work uh together under this legislation.

02:31:24
It is not our legislation, but we do have an obligation to try to see our way through and be as collaborative as we can uh while living with and respecting the obligations under the legislation. >> Thank you, Councelor Curtain. >> Thank you through the chair. So, um, what I’m seeing in this proposed non-binding policy or whatever, um, is a new opportunity to help deliver greater transparency, uh, for folks and for future mayors that need to reference back.

02:31:59
And in that regard, I know that there was some correspondence regarding what the difference is between uh decisions, directives, as we just heard from the mayor, directing for information that’s related to time-sensitive decision-m um and declarations. Um, I’ve heard that this that, you know, in correspondence that it wasn’t really something being considered, but now in light of this additional policy, uh, what is the clerk’s position on perhaps revisiting that by way of a memo for council >> through you, chair? I don’t know if I quite understand maybe the context around the question. Um, they’re just looking at strong mayor powers and how they sort of they’ve been used or like making a distinction between Happy to be more clear. So there’s three approaches that can be used when using strong mayor’s powers. A decision of the mayor, a directive as we saw with the information gathering, and then a declaration. So, um, in that regard, if

02:32:56
the future mayor were to be looking, uh, back and trying to be as aligned with this proposed policy as possible, might that not be a better way to divide them up like how Missaga does um, and some other uh, municipalities do uh, in the reporting, which is a requirement, which is fine.

02:33:14
Um, but the way that we do it right now is that every single end of council is another strong mayor’s decision. So, um, and I don’t look on there very often, so I don’t really know what is what is there. I avoid it. Um, but could we not categorize and document it a bit better so that the next person can then look back and research um if they’re being expected to comply with this new non non-binding policy? >> Uh, through your chair, it’s definitely something we could look into.

02:33:46
Uh, our we a resident brought this up maybe a month ago or a month or two ago about categorizing them. our legal team did look into it. It um we they it was it relayed to me that it’s not something that’s necessary, but if it does help for the understanding of strong mayor powers either in the council table or uh for the residents in the city, certainly something we could look into.

02:34:07

So just as a followup then uh if it’s something that we can do, what might that process look like >> uh through you chair? I think just um I don’t I don’t necessarily think we need a staff direction to do that. I think that if if we’re hearing that that that we want to um you know work or to uh you know move these into three different categories like you mentioned then I think that’s something that we could um you know just put wrap our heads around and start doing that.

02:34:37

Okay. Thanks. I’ll uh I’ll bring some I’ll work with you for something just to note in in council just so it doesn’t get lost. Thanks. just uh and if I may uh just further to the clerk’s answer just so there’s some clarity at the staff level uh currently right now Burlington posts its meril decisions in a list so if you were to look on our our city web page it lists all of the meril decisions whether or not it’s approving the bylaws whether it’s approving council whether it’s a direction whether it’s the approval of the budget uh is what you’re saying you want to see that list just broken down and categorized okay thank you understood I don’t see any other questions or comments, but I I do uh unfortunately I have more questions cuz I actually think councelor Bentovenia may have been on to something. The uh March 2nd meeting had a staff direction saying, “Direct the city clerk to review council staff relations policy, including

02:35:37
consideration of a section designed to guide the mayor’s decision-making when considering the use of strong mayor powers, including that strong mayor power directions will only be reviewed in writing in accordance with Ontario regulation 53022.” That we didn’t cover that though here, the in writing part.

02:35:54
So, could you just clarify why that wasn’t uh why that wasn’t included? I mean, I thought that was the whole the whole point of that paragraph about it being delivered in writing. That’s not what we that’s not what we got back. Like, that was the main point. The uh the word including is doing a lot of heavy lifting here because it it’s not this doesn’t have anything to do with the bulk of that direction.

02:36:25
uh to you, chair. Uh we so after looking at the the council staff relations policy, we thought like a policy with guidelines for the mayor and using strong mayor powers didn’t quite make sense. That’s why it’s been separate out, but we are recommending a um an amendment to the council staff relations policy. It’s in bold on page four.

02:36:41
Uh refrain from providing direction to staff. This is for this is expect it is expected that council members will refrain from dividing providing direction to staff that has not been adopted by council. And additionally, in the case of the mayor exercising their authority pursuant to part 4.1 of the elections or missible act 2001, refrain from directing staff by any means other than a written mar in accordance with Ontario regulation 530-2022 and provided on the approved template that is signed by the mayor. >> Okay. So, I’m glad that’s over there. Uh that should have been enough. So my question is why do we have a standalone organizational policy come forward when that’s not what the staff direction was? It was to review the council staff relations policy including consideration of a section. That’s exactly what you did over there. So I I don’t see anything else in that staff direction asking you to do a

02:37:40
standalone organizational policy. I So um I don’t understand why we’re why we’re even talking about that. through through you, chair. Um, from my perspective, we were just the the direction was an appendix um about considerations for the mayor and we just thought an appendix wasn’t appropriate, so we created a a standalone policy that we’re recommending rather than the appendix.

02:38:06

Okay. Okay. All right. I will give you that. Thank you very much. Uh, I have comments. I’ll just make sure no one else is on the board here since I usually go last. Don’t see any. Okay. Uh yeah, I I appreciate uh the uh very unique direction that you were given and that you’ve done your best with it.

02:38:26
So, thank you for for doing your best. I also appreciate there are other sections here that you’ve managed well, including um something I was interested in in aligning with Halton region. So, thank you for that. Uh look forward to more work on that to come. when it comes to these um when it comes to this organizational policy, uh I’m not on board for that.

02:38:48
Um you know, the it’s like trying to control the something that uh with with non-binding controls. I I don’t see the value in a non-binding uh policy to control strong mayor powers. Um the fact that they’re looking at reigning it in on budgets in election year just shows that deep down they know that this is an undemocratic uh policy and shouldn’t exist in the first place.

02:39:20
Um I’m concerned that if we adopt this policy here as council that it will um paper over what is a fatally flawed law law around strong mayor powers and provide an excuse for using strong mayor powers when in my opinion other than approving bylaws there is no excuse for it.

02:39:39
So strong mayor powers shouldn’t exist. Um the CAO power that was mentioned is it was a discretionary power that was not given up. So that’s not an inclusive process when the power is not given up. Um so having this policy, if we approve this policy, it will provide a shield for the for a strong mayor to justify their decisions because they’ll say, “Oh, they took regard for previous decisions made by council.

02:40:07
They took regard for advice from city staff. They took regard for timelines and they took regard whether there were other more inclusive avenues for decision-m available. Well, guess what? There’s always a more inclusive avenue for decision-m available and that’s this table right here. So there’s no point in this policy. Although I appreciate staff bringing it forward according to our request.

02:40:30
There is no point in having this policy folks. It is just going to paper over um a a major problem in our democracy. So hopefully the provincial government expands that regulation and just cancels these ridiculous powers. Councelor Curtains, go ahead. I think first time comment. >> It’s a question. >> Oh, sure. Go ahead.

02:40:56

Gosh. So, we So, we I’m just responding to the to the chair’s comments. So, we we’ve not delegated the um strong mayor’s power to hire and fire senior staff. Is that correct? CAO. Is that correct? through your chair. That’s correct. >> That’s correct. So that strong mayor is intact currently. >> Okay.

02:41:23
And so then if I’m understanding a decision could be made between now and the election that could make an adjustment to that using strong mayor’s powers and then with this policy the next mayor would have to take that decision into consideration. Is that is that an accurate sort of cadence of what would happen as a real life example >> through you chair? They wouldn’t have to take it. They the policyy’s in place.

02:41:51
They could, but they they’re not under any obligation to consider it. >> Okay. Okay. So, I’m going to just pause there and uh you know you everyone is fully aware of my position around the strong mayor’s powers. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, I’ve requested that we split uh the recommendations.

02:42:14
So, we will vote on them separately. I’m not seeing any more comments, so allow me to read out the first uh paragraph for the first uh first vote. Adopt the guidelines for the use of strong mayor powers policy attached as appendix A to Legislative Services Report LLS 2526. So, I’ll now call the vote on that.

02:42:36
All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Second uh item, direct the city clerk to amend the council staff relations policy as recommended in this report. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Third item, direct the city clerk to report back to council before the end of Q2 2027 with further information and recommendations regarding aligning the council code of good governance with the Halton Region Council code of conduct.

02:43:13
All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. That concludes the item. Thank you. Uh thank you Mike. Thank you very much. So uh 8.4 Four. We’ve got five minutes. Let’s try. Advisory Committees of Council Governance Framework LLS826. Any questions for staff on the item? Not seeing any. Yep.

02:43:43
Council Karns, go ahead >> again. Sorry, I’m just jumping between reports. Um, can you tell me if there’s any indication in this report on how we might identify new opportunities for new advisory committees? >> Uh, through you chair. think that with the suite of engagement tools that we currently have with the city and just the more modernization of engagement in I the last 20 years I think you know it’s fair to say that advisory committees were always considered maybe the engagement tool um but we just have so many more um different opportunities now so I think that we would use the framework attached to the report to um identify whether it’s appropriate or not in a case and when it’s not appropriate go to one of the other engagement tools that the city uses but at the same time. Always know that um you know when it when it is appropriate that we would recommend to council that that um you know through consultation with the framework that advisory committee in

02:44:42
this case whatever case that may be would be the the the recommended way forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So my only question is uh the report there’s a report back here for Q1 2027. Will that be the beginning of Q1 2027? because uh we can’t uh get things going in the new the new term of council until this is completed.

02:45:09

Uh to you chair. Yes. Um I I after the election when everything dust settles um our committees are our first priority and so it’ll be early in 2027. >> Okay. Thank you. That’s reassuring. Seeing no more questions. I’ll look for Oh um question. Mayor move. >> Okay. Go ahead mayor.

02:45:29
You’re welcome to remove the report. Do you have any comments? Go ahead. >> Yes. Uh thank you, chair. Uh I really appreciate uh staff bringing this forward. It’s uh actually we I don’t know that we’ve had a framework uh ever before. So this is really really important to determine the right tool for engagement.

02:45:47
Uh I really appreciate uh the very first step is to assess what the right tool is uh design it and I I think we also um you know I really appreciate the honesty and the transparency in the report and obviously from the people that you spoke to around what’s working but also what could be improved around that connection between council and that sense uh again that we want people to know that we value their time and their input.

02:46:12
we we really take it seriously. Uh but we need to do a better job of linking between our advisory committees and making sure that uh they can see themselves in the work that we do and we can uh call upon them uh you know when we need to and and some of our committees do talk to us very often like our heritage committee um others we hear from less often perhaps really only at the annual report time.

02:46:38
So I think there’s some great uh suggestions in here about how we can um improve that uh you know that connection. I I recently uh was at a session on uh citizens assemblies which is uh you know something we’ve discussed in the past. It’s not it’s not new. We’ve actually used it long time ago at Halton Region when we were discussing our strategic plan.

02:47:00
But it’s yet another tool. So, it’s not a permanent committee, but it’s a um a randomized sample of residents in your community with something uh to share to talk in a very dedicated way around some specific issues. So, I think there’s real merit in us uh looking at citizens assemblies um in future as opportunities for engagement.

02:47:24
It’s not a tool that we’ve used uh recently around here, but I think uh that coupled with you know where necessary having those permanent advisory committees is uh and all the other ways that we engage residents. I thought it was telling uh on the community survey that uh a lot of folks in the community perhaps most uh trust us to do the work and they’re living their lives.

02:47:46
So uh so all of it has to be balanced and uh and they do uh entrust an enormous amount of confidence in us to uh you know have them right here in the center of our uh room and make sure that we’re always thinking about what’s best for the community. So thank you for this work >> councelor Charman >> very much.

02:48:09
Um I want to echo the thanks to staff, you know, eight 16 years of being on advisory committees and wondering why um despite the fact we all know that we’re engaging members and giving advice, but we don’t actually take the advice that often. There’s no formal way for them to give us the advice. It’s not taken by it. It’s occasionally involved with staff asking the committee what they think, but we haven’t figured out how to bake that into our methodologies so that the people on those committees know that they their input to any single matter will be properly heard by council uh and with with respect to significant decisions. Um, you know, I I I just appreciate what happened recently with the uh accessibility committee and and they they really came to us hard uh over a couple of meetings and and we had success uh in the report we’re going to talk about today with respect to the CIP

02:49:07
by putting accessibility um um support into into our CIP um decision. I I think that’s a win, but they really had to talk to us in very firm language. Um, and that they were clear. They were frustrated. So, so I think this is wonderful uh news. We’re taking it seriously. We’re not just, you know, repainting the uh the old thing and and putting it out again, uh pushing it out again rather.

02:49:34
Um, but we have to be certain we have uh these committees, any committees, they have purpose. Um they have they have they have a clear set of goals that maybe we as council should be approving or future councils should approve along the way. Um clarity uh in terms of the their their engagement with council you know it’s rather like our ab our boards and committees.

02:49:55
We’ve never defined what that relationship was and and look at the trouble that’s got us into and you know now we’ve got to a point in years where the advisory committees where I think there’s a lot of frustration all around. So this is well done staff and uh I’m looking forward to uh seeing the next stages. Thank you.

02:50:15

Thank you very much. I don’t see any other comments. I’ll just uh say I’m very much looking forward to this. Uh I sit on one advisory committee that has struggled to achieve quorum uh for the last three and a half years and who struggles to maintain membership such that quorum is a very low number.

02:50:31
And uh one thing I’ll be looking for in this policy going forward is uh an opportunity to change uh change matters in the middle of a term if the circumstances warrant it and not have to wait because we’ve been waiting for a report on advisory committees for many years. So, this is a chance to set that straight, I think.

02:50:54
And hopefully, we get something really good. And then we need that flexibility because it’s been a uh inefficient use of corporate time to have committee meetings uh with a committee that struggles. Um they’re not all like that, but this one obviously uh could use combining with another related committee.

02:51:13
So, been waiting for that for a long time and can and look forward to seeing seeing that happen. and I wish you luck with the with the report back in Q1. Councelor Karns, >> thank you very much. Yeah, I just I’m really looking back to the report in Q1 and you know, even if I’m a citizen, I’ll be coming to delegate to that one. And I know uh in her absence, Councelor Stoalty has been also very vocal about um shaking up the advisory boards and making sure that they’re empowered to do the work that they’re asked to do.

02:51:42
Um I do think we need our our community is ebbing and flowing and changing and you know councelor Nissan mentioned collapsing uh combining etc. And I think that’s one of the things that we need to do because I know there’s um a framework available now that people can be looked at to see if this is a new opportunity for um a committee.

02:52:03
But it’s really about empowering them. And one of the best examples I’ve seen so far, well our parking committee is exhausted. I’ll tell you that for sure. The downtown parking committee is just absolutely had the spirit beaten out of them. But the um uh community school traffic and safety and mobility committee is just um roaring and is getting lots and of good engagement because staff are empowered to actually take action and be able to take the voice of that advisory committee forward and the citizen participants, community participants are also engaging uh really really well. uh and we have the right stakeholders all around the table. So, uh, I’ve now been able to have those experiences and bring those learnings forward. And I hope that those are captured, uh, by observation, by cert by, um, interviews, uh, and an assessment in what we’re going to see in Q1 2027 because I know the community wants to have a voice, but they can they

02:53:03
want to make sure that that voice is heard. And in a world where your time is so valuable and pressures are so heavy, uh, they they don’t want to just be a line on a report that’s completely glazed over. they want to have an impact. So, I will just be keeping my eyes peeled for when that does come back with some of that feedback incorporated.

02:53:22

Thank you very much. We will now call a vote on this item, which is the following motion. Approve the advisory committees of council framework attached as appendix A to legislative services report LLS826 and direct the director of legislative services city clerk to conduct a review of the advisory committees of council portfolio applying the framework to make recommendations on on whether to maintain combine or wind down committees and report back to committee of the whole in Q1 2027 to align with the new term of council and direct the director of legislative services city clerk to update terms of reference, the public appointment policy, and other related documents as required to support the revised committee portfolio and governance framework. All those in favor? All opposed? That carries. We’re about to take our lunch break. I’ll just ask members of committee to take a look at the close session items. There are two. And let me know if you’d like to go

02:54:19
into closed for either. And we’ll be going into close at 1:00 as a reminder. So 9.1 is confidential Halton district school board lands. 9.3 is confidential legal update on litigation matter regarding 127 Plains Road. Plains Road West or East Kelvin West? Plains Road West. Anyone need to go into close for for either of those? Councelor Karns >> first one.

02:54:51

Okay. Uh, I think we should go in for both then. I’ll I’ll call out 9.3. So, we’ll be going in for both, Suzanne. All right, we’re in recess. See you at 10:06 p.m.

03:56:18
All right, we’re back everyone. So, members have requested to go into close session for item 9.1, confidential Halton District School Board Lands, DGM2426, and item 9.3, confidential legal update on litigation matter regarding 127 Plains Road, LLS1926. A reminder for everyone joining us virtually in close session to please ensure you are alone in the room.

03:56:43
If you cannot be alone, please use headphones so the conversations held in close session are kept confidential. Could I have a mover for the motion? Councelor Galbreth. Uh the the motion is that the committee of the whole proceed into close session in accordance with the following provisions under the municipal act.

03:57:02
Pursuant to section 2392C, a proposal or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board regarding item 9.1 pursuant to section 2392K, a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. Also regarding item 9.

03:57:25
1 pursuant to section 2392E litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or local board regarding item 9.3. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. We’ll now go into close session.

04:50:41
All right. In close session, welcome back everyone. In close session, committee discussed and provided instructions to staff for the following items. 9.1 confidential Halton District School Board Lands DGM2426 and item 9.3 confidential legal update on litigation matter regarding 127 Plains Road LLS1926.

04:51:05
That does conclude the confidential items and we will now continue with the remaining regular items starting with 8.5 motion memorandum regarding parking supply structure downtown east of Branch Street. CO 1326. Councelor Karns, would you like to move the motion and speak to it? >> Uh, thank you very much.

04:51:23
I will uh consider it moved and just switching out from closed to open. Um, my comments will be brief because we have heard this conversation many times before almost on a loop and repeat and the voices of the community members, businesses, local businesses, the BDBA um, continues to amplify.

04:51:42
And so while you did see individuals today uh delegate and join us today in chambers, what you must know is that this uh representation is amplified amongst the local business community at an inflection point where uh they have been told for many many years uh that by way of an existing levy, a part a defined parking area levy uh that there would be opportunity to invest in parking capacity for their visitors, tourism, guests and employees.

04:52:12
employees and we’ve been hearing about this for many many years and I brought uh with me my 2018 operating and capital budget in which way back we also saw that the years between 2022 and 2027 would identify an investment in a future downtown public off streetet parking facility.

04:52:29
So, I understand, of course, that timelines have changed and shifted and studies have been delayed and hamstrung us from being able to make data informed decisions, but we now have all that data both qualitatively and what we’re hearing is quantitatively. And the time has come now for this council to take some action.

04:52:47
And really, all that’s being asked is for financial analysis. It’s not asking for the delivery of the asset yet. It’s not asking for a scope and scale particularly yet. is asking for a plan on what will be done with the funds that are being taken from the local business owners by way of this levy and that um has been something that they have been asking for in the view of transparency and accountability and you heard it today again uh from the delegate.

04:53:15
You’ve also received in your correspondence package uh call outs and opportunities to continue to work with new and emerging developments no matter how challenging they may be. Um but we still haven’t put in place any type of relationship building opportunity around uh shared parking options. Right. So uh it may be spoken about but there’s nothing that’s ever been done to actually bring something like this online.

04:53:41
We almost did it with 409 Brandt Street but again the timelines were too quick. So what they’re asking for this is from a motion that was approved by the executive of the BDBA. So that entire organization representing 440 businesses and the leadership that sits around that table endorsed this as well is to look at delivering additional structured parking supply east of Brandt Street in downtown Burlington by way of options that only assess the financial capacity of the parking system.

04:54:12
not to forget uh that the revenue will come back in from that asset to look at co capital costs since we have once heard that the uh cost could technically soar past $55 million. We want to have that validated and to begin uh some options around feasibility studies that can be embedded or discussed in the upcoming budget cycle.

04:54:34
So we will miss that cycle if we don’t start to ask for that information. Thank you chair. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And we’re going to look to the board for questions. Mayor, go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. This is a question for staff on um the request. Just interested to hear staff’s perspective on getting the information and uh specifically what you’re being asked to cost.

04:55:03
Is it a standalone parking structure on city land? Is there land acquisition which would affect the cost and the feasibility? Is it uh parking embedded in a um residential structure that might have some revenue potential with it? Is it a partnership? What are you costing for us? >> And what are your thoughts on on doing this work? >> Thank you, mayor, and through the chair.

04:55:28
Back to you. Um so maybe I’ll start. And so I guess if we go back to the parking report um staff’s understanding of the data that was uh obtained through that report uh showed that we do have capacity in the overall system. The problem that we have in the downtown is actually a spatial issue and that really uh reverts back to making sure people understand where the um capacity and where the uh occupancy still resides within the downtown.

04:55:56
So through this motion memo, my understanding and maybe I’ll pass it to our commissioner Scott Hamilton, but it’s really understanding um the land use in the downtown. Obviously, we’ve heard east of Brand Street. So there would be the the procurement of that land, but then also through the um through the internal staff understanding um how we would procure that if there was any uh partnerships available um currently um to to move this forward.

04:56:22
So again, it’s not asking for the asset today, but it is asking for a feasible feasibility study to be undertaken. Um I’m not sure if Scott Hamilton has anything else to add. >> Yeah, thanks Greg and through the chair to the the mayor. Just to clarify, I think it’s it’s easy to do a feasibility study because I don’t want to pre predispose what that study will show as the outcome.

04:56:46
So, um, whether it’s a garage, and I know we had this conversation a couple cycles ago about different types of facilities, what they look like. I think the study can can look at what it looks like east of Brandt. Uh, as per Craig’s comments, we currently don’t have a need for transportation based on what our report went forward to council a couple of cycles ago.

04:57:05
But at the same time, I do hear the qualitative aspects of what’s happening in the downtown. So, uh, while a study could help look at the feasibility of that, uh, the trick is going to be the timeline. So, um, if we are to proceed on this, uh, motion memo, I think the timelines would be tricky for staff to deliver, uh, by Q3 of 2026, just with our processes and how that would work.

04:57:26
And plus, staff don’t really have the bandwidth to take it on. So, it’d be something we would want to consult out. >> Okay. So, are you supportive of doing the work? And then if you are um would you recommend a change to the time frame or do we need to discuss uh funding for a consultant to meet this? What are we what are you suggesting we’re dealing with here? >> Uh through you chair to the mayor.

04:57:53
I suggest that if it’s council’s desire to proceed with this feasibility study of parking east of Brandt that we would change the timeline to something that was more achievable and also identify a source of funding for this for the study to happen. So it’s not currently in any of our operating budgets or capital budgets.

04:58:11
Uh but that being said, we do have the funding in our parking um reserve funds and we just have to look uh we aware of this motion memo if we could use that funding to pay for this this study and I think we can use that. So it’d be something where we’d recommend that uh a consultant would be retained to look at the feasibility of a structure east of Brandt.

04:58:29
Um we don’t want to predispose where that would be, what lot by the public land, private land, and then have that funded through the the parking reserve and change the timeline of deliver of 2027. >> Okay. So you are I’m just a followup. Are you suggesting that those that the motion be amended to note that timeline and the funding source and that that it has to be uh consulted out regardless I guess >> uh through the chair yes that’s if this is to proceed it would have to be consulted out and funded through a different source >> and the timelines would need to change just based on the procurement of how we’d hire a consultant and go that route. >> Okay. >> Uh councelor Bentania is next. Thank you, chair. Uh, just to add to this conversation and and listening to all the delegates this morning,

04:59:26
we’re talking about doing some some work which we’ve sort of done over the last 10 years, give or take, the way we did it. Is there an opportunity? Where are the stakeholders in the initial conversation? You know, you talk about feasibility. I mean, we just got to find a spot or something. Where are the stakeholders to have input into that into the what the cost is, how to do the financing, how to help with

05:00:01
a partner rather than having someone go over here and do something, the consultant or whomever, coming back report, coming back here to report, having more delegations, and then we have more direction. I guess my concern is where are the stakeholders in this? Because I in in the past, the mayor and I when we’ve had issues, we’ve had all the stakeholders online.

05:00:28
Where are you at? What are you doing? What are you doing? Here’s where we’re at. And then she would say, “Who’s got the ball right now?” So, can you talk about that? Uh, yeah. So, through the chair, through the council, if I can kind of pick out some of the what you’re asking. Um the feasibility study be looking at what would trigger the need for the parking on the east side and where it would go, what it would cost and how it would be funded or function at a later date.

05:01:05
The stakeholders I think would be I don’t see why I don’t want to preose predispose what the stakeholders would be. I think the city would make sure we have as much of a of the plug included as long as as well as the uh businesses in the downtown, but it’s like I said, once we figure out the terms of what this looks like, then we can look at what those stakeholders be.

05:01:27
We want to make sure that everybody was invited to participate. That’ be our our goal. Um I know there was different stakeholders for the first study that the city did and I know uh there’s long years between the survey and and that study being proposed and presented to council. And I also know that there was also the survey that be the downtown businesses did as well.

05:01:47
So, um I’m not aware of what those representative samples would be, but the city would want to make sure that whatever went through the feasibility study had a good broad list of stakeholders. I know it’s kind of vague, but I’m just trying to answer your question the best I can. >> Okay. Well, I’ll just leave it to the stakeholders to uh do what they need to do once this meeting is over, I guess.

05:02:11
Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Bentinia. I have a question, two questions. Uh any idea how much this study is going to cost uh based on the six uh five or six recommendations here? And what’s what’s the scale of this kind of study? >> Uh through the chair to the chair? No, I do not know. >> Is that something you could tell us by council? Uh make a couple inquiries.

05:02:38
uh we could make some inquiries unofficially and see without uh precluding anyone from bidding on the study. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you. My second question is we have uh sort of qualitative uh support for this um qualitatively noted by the business owners that they need something closer to the closer to where they are.

05:03:07
What we don’t have is I don’t believe now it’s been a couple months since I read that the parking downtown parking survey, but we don’t have an analysis of whether a parking garage east of Branch Street would increase business would actually increase business um versus having what we have presently.

05:03:29
So, is it possible to have an economic analysis completed demonstrating how having parking supply an extra 500, 2, 3, 5, 400 meters closer to businesses would increase um the economic uh output of that business >> through your chair to yourself. Let us take that back and get back to you. It’s one of those things where we haven’t really put our heads around how to scope this assignment for the consultant to price it out.

05:04:04
I don’t want to, like I said, I want to make it clear, we’re not already assuming there’s going to be a parking garage, right? It could be some of those things where the feasibility study uh identifies that no ma isn’t needed and the improvements by the way funing and all the other options are already presented to council by staff are sufficient to buy you within those first couple years of of growth.

05:04:22
It could also be a garage is warranted and at that point it may trigger that economic analysis. But um it all depends and data in data out per se. So like I said we don’t know firsthand how much um to the delegate earlier about the number of employees using the spots where they park the peaks and valleys during the summer months all that kind of stuff.

05:04:42
So to do that analysis I think we’ll really need to figure out what this feasibility looks at. So it might be a phased feasibility approach. which I’m just thinking on the on the spot here, but um you’d hate to go so far down the rabbit hole where it’s not warranted right away and spend all that extra time and money on not that analysis if it is even warranted yet.

05:05:03

Sorry, I couldn’t hear the last part there. >> I’d hate to spend all the time doing that analysis on the economics if it wasn’t warranted yet. So, like I said, there could be one of those things where the consultant may come back and say, based on our analysis and the feasibility of a garage, uh, doing the measures that are identified previously in a report to council might alleviate some of those concerns and buy you some time.

05:05:22
So, like I said, it’s it will be one of those phased um, assignments. >> So, I’m just going to follow up on my own question. We already got your analysis that says it’s not warranted at this time, but clearly there’s an interest in it potentially improving the business outcomes of people east of Brand and therefore the downtown as a whole.

05:05:40
So, are we able to test that through maybe through this report? Will it be tested through this report? Could it be tested through this report? >> That is the intent of the feasibility study. Like I said, we’ve got the quantitative value which we present to council. Now, we’re trying to look at the qualitative side of of the businesses and how that works and what that return investment may look like through that feasibility.

05:06:03

Okay. I’m glad to know that that’s that’s in there under the rubric of feasibility because feasibility could mean different things. So now now I understand. Okay. I believe it’s be a first time for councelor Galbreth. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. And yeah, my questions were kind of around the feasibility study as well.

05:06:22
Um the cost of it was one of my questions. So, I’ I’d be interested to hear. Uh hopefully the the the funds and the parking um downtown fund can pay for it. I think that’s what you suggested. I I’d certainly be supportive of that. Um how you know it’s I I would believe it’s important to do this study properly and it it would do you have any idea how much time a feasibility study would take? I mean I know it’s maybe guessing because we don’t have the consultant yet or but >> yeah through the chair it’s I would say a year is a good amount but like I said we don’t have the scoped um process of what they want and the feasibility has been scoped by staff yet. So if it proceeds today then staff will go back try and scope that exercise try and get some rough estimates what that cost and then but a year be a sufficient amount of time. >> Okay thank you. Back to councelor Karns for a question

05:07:22
or comment. >> Yeah, question. So, I’m just wondering what consult has staff taken up with uh Burlington tourism. I understand that um in the last number of years there’s been a significant uh recognition that downtown Burlington is part of destination tourism. And I’m I’m looking at the funding of total visitor spending in millions. It goes from 2020 to 2024.

05:07:45
I have to believe it continues on the same 45 degree angle uh on this bar graph which is 166 million 253 393 427 524. Um so this revenue that’s coming in by visitors spending in the millions uh predominantly landing in the downtown and adjacent areas. Not to mention the report I’ve also recently received for 2026 summer W 2 events significantly and heavily activates uh in and around the areas of downtown Burlington W 2 about 66% of festivals and events.

05:08:18
Um how are we taking those two things into account as um voices at the table when when they’re all relying also on the parking? So through the chair to you counselor. Um Tourism Burlington was part of our stakeholder engagement group throughout the whole process. So um they would have provided some of that feedback into the final report.

05:08:40
Um as far as the economic benefits to the downtown, I can’t speak to those numbers, but I think we can all recognize that that those economic benefits do benefit the entire downtown and making sure that we have an ample supply helps support that that growth. >> Okay. So my second question is this. If we are going to take another year to do just a feasibility study, are you aware that in that year the tensions with the downtown merchants and businesses will uh rise so significantly that um they will they will look to have a claw back of their of their DPC levy levy and ask for that money back with interest andor start refusing to pay it. So what other options do staff believe could be available to them um in the in the situation where they are this frustrated? >> So through the chair to you counselor. So in the report there was a number of recommendations more shorter term medium-term and obviously the longer

05:09:39
term um recommendation was looking at uh new supply. So staff are already putting together the timelines on what some of those uh recommendations look like from the immediate to medium term. some of those which we all already know is wavefinding. We have a wayfinding issue with our parking uh supply in the downtown.

05:09:56
So starting to move those programs along. Also what we don’t do in Burlington is similar to larger municipalities is uh pricing certain lots uh based on where they are located. So, if you can imagine you go to to Toronto to a Blue Jays game, you’re paying a higher premium for those lots that are adjacent to those those larger venues.

05:10:18
Currently, right now within the downtown, all of our pricing structure is the same for all of our lots. So, we want to start to distribute those those uh patrons in the downtown more distributed across our um parking lot. So, we do know west of Brand Street, we do have the capacity. Part of our analysis within our study is that we were only 30% on average occupied within our parking garage.

05:10:43
So trying to look at other measures on how we can encourage and um encourage people to start using those other assets we currently have that aren’t fully occupied and we will be bringing that back um some of those timelines which we’ve asked staff to undertake. >> Okay.

05:11:01
So I just want to provide a point of clarity as a followup. So this ask is independent of acknowledging and appreciating all of the I think we called them lowhanging fruits or short-term interventions. This is uh in parallel with those things. So, do staff understand that those short-term solutions are appreciated and welcomed, but the users of the parking assets are still of the opinion by lived experience that those are not sufficient enough when looking at the timelines to manage that tipping point that is causing merchants to now decide if they want to renew their lease or leave. Just want to delineate the two things so that they’re not conflated. So short-term pricing active transportation is great. The stakeholders are saying that’s not going to be sufficient with the

05:11:59
timelines continuing to roll forward. So through the chair to you counselor and I recognize some of the delegates that are here today or some of the individuals that we met um to understand that lived experience and so those individuals that are here today do have that direct line to uh our department to have those collaborative discussions also through the downtown parking committee we have those monthly conversations and can have those discussions.

05:12:24
Um can we move faster? We will try to to look at how we can implement and supplement some of those solutions. I think um we do again have some of those lowhanging fruit that uh I think will help and um through those continued collaborations that we have with our stakeholders and through the DPC we’ll look to try to advance those as soon as possible.

05:12:51

Thank you uh councelor uh back to the mayor. >> Thank you chair. Uh I’m interested in um getting some language from staff uh in light of what you had said earlier around the timelines to provide an amendment to the motion uh and perhaps get some costing and then finally um get some clarity around whether E does in fact uh include options that are not a parking structure.

05:13:21
So we might need some language there. So I uh this may be a question for clerks or the chair >> recess potentially or refer it to council. What whatever uh committee would like to do I’m I’m okay with. >> I would suggest a recess and try our best to do it here today. >> All right. Uh thank you chair. I will leave it in your hands to call that and work with staff to get some uh amended language.

05:13:47

Sure. So we’ll go to councelor Karns and we’ll take a recess which we’re due for anyways. >> Unless you prefer the recess first. >> I’ll take the recess. Thanks. >> Okay. So, uh let’s take 10 minutes. 234. We’ll come back. Thank you. Okay, we’re back. Uh, councelor Kren,

05:29:33
would you like to go ahead or see the work that’s been done during the break? >> Let’s have a look at the work. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, over to the mayor then to, uh, bring forward any amendments or motion. Thank you, uh, chair. I’m just typing it out. Um, it just took a little bit longer to put it, uh, together.

05:30:01
Um, and I’m certainly open to hearing from folks. So, uh, sorry, I didn’t send it to the clerk. >> Take your time. >> Yeah. So, um actually I’m going to turn it over to staff because we had a really good uh conversation and you will need to hear what I heard uh during the break, but the motion is uh and this is the recommendation from staff, but they can confirm this is to refer this back to staff uh to um do some additional work around uh the scoping of a feasibility study and the costing uh and then report back to committee of the whole in June. So, um, I’m going to turn it over to Scott to, uh, ask to explain sort of the thinking behind why we would do that and the additional pieces that would need to be, uh, looked at. >> Uh, thanks, mayor, and through you, chair. So, yeah, just in the the breakthrough, we had a quick discussion on what that scope might look like with with staff and how we might come up with

05:31:00
something that was beneficial to everybody to bring forward back when this feasibility study was was done. So allowing us to scope that properly, it also allows us to address some of the questions, concerns around the cost of what that consultant um study might come in at.

05:31:13
Uh just for some reference, I guess the um we did confirm, like I said, we’re going to pay for it out of the downtown parking reserve funds. There are three funds in there. Total value, and I know this came up during the delegation in one of the questions, the reserve funds are about $12.5 million in and um balance at this point.

05:31:32
Um, and of which just for for council’s awareness, the the funding that or the levy of the downtown businesses pays about uh 10% or 11% of that fee of money that comes in. Other fees are also generated from um parking uh permits or parking fines as well as that revenues comes in and helps out.

05:31:50
So of the 245,000 give or take that is this levy is composed of about a million dollars goes into the reserve each year from other sources uh not tax-based uh reserves and then that funding is what’s pays for all the parking lots and the garage at Locust right now. So of that funding there’s about $4 million already earmarked in the next five years for repairs to existing lot downtown.

05:32:15
So we just want to make sure that whatever feasibility study is undertaken is looking at all that stuff um as well as the stuff east of Brandt. Uh so I like I said I think we have a sufficient funding but let us come back with the rough cost of what that look like at the next cow. >> And can you can you share uh sort of the order of magnitude cost of a study as well as um you were talking about for example if we were to look at lot four uh for any kind of a structure that the value of the land plus the structure would have to be taken into account. uh just to get an order of magnitude for uh so that there’s no sticker chock when this comes back uh what we’re actually talking about and this would obviously be refined further as part of the feasibility but uh that that information when we spoke during the break was eye opening and I think it would be helpful for all of council to hear it.

05:33:15

Uh sure. So through you chair to the mayor the uh part of the feasibility study be looking at uh the total gross cost or the feasibility or the economic impact as per councelor Nissan’s question or concern. So whether or not the land is city-owned or or private owned through a developer or some leadership we’ll still need to look at what that true feasibility and economic impact is of that land.

05:33:37
Uh so for example, if we had the lot four is what we looked at briefly last time we were in front of council you’re looking at about 17 million for the land of love for another 40 million for the parking garage similar to what was built at Locust right now. So and then give and take a parking garage lasts about 75 years. So we’re almost halfway through the life expectancy of the garage at Locust where need to be replaced as well.

05:34:00
So all those assets come out of the same parking reserve. That also allows us to look at um one of the questions about I believe the counselor Karns is about um looking at development or looking at deals with developers. So we’ll also want to look at that as well. So that keeps it an apples for apples uh comparison.

05:34:22

Thank you. Okay. So um Suzanne, are you able to put the motion up on the screen? Okay. So, it’s a referral motion. Any uh questions or comments must be with respect to the referral which uh takes precedence. Councelor Karns, questions related to the referral, please. >> Thank you very much.

05:34:53
So, I wanted to identify the feasibility scope and costing And I heard that the costing is recommended to just come out of the downtown parking fund although they’ve already taken significant uh funds from there for other studies. I’m wondering can we explore the eligibility of a partial or cost share out of the um uh tourism fund because there is a lot of the pressure coming off of the hotels uh into the parking supply that I think would help to justify some of that scope and cost especially when we have potentially another development pipeline hotel with pretty much no parking. So um can this not be can you report back that costing options be delivered uh for how the feasibility uh scope will be costed >> uh through uh the chair? Yes. Yes, we

05:35:50
will. I think they could both obviously be uh cost shared, but we’ll we’ll include that. >> Okay. And I appreciate that because we’ve already paid for a lot of uh EV chargers out of that fund. So that’s taken almost nearly a million on EV chargers. So um it’s continued to fund other priorities. Okay.

05:36:08
Can I still can we go back to the main motion? Is this just one or is it dead after the referral? >> The referral takes precedence. So we’ll be voting on the referral before looking at >> So then I’m going to make the motion will come back in June. So >> Okay. So then at some point when we’re done the questions, can I add a friendly amendment to the referral? Uh you can suggest one and um I believe it is amendable.

05:36:31
Uh Suzanne, yeah it is amendable if you want. Uh but you could start by suggesting one. >> You need a second or you want to go ahead? >> I’m ready when you need. >> Yeah, go ahead. Y >> Okay. So, some of the conversation has happened because of this and that’s why I brought my trusty old 2018 uh budget with me that scoped the future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities in 2022 to 2027.

05:36:54
That was um that was PKPK87. Then when we did the 2026 budget, we have RD-PK87, which is a transportation services project called future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities. And here’s where the issue has come to light. So in this budget, by 2027, the design and completion was supposed to be done for $18,500,000.

05:37:24
Now we have in the 2026 budget a push out for 2030 being facility design and 2032 for construction. So at this moment in time we’re telling the downtown business community, tourists, guests, visitors that there will be no facility until at least at minimum 2032 to 2055. And that is the crux of the issue. So I’ll take a recommendation.

05:37:53
How might we amend this referral to come back with potential timelines for um you know justifying the need or or the need and justification of the future downtown parking facility. So it’s already been moved from 2027 to essentially 2035. How do we scope that to give the certainty to the businesses that they need to renew their leases and to stay in a vibrant downtown and to support the ongoing and growing tourism.

05:38:27
So through the chair to councelor Karns and maybe I’ll start and may look to pass it on to others. So through staff’s report um part of the data analysis was actually to take a look at what was currently in the application pipeline currently right now. And so that scenario actually looked out to the next 15 years.

05:38:43
So through the data analysis and through the consulting assignment um they have indicated that through the capacity that will happen through those developments that our current capacity will be able to support that additional growth through the next 15 years. >> And just to follow up, how can that be when the budget came before the March 2026 parking needs assessment? Sorry, can you just repeat that question again? >> The budget came in the fall, December, and that identified the 2030 to 2035 timeline, but the parking needs assessment study wasn’t adopted by council until March of 2026. So, how can those two inform each other when one came before the other? >> So, through the chair to the counselor. So, um a lot of the data collection happened early on in in the um in the study. So although staff brought the report back in March, we still had a lot of the assumption already made um sooner

05:39:42
which was shared with our our downtown park committee as well as we went through that process. So it did take us a bit of time just to bring the report forward to committees for approval. >> Uh okay. So that would be the cool September of 2024. I got it. Okay. Thanks. Over to you chair. Okay. >> Back to the referral motion councelor Charman.

05:40:06
Yeah, I I have a question with respect to the referral and maybe it’s more to the main I I’m not sure as to whether or not can address one of the questions that were asked during the uh during the discussion. Um but I think saying I talk to the referral. So I’ll I’ll just stick to the referral. I’m okay with referring it.

05:40:28

Paul, we can’t hear you. >> We can’t hear you. Councelor Sherman just >> Yeah. Not yet. >> It’s uh you’re coming in and out. Maybe you can. >> All right, let me try something. Testing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. How’s that? Is that better? >> Yes, much better. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um yeah, I I I I get we’re having this heavy conversation about a referral of a report.

05:40:59
I’m not even sure that I don’t really understand that well. Um, so I’m okay with the referral. Maybe I’ll just have a private conversation with uh with Craig. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thanks. >> Okay. Fair. Thank you very much. So, u about ready to go to the vote here. I do want to just confirm, Scott, what you uh said here because it wasn’t what I had heard earlier.

05:41:24
So 12.5 million in multiple reserve funds and they’re all dedicated to downtown parking. We have multiple reserves. I heard a number of 11% of that contributed from uh from the business community. Is that correct? Do you have the raw number of that or >> uh nope just so some clarification I guess.

05:41:52
So, there’s three accounts, three reserve funds. There’s the parking district reserve fund, which is about $245,000. There’s the parking growth reserve fund, which is 7.8 million. And then the parking renewal reserve fund was 4.4. So, that gives you your total of the 12.5. So, of all those reserve funds, the parking levy component was about 245, I believe, thousand a year.

05:42:17
Then the remaining funds that comes in is from parking revenue and the uh parking fines and any fines that occur as well. So all the fees from parking goes back to those reserve funds. >> So 245k a year of revenue from the downtown businesses but the total amount of their share of the 12.

05:42:33
5 million is 11% of whatever 12.5 million. Is that is that correct? the each year the annual revenue that comes in for the that’s the reserve fund balance. So every year the amount of money that comes in to the reserve they make up about 10 11% of that value. >> Okay. So they represent 10% of the annual contribution >> right and that total the total is 12 a.

05:42:59
5 million available now >> based on all the years >> it goes in it goes out every year money comes in and we have to spend it. So they’re on average they are they are contributing 11% of the total >> value of of these reserves >> of the revenue >> on an annual basis. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If I could just add as well. So um 12.

05:43:19
5 million is currently on the balance. However, some of that money has already been um >> allocated to certain projects. So committed. So technically right now we’re at approximately 11.2 million that is uncommitted. So not allocated to a future project. So I just wanted to clarify those numbers.

05:43:39
Just finance had provided that to us. So currently right now 11.2 associated to those three accounts within the parking reserve is available. >> 11.2 is available. Okay. Thank you. And second question. So, um, the executive director, the BDBA, uh, intimated at the possibility of seeking to have their funds returned to them.

05:44:05
How much would that actually be >> through the chair? I I honestly would have to dig in and look at the history to get back to you on that. would it deviate from the 11% that we’re getting annually like as a as a percentage? >> I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably a reasonable estimate uh to go on, but but I wouldn’t want to confirm until I’ve had some time to look into it.

05:44:38

Okay, that’d be good to have confirmed. Thank you very much. And councelor Sherman, is that a new hand? >> Yeah. Well, since you asked the questions, you did. I’m going to ask the question I have um relating to the whole issue. Um, so the question that’s been going through my mind after we talked about, you know, hearing that they’re going to withdraw funding and they they don’t want to spend any more of your money.

05:45:00
Um, and I I guess the question in my head is, well, okay, but if they have a lot of employees taking up all the space, then when that wasn’t the intention, so so why wouldn’t they be paying for it? So the question I I have that I asked earlier for staff and I and I know you don’t have the answer. So my question is can we find out how many employees of these businesses are parking in our parking spots in our parking lots and could we therefore cause find a way to get them to park in a remote parking lot and then put a shuttle service in which the businesses can pay for out of whatever it is so that we actually make available customer parking. And maybe we could do this by surveying the businesses as to how many people park in our in in the city parking lots. Please >> through through the chair to councelor

05:45:58
Sharon. Um yes, we can speak to um the BDBA and the DPC to see if we can get some type of analysis on staff parking. Um, but further to your comment or question about other options, um, that’s something that we can look into. But right now, we can likely commit to, uh, finding out a number, um, of staff that may be parking within our lots.

05:46:21
It will be difficult because if we can’t get that information from the business owners, um, so it will likely be a representative sample for each business. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. At least we would have asked, right? Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Karns. >> Thank you very much for that line of questioning to councelor Charmin.

05:46:43
And I just am wondering uh if that is something that’s going to be undertaken, will the city endeavor to do the same for its own uh city employee parking permits that are issued um as well uh which are all month long, not just Monday to Friday during business hours. Um, and in addition to that, could anyone um validate my recall that when we were looking at this uh we couldn’t actually um based on like I don’t know something charterish, you can’t actually restrict where people park because construction and um those types of um interim uses were being uh validated as a as a valid use in the downtown. So when we do have to go through heavy construction, we can allow people who are working uh to use any spots that they want so long as they’re properly abiding by the pay for parking rules. Um

05:47:41
so can can staff just say if this is a something that can actually be done and if if you’ll either do it equitably or if it if it ought to not be done at all because of the the protected rights of people accessing a municipal asset. So through the chair to councelor Karn. So our ask would be just of the business owners and we’ll do that through the BDBA just to see if we could get a number uh to work with with respect to city staff.

05:48:08
So we do um have two scramble lots uh which we call lot 2 and 10 on Algen. So it’s further out west. And so the philosophy is that we don’t want staff uh parking in sort of our our prime prime lots, you know, lot four for example. And then we do have a lot that we have at St. Mary’s as well that is used for staff scramble.

05:48:28
So as we look at um additional staff parking, it will always be with the lens that we put them in the more peripheral lots to make sure that the prime locations are available to uh to our customers. >> So just as a followup, will you include all of that data when you report back on any of the local businesses employees as well? >> Yes, we can.

05:48:51

Okay, thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh back to the to the to the mayor. Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Um yeah, and in keeping with information that would be helpful um for staff to bring back. I think um I guess I’ll ask this question uh but I assume it’s a yes that that you can um provide some um historical data around well really the history of why um the businesses pay a levy.

05:49:24
they don’t have to provide on-site parking the way a mall does or a strip mall that uh they would have to build um pay for the maintenance um and so forth. So, in exchange for not having to pay for their own parking, they pay into this levy, which we know is 10% now of the uh the total revenues that go into building future supply.

05:49:50
I think it would be helpful to um to have some information on the supply that has been added over the years. I know um over time we’ve repainted uh on street parking spaces and made them a little smaller. We’ve added on street parking in places it it didn’t have, including in the east side. Uh, of course we have the partnership uh at the moment with the um the Carnicelli property at uh Caroline Street.

05:50:20
I can’t remember how many surface spaces but that is on the east side about 30. Uh we also bought um some houses and turned those into parking on the other side of the street Caroline and added again I don’t know the number but over time there has been an addition and that may provide some comfort to the businesses and I’m just speaking now of uh what’s been added on the east side.

05:50:45
There of course has been uh some added on the west side as well in some of those same measures. So I think that’s interesting. I think it’s um it would be helpful uh to um alert folks to the fact that you know a standalone parking structure would be uh the value of the land say it’s lot 47 million plus another 40 those are the numbers you just provided us that’s 57 million and we have 11 in the kitty so not sure where the rest would come from um but that that would be helpful information to include in in the report back Um, so some of those uh some of that information I think would be really helpful for council and the community and maybe some of the businesses to understand sort of how this all works and what their levy uh goes towards. Uh and maybe just to um to set to rest whether they can even stop paying the levy. I don’t know if I can stop paying my property taxes. I don’t know if that’s even feasible. So I’m not sure we

05:51:44
want to uh even go down that path if it’s not something that’s feasible and and not really helpful to our conversations. we’re all in this together and we work together to make sure that we look out for each other. Um, and then if there are different uh sources of funding outside of the parking reserve, we’d want to know uh what that is too.

05:52:01
So those are some of the things I’m hoping to get which we don’t have today uh in making a informed decision as well as what the um a feasibility study might cost which is in the order I think you said of about $350,000. So, a significant amount of of dollars that would be drawn, but we have because we have that money, but it’s a significant uh sum. Thank you.

05:52:30

All right. Thank you. Uh I’m just going to ask before going back to the counselor, uh mayor, the language here is with a feasibility scop scope and costing. I think what you’re asking for is the scope and costing of a feasibility study. Would that be more accurate or I’m just Yeah, just struggling with that language a bit.

05:52:52

Yes, >> that’s what you’re going for, right? >> Yes. So, what would the scope be and what would the cost of that be? Yes. >> So, if you explore if you’re willing Yeah. to report back in June 286 with scope and costing of a uh potential feasibility study. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study, you could just put the there if you want.

05:53:29

Is that good? Uh your worship or did you want something different? >> The source of funding is always helpful. we’ve heard verbally today that would be the parking reserve, but if there’s other sources, we’d we’d want to know that, but I think that would be part of the of the costing.

05:53:42
So, I’m open to changing adding it or just leaving it. I think staff will give us that regardless. >> Yeah, I think there I think that’s how they understand it as well as the actual cost potential cost of of such a study. So, we know what we’re what we’re buying before we buy it. Uh, okay. Councelor Karns, last round.

05:54:02

Yeah, thanks very much. I just want to make uh something on the end of this because I think we’re losing focus on what we’re asking for very specifically. And so I will draw your attention to uh the last page of the motion memo which is clearly the strong demand which is to deliver new parking by 2030.

05:54:19
Um and again I’ve referenced the timelines that were presented in the 2018 budget. I’ve referenced the timelines presented in the 2026 budget. Um, so really what the the BDBA and what the business community was asking for as well as all the uh frustrated individuals looking for an option is to to work back how do we get to increased capacity by 2030.

05:54:43
And so if that can come on the back of this um I would be very happy to see that. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study for future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities by 2030. Uh that’s what I would like to see for absolute clarity. Again reminding folks that at this point there is no intention to deliver any parking until uh 2035 uh and has been moved out at least eight years from the initial um projections.

05:55:23
Okay. So, >> I can tell you the wording. So, >> it’s just to to deliver future downtown public off streetet parking facilities. That’s right out of the budget. >> Could >> Sorry. Can you go >> future downtown public off streetet parking facilities? >> Parking facilities. by 2030. So, I’ll just share some rationale around that and it’s to um identify where those pressures would be and to come back and if you can’t do it by 2030, when can it be done by? But uh to just leave it open-ended to 2035, that’s the pressure point that that will have an adverse effect. Okay, Suzanne, do you have what you uh

05:56:23
what you need? Okay, so that’s an amendment to the referral. Uh mayor, is that a friendly amendment or would you like a vote on it? >> Yeah, go ahead. So, the amendment’s on the floor for now. >> Yeah. So just with respect to that timeline, um if if you started today on a structure, would it be built by Well, you don’t Yeah, you you don’t have we don’t even have it funded.

05:56:47
So um I don’t want to have any false impressions about what we’re up against here. So we still need to do the work to determine what is even uh required. So do staff is this even possible? And if no, then we shouldn’t be putting it there. >> Through the chair to you, mayor. Um, I think it’s loud and clear that we’re being asked to try to accelerate first of all the study and then understanding uh what it would take to actually construct.

05:57:20
So, what I would suggest as part of our report back, we will take that uh that time frame under advisement and incorporate that into our recommendations. So you think for a timing you think you can build a structure in by 2030 because that that’s how I understand this. >> Not that we could build it but that we’re looking at that it would like to be an accelerated timeline and we’ll prepare what that timeline looks like as part of our consultative approach back with our report.

05:57:46
So through the analysis that we do um we will then provide what we think is a is an achievable timeline moving forward. >> Okay. So, I’m I’m I think it would be helpful to be clear about to the community as well. I don’t want anyone leaving today to think we’re building a parking structure by 2030. So, if this is an accelerated timeline that is shorter than the 2032 which is on the books, maybe we just say on an accelerated timeline.

05:58:17
I I don’t and I don’t know if I can amend this uh chair. I think we’re two out. So, I’m I’m really in your hands, but um I think it’s Sorry. >> Well, you can go two out. Your other option is to vote on this amendment and then get back to the referral after that and see what committee wants to do. >> Uh so we are not two out because referral is a new motion.

05:58:42
So it’s up to you. >> Okay. Uh all right then. Um yeah. So I will suggest that we uh we change targeted for 2030 to an accelerated timeline. Okay. So you will give us a timeline for what’s feasible that will be realistic for folks and that uh we can confidently stand behind. The last thing I want to do is signal something that we can’t even achieve and then have people disappointed.

05:59:23
All right, we are two amendments out, three questions on the board or comments. Is everyone clear about where we’re at? All I want to hear about is whether you are asking about accelerated timeline. Do you support it or do you not or do you have a question about the amendment to the amendment to the referral motion? Okay. Accelerated timeline.

05:59:46
Uh, councelor Charman, question or comment about that? >> Yeah. >> Can you put it back up, please? >> It’s Yeah, we’re just working on it here. >> All right. The question for me is is the language. Um, we’ve heard

05:00:01
a partner rather than having someone go over here and do something, the consultant or whomever, coming back report, coming back here to report, having more delegations, and then we have more direction. I guess my concern is where are the stakeholders in this? Because I in in the past, the mayor and I when we’ve had issues, we’ve had all the stakeholders online.

05:00:28
Where are you at? What are you doing? What are you doing? Here’s where we’re at. And then she would say, “Who’s got the ball right now?” So, can you talk about that? Uh, yeah. So, through the chair, through the council, if I can kind of pick out some of the what you’re asking. Um the feasibility study be looking at what would trigger the need for the parking on the east side and where it would go, what it would cost and how it would be funded or function at a later date.

05:01:05
The stakeholders I think would be I don’t see why I don’t want to preose predispose what the stakeholders would be. I think the city would make sure we have as much of a of the plug included as long as as well as the uh businesses in the downtown, but it’s like I said, once we figure out the terms of what this looks like, then we can look at what those stakeholders be.

05:01:27
We want to make sure that everybody was invited to participate. That’ be our our goal. Um I know there was different stakeholders for the first study that the city did and I know uh there’s long years between the survey and and that study being proposed and presented to council. And I also know that there was also the survey that be the downtown businesses did as well.

05:01:47
So, um I’m not aware of what those representative samples would be, but the city would want to make sure that whatever went through the feasibility study had a good broad list of stakeholders. I know it’s kind of vague, but I’m just trying to answer your question the best I can. >> Okay. Well, I’ll just leave it to the stakeholders to uh do what they need to do once this meeting is over, I guess.

05:02:11
Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Bentinia. I have a question, two questions. Uh any idea how much this study is going to cost uh based on the six uh five or six recommendations here? And what’s what’s the scale of this kind of study? >> Uh through the chair to the chair? No, I do not know. >> Is that something you could tell us by council? Uh make a couple inquiries.

05:02:38
uh we could make some inquiries unofficially and see without uh precluding anyone from bidding on the study. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you. My second question is we have uh sort of qualitative uh support for this um qualitatively noted by the business owners that they need something closer to the closer to where they are.

05:03:07
What we don’t have is I don’t believe now it’s been a couple months since I read that the parking downtown parking survey, but we don’t have an analysis of whether a parking garage east of Branch Street would increase business would actually increase business um versus having what we have presently.

05:03:29
So, is it possible to have an economic analysis completed demonstrating how having parking supply an extra 500, 2, 3, 5, 400 meters closer to businesses would increase um the economic uh output of that business >> through your chair to yourself. Let us take that back and get back to you. It’s one of those things where we haven’t really put our heads around how to scope this assignment for the consultant to price it out.

05:04:04
I don’t want to, like I said, I want to make it clear, we’re not already assuming there’s going to be a parking garage, right? It could be some of those things where the feasibility study uh identifies that no ma isn’t needed and the improvements by the way funing and all the other options are already presented to council by staff are sufficient to buy you within those first couple years of of growth.

05:04:22
It could also be a garage is warranted and at that point it may trigger that economic analysis. But um it all depends and data in data out per se. So like I said we don’t know firsthand how much um to the delegate earlier about the number of employees using the spots where they park the peaks and valleys during the summer months all that kind of stuff.

05:04:42
So to do that analysis I think we’ll really need to figure out what this feasibility looks at. So it might be a phased feasibility approach. which I’m just thinking on the on the spot here, but um you’d hate to go so far down the rabbit hole where it’s not warranted right away and spend all that extra time and money on not that analysis if it is even warranted yet.

05:05:03

Sorry, I couldn’t hear the last part there. >> I’d hate to spend all the time doing that analysis on the economics if it wasn’t warranted yet. So, like I said, there could be one of those things where the consultant may come back and say, based on our analysis and the feasibility of a garage, uh, doing the measures that are identified previously in a report to council might alleviate some of those concerns and buy you some time.

05:05:22
So, like I said, it’s it will be one of those phased um, assignments. >> So, I’m just going to follow up on my own question. We already got your analysis that says it’s not warranted at this time, but clearly there’s an interest in it potentially improving the business outcomes of people east of Brand and therefore the downtown as a whole.

05:05:40
So, are we able to test that through maybe through this report? Will it be tested through this report? Could it be tested through this report? >> That is the intent of the feasibility study. Like I said, we’ve got the quantitative value which we present to council. Now, we’re trying to look at the qualitative side of of the businesses and how that works and what that return investment may look like through that feasibility.

05:06:03

Okay. I’m glad to know that that’s that’s in there under the rubric of feasibility because feasibility could mean different things. So now now I understand. Okay. I believe it’s be a first time for councelor Galbreth. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. And yeah, my questions were kind of around the feasibility study as well.

05:06:22
Um the cost of it was one of my questions. So, I’ I’d be interested to hear. Uh hopefully the the the funds and the parking um downtown fund can pay for it. I think that’s what you suggested. I I’d certainly be supportive of that. Um how you know it’s I I would believe it’s important to do this study properly and it it would do you have any idea how much time a feasibility study would take? I mean I know it’s maybe guessing because we don’t have the consultant yet or but >> yeah through the chair it’s I would say a year is a good amount but like I said we don’t have the scoped um process of what they want and the feasibility has been scoped by staff yet. So if it proceeds today then staff will go back try and scope that exercise try and get some rough estimates what that cost and then but a year be a sufficient amount of time. >> Okay thank you. Back to councelor Karns for a question

05:07:22
or comment. >> Yeah, question. So, I’m just wondering what consult has staff taken up with uh Burlington tourism. I understand that um in the last number of years there’s been a significant uh recognition that downtown Burlington is part of destination tourism. And I’m I’m looking at the funding of total visitor spending in millions. It goes from 2020 to 2024.

05:07:45
I have to believe it continues on the same 45 degree angle uh on this bar graph which is 166 million 253 393 427 524. Um so this revenue that’s coming in by visitors spending in the millions uh predominantly landing in the downtown and adjacent areas. Not to mention the report I’ve also recently received for 2026 summer W 2 events significantly and heavily activates uh in and around the areas of downtown Burlington W 2 about 66% of festivals and events.

05:08:18
Um how are we taking those two things into account as um voices at the table when when they’re all relying also on the parking? So through the chair to you counselor. Um Tourism Burlington was part of our stakeholder engagement group throughout the whole process. So um they would have provided some of that feedback into the final report.

05:08:40
Um as far as the economic benefits to the downtown, I can’t speak to those numbers, but I think we can all recognize that that those economic benefits do benefit the entire downtown and making sure that we have an ample supply helps support that that growth. >> Okay. So my second question is this. If we are going to take another year to do just a feasibility study, are you aware that in that year the tensions with the downtown merchants and businesses will uh rise so significantly that um they will they will look to have a claw back of their of their DPC levy levy and ask for that money back with interest andor start refusing to pay it. So what other options do staff believe could be available to them um in the in the situation where they are this frustrated? >> So through the chair to you counselor. So in the report there was a number of recommendations more shorter term medium-term and obviously the longer

05:09:39
term um recommendation was looking at uh new supply. So staff are already putting together the timelines on what some of those uh recommendations look like from the immediate to medium term. some of those which we all already know is wavefinding. We have a wayfinding issue with our parking uh supply in the downtown.

05:09:56
So starting to move those programs along. Also what we don’t do in Burlington is similar to larger municipalities is uh pricing certain lots uh based on where they are located. So, if you can imagine you go to to Toronto to a Blue Jays game, you’re paying a higher premium for those lots that are adjacent to those those larger venues.

05:10:18
Currently, right now within the downtown, all of our pricing structure is the same for all of our lots. So, we want to start to distribute those those uh patrons in the downtown more distributed across our um parking lot. So, we do know west of Brand Street, we do have the capacity. Part of our analysis within our study is that we were only 30% on average occupied within our parking garage.

05:10:43
So trying to look at other measures on how we can encourage and um encourage people to start using those other assets we currently have that aren’t fully occupied and we will be bringing that back um some of those timelines which we’ve asked staff to undertake. >> Okay.

05:11:01
So I just want to provide a point of clarity as a followup. So this ask is independent of acknowledging and appreciating all of the I think we called them lowhanging fruits or short-term interventions. This is uh in parallel with those things. So, do staff understand that those short-term solutions are appreciated and welcomed, but the users of the parking assets are still of the opinion by lived experience that those are not sufficient enough when looking at the timelines to manage that tipping point that is causing merchants to now decide if they want to renew their lease or leave. Just want to delineate the two things so that they’re not conflated. So short-term pricing active transportation is great. The stakeholders are saying that’s not going to be sufficient with the

05:11:59
timelines continuing to roll forward. So through the chair to you counselor and I recognize some of the delegates that are here today or some of the individuals that we met um to understand that lived experience and so those individuals that are here today do have that direct line to uh our department to have those collaborative discussions also through the downtown parking committee we have those monthly conversations and can have those discussions.

05:12:24
Um can we move faster? We will try to to look at how we can implement and supplement some of those solutions. I think um we do again have some of those lowhanging fruit that uh I think will help and um through those continued collaborations that we have with our stakeholders and through the DPC we’ll look to try to advance those as soon as possible.

05:12:51

Thank you uh councelor uh back to the mayor. >> Thank you chair. Uh I’m interested in um getting some language from staff uh in light of what you had said earlier around the timelines to provide an amendment to the motion uh and perhaps get some costing and then finally um get some clarity around whether E does in fact uh include options that are not a parking structure.

05:13:21
So we might need some language there. So I uh this may be a question for clerks or the chair >> recess potentially or refer it to council. What whatever uh committee would like to do I’m I’m okay with. >> I would suggest a recess and try our best to do it here today. >> All right. Uh thank you chair. I will leave it in your hands to call that and work with staff to get some uh amended language.

05:13:47

Sure. So we’ll go to councelor Karns and we’ll take a recess which we’re due for anyways. >> Unless you prefer the recess first. >> I’ll take the recess. Thanks. >> Okay. So, uh let’s take 10 minutes. 234. We’ll come back. Thank you. Okay, we’re back. Uh, councelor Kren,

05:29:33
would you like to go ahead or see the work that’s been done during the break? >> Let’s have a look at the work. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, over to the mayor then to, uh, bring forward any amendments or motion. Thank you, uh, chair. I’m just typing it out. Um, it just took a little bit longer to put it, uh, together.

05:30:01
Um, and I’m certainly open to hearing from folks. So, uh, sorry, I didn’t send it to the clerk. >> Take your time. >> Yeah. So, um actually I’m going to turn it over to staff because we had a really good uh conversation and you will need to hear what I heard uh during the break, but the motion is uh and this is the recommendation from staff, but they can confirm this is to refer this back to staff uh to um do some additional work around uh the scoping of a feasibility study and the costing uh and then report back to committee of the whole in June. So, um, I’m going to turn it over to Scott to, uh, ask to explain sort of the thinking behind why we would do that and the additional pieces that would need to be, uh, looked at. >> Uh, thanks, mayor, and through you, chair. So, yeah, just in the the breakthrough, we had a quick discussion on what that scope might look like with with staff and how we might come up with

05:31:00
something that was beneficial to everybody to bring forward back when this feasibility study was was done. So allowing us to scope that properly, it also allows us to address some of the questions, concerns around the cost of what that consultant um study might come in at.

05:31:13
Uh just for some reference, I guess the um we did confirm, like I said, we’re going to pay for it out of the downtown parking reserve funds. There are three funds in there. Total value, and I know this came up during the delegation in one of the questions, the reserve funds are about $12.5 million in and um balance at this point.

05:31:32
Um, and of which just for for council’s awareness, the the funding that or the levy of the downtown businesses pays about uh 10% or 11% of that fee of money that comes in. Other fees are also generated from um parking uh permits or parking fines as well as that revenues comes in and helps out.

05:31:50
So of the 245,000 give or take that is this levy is composed of about a million dollars goes into the reserve each year from other sources uh not tax-based uh reserves and then that funding is what’s pays for all the parking lots and the garage at Locust right now. So of that funding there’s about $4 million already earmarked in the next five years for repairs to existing lot downtown.

05:32:15
So we just want to make sure that whatever feasibility study is undertaken is looking at all that stuff um as well as the stuff east of Brandt. Uh so I like I said I think we have a sufficient funding but let us come back with the rough cost of what that look like at the next cow. >> And can you can you share uh sort of the order of magnitude cost of a study as well as um you were talking about for example if we were to look at lot four uh for any kind of a structure that the value of the land plus the structure would have to be taken into account. uh just to get an order of magnitude for uh so that there’s no sticker chock when this comes back uh what we’re actually talking about and this would obviously be refined further as part of the feasibility but uh that that information when we spoke during the break was eye opening and I think it would be helpful for all of council to hear it.

05:33:15

Uh sure. So through you chair to the mayor the uh part of the feasibility study be looking at uh the total gross cost or the feasibility or the economic impact as per councelor Nissan’s question or concern. So whether or not the land is city-owned or or private owned through a developer or some leadership we’ll still need to look at what that true feasibility and economic impact is of that land.

05:33:37
Uh so for example, if we had the lot four is what we looked at briefly last time we were in front of council you’re looking at about 17 million for the land of love for another 40 million for the parking garage similar to what was built at Locust right now. So and then give and take a parking garage lasts about 75 years. So we’re almost halfway through the life expectancy of the garage at Locust where need to be replaced as well.

05:34:00
So all those assets come out of the same parking reserve. That also allows us to look at um one of the questions about I believe the counselor Karns is about um looking at development or looking at deals with developers. So we’ll also want to look at that as well. So that keeps it an apples for apples uh comparison.

05:34:22

Thank you. Okay. So um Suzanne, are you able to put the motion up on the screen? Okay. So, it’s a referral motion. Any uh questions or comments must be with respect to the referral which uh takes precedence. Councelor Karns, questions related to the referral, please. >> Thank you very much.

05:34:53
So, I wanted to identify the feasibility scope and costing And I heard that the costing is recommended to just come out of the downtown parking fund although they’ve already taken significant uh funds from there for other studies. I’m wondering can we explore the eligibility of a partial or cost share out of the um uh tourism fund because there is a lot of the pressure coming off of the hotels uh into the parking supply that I think would help to justify some of that scope and cost especially when we have potentially another development pipeline hotel with pretty much no parking. So um can this not be can you report back that costing options be delivered uh for how the feasibility uh scope will be costed >> uh through uh the chair? Yes. Yes, we

05:35:50
will. I think they could both obviously be uh cost shared, but we’ll we’ll include that. >> Okay. And I appreciate that because we’ve already paid for a lot of uh EV chargers out of that fund. So that’s taken almost nearly a million on EV chargers. So um it’s continued to fund other priorities. Okay.

05:36:08
Can I still can we go back to the main motion? Is this just one or is it dead after the referral? >> The referral takes precedence. So we’ll be voting on the referral before looking at >> So then I’m going to make the motion will come back in June. So >> Okay. So then at some point when we’re done the questions, can I add a friendly amendment to the referral? Uh you can suggest one and um I believe it is amendable.

05:36:31
Uh Suzanne, yeah it is amendable if you want. Uh but you could start by suggesting one. >> You need a second or you want to go ahead? >> I’m ready when you need. >> Yeah, go ahead. Y >> Okay. So, some of the conversation has happened because of this and that’s why I brought my trusty old 2018 uh budget with me that scoped the future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities in 2022 to 2027.

05:36:54
That was um that was PKPK87. Then when we did the 2026 budget, we have RD-PK87, which is a transportation services project called future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities. And here’s where the issue has come to light. So in this budget, by 2027, the design and completion was supposed to be done for $18,500,000.

05:37:24
Now we have in the 2026 budget a push out for 2030 being facility design and 2032 for construction. So at this moment in time we’re telling the downtown business community, tourists, guests, visitors that there will be no facility until at least at minimum 2032 to 2055. And that is the crux of the issue. So I’ll take a recommendation.

05:37:53
How might we amend this referral to come back with potential timelines for um you know justifying the need or or the need and justification of the future downtown parking facility. So it’s already been moved from 2027 to essentially 2035. How do we scope that to give the certainty to the businesses that they need to renew their leases and to stay in a vibrant downtown and to support the ongoing and growing tourism.

05:38:27
So through the chair to councelor Karns and maybe I’ll start and may look to pass it on to others. So through staff’s report um part of the data analysis was actually to take a look at what was currently in the application pipeline currently right now. And so that scenario actually looked out to the next 15 years.

05:38:43
So through the data analysis and through the consulting assignment um they have indicated that through the capacity that will happen through those developments that our current capacity will be able to support that additional growth through the next 15 years. >> And just to follow up, how can that be when the budget came before the March 2026 parking needs assessment? Sorry, can you just repeat that question again? >> The budget came in the fall, December, and that identified the 2030 to 2035 timeline, but the parking needs assessment study wasn’t adopted by council until March of 2026. So, how can those two inform each other when one came before the other? >> So, through the chair to the counselor. So, um a lot of the data collection happened early on in in the um in the study. So although staff brought the report back in March, we still had a lot of the assumption already made um sooner

05:39:42
which was shared with our our downtown park committee as well as we went through that process. So it did take us a bit of time just to bring the report forward to committees for approval. >> Uh okay. So that would be the cool September of 2024. I got it. Okay. Thanks. Over to you chair. Okay. >> Back to the referral motion councelor Charman.

05:40:06
Yeah, I I have a question with respect to the referral and maybe it’s more to the main I I’m not sure as to whether or not can address one of the questions that were asked during the uh during the discussion. Um but I think saying I talk to the referral. So I’ll I’ll just stick to the referral. I’m okay with referring it.

05:40:28

Paul, we can’t hear you. >> We can’t hear you. Councelor Sherman just >> Yeah. Not yet. >> It’s uh you’re coming in and out. Maybe you can. >> All right, let me try something. Testing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. How’s that? Is that better? >> Yes, much better. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um yeah, I I I I get we’re having this heavy conversation about a referral of a report.

05:40:59
I’m not even sure that I don’t really understand that well. Um, so I’m okay with the referral. Maybe I’ll just have a private conversation with uh with Craig. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thanks. >> Okay. Fair. Thank you very much. So, u about ready to go to the vote here. I do want to just confirm, Scott, what you uh said here because it wasn’t what I had heard earlier.

05:41:24
So 12.5 million in multiple reserve funds and they’re all dedicated to downtown parking. We have multiple reserves. I heard a number of 11% of that contributed from uh from the business community. Is that correct? Do you have the raw number of that or >> uh nope just so some clarification I guess.

05:41:52
So, there’s three accounts, three reserve funds. There’s the parking district reserve fund, which is about $245,000. There’s the parking growth reserve fund, which is 7.8 million. And then the parking renewal reserve fund was 4.4. So, that gives you your total of the 12.5. So, of all those reserve funds, the parking levy component was about 245, I believe, thousand a year.

05:42:17
Then the remaining funds that comes in is from parking revenue and the uh parking fines and any fines that occur as well. So all the fees from parking goes back to those reserve funds. >> So 245k a year of revenue from the downtown businesses but the total amount of their share of the 12.

05:42:33
5 million is 11% of whatever 12.5 million. Is that is that correct? the each year the annual revenue that comes in for the that’s the reserve fund balance. So every year the amount of money that comes in to the reserve they make up about 10 11% of that value. >> Okay. So they represent 10% of the annual contribution >> right and that total the total is 12 a.

05:42:59
5 million available now >> based on all the years >> it goes in it goes out every year money comes in and we have to spend it. So they’re on average they are they are contributing 11% of the total >> value of of these reserves >> of the revenue >> on an annual basis. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If I could just add as well. So um 12.

05:43:19
5 million is currently on the balance. However, some of that money has already been um >> allocated to certain projects. So committed. So technically right now we’re at approximately 11.2 million that is uncommitted. So not allocated to a future project. So I just wanted to clarify those numbers.

05:43:39
Just finance had provided that to us. So currently right now 11.2 associated to those three accounts within the parking reserve is available. >> 11.2 is available. Okay. Thank you. And second question. So, um, the executive director, the BDBA, uh, intimated at the possibility of seeking to have their funds returned to them.

05:44:05
How much would that actually be >> through the chair? I I honestly would have to dig in and look at the history to get back to you on that. would it deviate from the 11% that we’re getting annually like as a as a percentage? >> I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably a reasonable estimate uh to go on, but but I wouldn’t want to confirm until I’ve had some time to look into it.

05:44:38

Okay, that’d be good to have confirmed. Thank you very much. And councelor Sherman, is that a new hand? >> Yeah. Well, since you asked the questions, you did. I’m going to ask the question I have um relating to the whole issue. Um, so the question that’s been going through my mind after we talked about, you know, hearing that they’re going to withdraw funding and they they don’t want to spend any more of your money.

05:45:00
Um, and I I guess the question in my head is, well, okay, but if they have a lot of employees taking up all the space, then when that wasn’t the intention, so so why wouldn’t they be paying for it? So the question I I have that I asked earlier for staff and I and I know you don’t have the answer. So my question is can we find out how many employees of these businesses are parking in our parking spots in our parking lots and could we therefore cause find a way to get them to park in a remote parking lot and then put a shuttle service in which the businesses can pay for out of whatever it is so that we actually make available customer parking. And maybe we could do this by surveying the businesses as to how many people park in our in in the city parking lots. Please >> through through the chair to councelor

05:45:58
Sharon. Um yes, we can speak to um the BDBA and the DPC to see if we can get some type of analysis on staff parking. Um, but further to your comment or question about other options, um, that’s something that we can look into. But right now, we can likely commit to, uh, finding out a number, um, of staff that may be parking within our lots.

05:46:21
It will be difficult because if we can’t get that information from the business owners, um, so it will likely be a representative sample for each business. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. At least we would have asked, right? Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Karns. >> Thank you very much for that line of questioning to councelor Charmin.

05:46:43
And I just am wondering uh if that is something that’s going to be undertaken, will the city endeavor to do the same for its own uh city employee parking permits that are issued um as well uh which are all month long, not just Monday to Friday during business hours. Um, and in addition to that, could anyone um validate my recall that when we were looking at this uh we couldn’t actually um based on like I don’t know something charterish, you can’t actually restrict where people park because construction and um those types of um interim uses were being uh validated as a as a valid use in the downtown. So when we do have to go through heavy construction, we can allow people who are working uh to use any spots that they want so long as they’re properly abiding by the pay for parking rules. Um

05:47:41
so can can staff just say if this is a something that can actually be done and if if you’ll either do it equitably or if it if it ought to not be done at all because of the the protected rights of people accessing a municipal asset. So through the chair to councelor Karn. So our ask would be just of the business owners and we’ll do that through the BDBA just to see if we could get a number uh to work with with respect to city staff.

05:48:08
So we do um have two scramble lots uh which we call lot 2 and 10 on Algen. So it’s further out west. And so the philosophy is that we don’t want staff uh parking in sort of our our prime prime lots, you know, lot four for example. And then we do have a lot that we have at St. Mary’s as well that is used for staff scramble.

05:48:28
So as we look at um additional staff parking, it will always be with the lens that we put them in the more peripheral lots to make sure that the prime locations are available to uh to our customers. >> So just as a followup, will you include all of that data when you report back on any of the local businesses employees as well? >> Yes, we can.

05:48:51

Okay, thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh back to the to the to the mayor. Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Um yeah, and in keeping with information that would be helpful um for staff to bring back. I think um I guess I’ll ask this question uh but I assume it’s a yes that that you can um provide some um historical data around well really the history of why um the businesses pay a levy.

05:49:24
they don’t have to provide on-site parking the way a mall does or a strip mall that uh they would have to build um pay for the maintenance um and so forth. So, in exchange for not having to pay for their own parking, they pay into this levy, which we know is 10% now of the uh the total revenues that go into building future supply.

05:49:50
I think it would be helpful to um to have some information on the supply that has been added over the years. I know um over time we’ve repainted uh on street parking spaces and made them a little smaller. We’ve added on street parking in places it it didn’t have, including in the east side. Uh, of course we have the partnership uh at the moment with the um the Carnicelli property at uh Caroline Street.

05:50:20
I can’t remember how many surface spaces but that is on the east side about 30. Uh we also bought um some houses and turned those into parking on the other side of the street Caroline and added again I don’t know the number but over time there has been an addition and that may provide some comfort to the businesses and I’m just speaking now of uh what’s been added on the east side.

05:50:45
There of course has been uh some added on the west side as well in some of those same measures. So I think that’s interesting. I think it’s um it would be helpful uh to um alert folks to the fact that you know a standalone parking structure would be uh the value of the land say it’s lot 47 million plus another 40 those are the numbers you just provided us that’s 57 million and we have 11 in the kitty so not sure where the rest would come from um but that that would be helpful information to include in in the report back Um, so some of those uh some of that information I think would be really helpful for council and the community and maybe some of the businesses to understand sort of how this all works and what their levy uh goes towards. Uh and maybe just to um to set to rest whether they can even stop paying the levy. I don’t know if I can stop paying my property taxes. I don’t know if that’s even feasible. So I’m not sure we

05:51:44
want to uh even go down that path if it’s not something that’s feasible and and not really helpful to our conversations. we’re all in this together and we work together to make sure that we look out for each other. Um, and then if there are different uh sources of funding outside of the parking reserve, we’d want to know uh what that is too.

05:52:01
So those are some of the things I’m hoping to get which we don’t have today uh in making a informed decision as well as what the um a feasibility study might cost which is in the order I think you said of about $350,000. So, a significant amount of of dollars that would be drawn, but we have because we have that money, but it’s a significant uh sum. Thank you.

05:52:30

All right. Thank you. Uh I’m just going to ask before going back to the counselor, uh mayor, the language here is with a feasibility scop scope and costing. I think what you’re asking for is the scope and costing of a feasibility study. Would that be more accurate or I’m just Yeah, just struggling with that language a bit.

05:52:52

Yes, >> that’s what you’re going for, right? >> Yes. So, what would the scope be and what would the cost of that be? Yes. >> So, if you explore if you’re willing Yeah. to report back in June 286 with scope and costing of a uh potential feasibility study. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study, you could just put the there if you want.

05:53:29

Is that good? Uh your worship or did you want something different? >> The source of funding is always helpful. we’ve heard verbally today that would be the parking reserve, but if there’s other sources, we’d we’d want to know that, but I think that would be part of the of the costing.

05:53:42
So, I’m open to changing adding it or just leaving it. I think staff will give us that regardless. >> Yeah, I think there I think that’s how they understand it as well as the actual cost potential cost of of such a study. So, we know what we’re what we’re buying before we buy it. Uh, okay. Councelor Karns, last round.

05:54:02

Yeah, thanks very much. I just want to make uh something on the end of this because I think we’re losing focus on what we’re asking for very specifically. And so I will draw your attention to uh the last page of the motion memo which is clearly the strong demand which is to deliver new parking by 2030.

05:54:19
Um and again I’ve referenced the timelines that were presented in the 2018 budget. I’ve referenced the timelines presented in the 2026 budget. Um, so really what the the BDBA and what the business community was asking for as well as all the uh frustrated individuals looking for an option is to to work back how do we get to increased capacity by 2030.

05:54:43
And so if that can come on the back of this um I would be very happy to see that. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study for future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities by 2030. Uh that’s what I would like to see for absolute clarity. Again reminding folks that at this point there is no intention to deliver any parking until uh 2035 uh and has been moved out at least eight years from the initial um projections.

05:55:23
Okay. So, >> I can tell you the wording. So, >> it’s just to to deliver future downtown public off streetet parking facilities. That’s right out of the budget. >> Could >> Sorry. Can you go >> future downtown public off streetet parking facilities? >> Parking facilities. by 2030. So, I’ll just share some rationale around that and it’s to um identify where those pressures would be and to come back and if you can’t do it by 2030, when can it be done by? But uh to just leave it open-ended to 2035, that’s the pressure point that that will have an adverse effect. Okay, Suzanne, do you have what you uh

05:56:23
what you need? Okay, so that’s an amendment to the referral. Uh mayor, is that a friendly amendment or would you like a vote on it? >> Yeah, go ahead. So, the amendment’s on the floor for now. >> Yeah. So just with respect to that timeline, um if if you started today on a structure, would it be built by Well, you don’t Yeah, you you don’t have we don’t even have it funded.

05:56:47
So um I don’t want to have any false impressions about what we’re up against here. So we still need to do the work to determine what is even uh required. So do staff is this even possible? And if no, then we shouldn’t be putting it there. >> Through the chair to you, mayor. Um, I think it’s loud and clear that we’re being asked to try to accelerate first of all the study and then understanding uh what it would take to actually construct.

05:57:20
So, what I would suggest as part of our report back, we will take that uh that time frame under advisement and incorporate that into our recommendations. So you think for a timing you think you can build a structure in by 2030 because that that’s how I understand this. >> Not that we could build it but that we’re looking at that it would like to be an accelerated timeline and we’ll prepare what that timeline looks like as part of our consultative approach back with our report.

05:57:46
So through the analysis that we do um we will then provide what we think is a is an achievable timeline moving forward. >> Okay. So, I’m I’m I think it would be helpful to be clear about to the community as well. I don’t want anyone leaving today to think we’re building a parking structure by 2030. So, if this is an accelerated timeline that is shorter than the 2032 which is on the books, maybe we just say on an accelerated timeline.

05:58:17
I I don’t and I don’t know if I can amend this uh chair. I think we’re two out. So, I’m I’m really in your hands, but um I think it’s Sorry. >> Well, you can go two out. Your other option is to vote on this amendment and then get back to the referral after that and see what committee wants to do. >> Uh so we are not two out because referral is a new motion.

05:58:42
So it’s up to you. >> Okay. Uh all right then. Um yeah. So I will suggest that we uh we change targeted for 2030 to an accelerated timeline. Okay. So you will give us a timeline for what’s feasible that will be realistic for folks and that uh we can confidently stand behind. The last thing I want to do is signal something that we can’t even achieve and then have people disappointed.

05:59:23
All right, we are two amendments out, three questions on the board or comments. Is everyone clear about where we’re at? All I want to hear about is whether you are asking about accelerated timeline. Do you support it or do you not or do you have a question about the amendment to the amendment to the referral motion? Okay. Accelerated timeline.

05:59:46
Uh, councelor Charman, question or comment about that? >> Yeah. >> Can you put it back up, please? >> It’s Yeah, we’re just working on it here. >> All right. The question for me is is the language. Um, we’ve heard

05:00:01
a partner rather than having someone go over here and do something, the consultant or whomever, coming back report, coming back here to report, having more delegations, and then we have more direction. I guess my concern is where are the stakeholders in this? Because I in in the past, the mayor and I when we’ve had issues, we’ve had all the stakeholders online.

05:00:28
Where are you at? What are you doing? What are you doing? Here’s where we’re at. And then she would say, “Who’s got the ball right now?” So, can you talk about that? Uh, yeah. So, through the chair, through the council, if I can kind of pick out some of the what you’re asking. Um the feasibility study be looking at what would trigger the need for the parking on the east side and where it would go, what it would cost and how it would be funded or function at a later date.

05:01:05
The stakeholders I think would be I don’t see why I don’t want to preose predispose what the stakeholders would be. I think the city would make sure we have as much of a of the plug included as long as as well as the uh businesses in the downtown, but it’s like I said, once we figure out the terms of what this looks like, then we can look at what those stakeholders be.

05:01:27
We want to make sure that everybody was invited to participate. That’ be our our goal. Um I know there was different stakeholders for the first study that the city did and I know uh there’s long years between the survey and and that study being proposed and presented to council. And I also know that there was also the survey that be the downtown businesses did as well.

05:01:47
So, um I’m not aware of what those representative samples would be, but the city would want to make sure that whatever went through the feasibility study had a good broad list of stakeholders. I know it’s kind of vague, but I’m just trying to answer your question the best I can. >> Okay. Well, I’ll just leave it to the stakeholders to uh do what they need to do once this meeting is over, I guess.

05:02:11
Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Bentinia. I have a question, two questions. Uh any idea how much this study is going to cost uh based on the six uh five or six recommendations here? And what’s what’s the scale of this kind of study? >> Uh through the chair to the chair? No, I do not know. >> Is that something you could tell us by council? Uh make a couple inquiries.

05:02:38
uh we could make some inquiries unofficially and see without uh precluding anyone from bidding on the study. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you. My second question is we have uh sort of qualitative uh support for this um qualitatively noted by the business owners that they need something closer to the closer to where they are.

05:03:07
What we don’t have is I don’t believe now it’s been a couple months since I read that the parking downtown parking survey, but we don’t have an analysis of whether a parking garage east of Branch Street would increase business would actually increase business um versus having what we have presently.

05:03:29
So, is it possible to have an economic analysis completed demonstrating how having parking supply an extra 500, 2, 3, 5, 400 meters closer to businesses would increase um the economic uh output of that business >> through your chair to yourself. Let us take that back and get back to you. It’s one of those things where we haven’t really put our heads around how to scope this assignment for the consultant to price it out.

05:04:04
I don’t want to, like I said, I want to make it clear, we’re not already assuming there’s going to be a parking garage, right? It could be some of those things where the feasibility study uh identifies that no ma isn’t needed and the improvements by the way funing and all the other options are already presented to council by staff are sufficient to buy you within those first couple years of of growth.

05:04:22
It could also be a garage is warranted and at that point it may trigger that economic analysis. But um it all depends and data in data out per se. So like I said we don’t know firsthand how much um to the delegate earlier about the number of employees using the spots where they park the peaks and valleys during the summer months all that kind of stuff.

05:04:42
So to do that analysis I think we’ll really need to figure out what this feasibility looks at. So it might be a phased feasibility approach. which I’m just thinking on the on the spot here, but um you’d hate to go so far down the rabbit hole where it’s not warranted right away and spend all that extra time and money on not that analysis if it is even warranted yet.

05:05:03

Sorry, I couldn’t hear the last part there. >> I’d hate to spend all the time doing that analysis on the economics if it wasn’t warranted yet. So, like I said, there could be one of those things where the consultant may come back and say, based on our analysis and the feasibility of a garage, uh, doing the measures that are identified previously in a report to council might alleviate some of those concerns and buy you some time.

05:05:22
So, like I said, it’s it will be one of those phased um, assignments. >> So, I’m just going to follow up on my own question. We already got your analysis that says it’s not warranted at this time, but clearly there’s an interest in it potentially improving the business outcomes of people east of Brand and therefore the downtown as a whole.

05:05:40
So, are we able to test that through maybe through this report? Will it be tested through this report? Could it be tested through this report? >> That is the intent of the feasibility study. Like I said, we’ve got the quantitative value which we present to council. Now, we’re trying to look at the qualitative side of of the businesses and how that works and what that return investment may look like through that feasibility.

05:06:03

Okay. I’m glad to know that that’s that’s in there under the rubric of feasibility because feasibility could mean different things. So now now I understand. Okay. I believe it’s be a first time for councelor Galbreth. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. And yeah, my questions were kind of around the feasibility study as well.

05:06:22
Um the cost of it was one of my questions. So, I’ I’d be interested to hear. Uh hopefully the the the funds and the parking um downtown fund can pay for it. I think that’s what you suggested. I I’d certainly be supportive of that. Um how you know it’s I I would believe it’s important to do this study properly and it it would do you have any idea how much time a feasibility study would take? I mean I know it’s maybe guessing because we don’t have the consultant yet or but >> yeah through the chair it’s I would say a year is a good amount but like I said we don’t have the scoped um process of what they want and the feasibility has been scoped by staff yet. So if it proceeds today then staff will go back try and scope that exercise try and get some rough estimates what that cost and then but a year be a sufficient amount of time. >> Okay thank you. Back to councelor Karns for a question

05:07:22
or comment. >> Yeah, question. So, I’m just wondering what consult has staff taken up with uh Burlington tourism. I understand that um in the last number of years there’s been a significant uh recognition that downtown Burlington is part of destination tourism. And I’m I’m looking at the funding of total visitor spending in millions. It goes from 2020 to 2024.

05:07:45
I have to believe it continues on the same 45 degree angle uh on this bar graph which is 166 million 253 393 427 524. Um so this revenue that’s coming in by visitors spending in the millions uh predominantly landing in the downtown and adjacent areas. Not to mention the report I’ve also recently received for 2026 summer W 2 events significantly and heavily activates uh in and around the areas of downtown Burlington W 2 about 66% of festivals and events.

05:08:18
Um how are we taking those two things into account as um voices at the table when when they’re all relying also on the parking? So through the chair to you counselor. Um Tourism Burlington was part of our stakeholder engagement group throughout the whole process. So um they would have provided some of that feedback into the final report.

05:08:40
Um as far as the economic benefits to the downtown, I can’t speak to those numbers, but I think we can all recognize that that those economic benefits do benefit the entire downtown and making sure that we have an ample supply helps support that that growth. >> Okay. So my second question is this. If we are going to take another year to do just a feasibility study, are you aware that in that year the tensions with the downtown merchants and businesses will uh rise so significantly that um they will they will look to have a claw back of their of their DPC levy levy and ask for that money back with interest andor start refusing to pay it. So what other options do staff believe could be available to them um in the in the situation where they are this frustrated? >> So through the chair to you counselor. So in the report there was a number of recommendations more shorter term medium-term and obviously the longer

05:09:39
term um recommendation was looking at uh new supply. So staff are already putting together the timelines on what some of those uh recommendations look like from the immediate to medium term. some of those which we all already know is wavefinding. We have a wayfinding issue with our parking uh supply in the downtown.

05:09:56
So starting to move those programs along. Also what we don’t do in Burlington is similar to larger municipalities is uh pricing certain lots uh based on where they are located. So, if you can imagine you go to to Toronto to a Blue Jays game, you’re paying a higher premium for those lots that are adjacent to those those larger venues.

05:10:18
Currently, right now within the downtown, all of our pricing structure is the same for all of our lots. So, we want to start to distribute those those uh patrons in the downtown more distributed across our um parking lot. So, we do know west of Brand Street, we do have the capacity. Part of our analysis within our study is that we were only 30% on average occupied within our parking garage.

05:10:43
So trying to look at other measures on how we can encourage and um encourage people to start using those other assets we currently have that aren’t fully occupied and we will be bringing that back um some of those timelines which we’ve asked staff to undertake. >> Okay.

05:11:01
So I just want to provide a point of clarity as a followup. So this ask is independent of acknowledging and appreciating all of the I think we called them lowhanging fruits or short-term interventions. This is uh in parallel with those things. So, do staff understand that those short-term solutions are appreciated and welcomed, but the users of the parking assets are still of the opinion by lived experience that those are not sufficient enough when looking at the timelines to manage that tipping point that is causing merchants to now decide if they want to renew their lease or leave. Just want to delineate the two things so that they’re not conflated. So short-term pricing active transportation is great. The stakeholders are saying that’s not going to be sufficient with the

05:11:59
timelines continuing to roll forward. So through the chair to you counselor and I recognize some of the delegates that are here today or some of the individuals that we met um to understand that lived experience and so those individuals that are here today do have that direct line to uh our department to have those collaborative discussions also through the downtown parking committee we have those monthly conversations and can have those discussions.

05:12:24
Um can we move faster? We will try to to look at how we can implement and supplement some of those solutions. I think um we do again have some of those lowhanging fruit that uh I think will help and um through those continued collaborations that we have with our stakeholders and through the DPC we’ll look to try to advance those as soon as possible.

05:12:51

Thank you uh councelor uh back to the mayor. >> Thank you chair. Uh I’m interested in um getting some language from staff uh in light of what you had said earlier around the timelines to provide an amendment to the motion uh and perhaps get some costing and then finally um get some clarity around whether E does in fact uh include options that are not a parking structure.

05:13:21
So we might need some language there. So I uh this may be a question for clerks or the chair >> recess potentially or refer it to council. What whatever uh committee would like to do I’m I’m okay with. >> I would suggest a recess and try our best to do it here today. >> All right. Uh thank you chair. I will leave it in your hands to call that and work with staff to get some uh amended language.

05:13:47

Sure. So we’ll go to councelor Karns and we’ll take a recess which we’re due for anyways. >> Unless you prefer the recess first. >> I’ll take the recess. Thanks. >> Okay. So, uh let’s take 10 minutes. 234. We’ll come back. Thank you. Okay, we’re back. Uh, councelor Kren,

05:29:33
would you like to go ahead or see the work that’s been done during the break? >> Let’s have a look at the work. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh, over to the mayor then to, uh, bring forward any amendments or motion. Thank you, uh, chair. I’m just typing it out. Um, it just took a little bit longer to put it, uh, together.

05:30:01
Um, and I’m certainly open to hearing from folks. So, uh, sorry, I didn’t send it to the clerk. >> Take your time. >> Yeah. So, um actually I’m going to turn it over to staff because we had a really good uh conversation and you will need to hear what I heard uh during the break, but the motion is uh and this is the recommendation from staff, but they can confirm this is to refer this back to staff uh to um do some additional work around uh the scoping of a feasibility study and the costing uh and then report back to committee of the whole in June. So, um, I’m going to turn it over to Scott to, uh, ask to explain sort of the thinking behind why we would do that and the additional pieces that would need to be, uh, looked at. >> Uh, thanks, mayor, and through you, chair. So, yeah, just in the the breakthrough, we had a quick discussion on what that scope might look like with with staff and how we might come up with

05:31:00
something that was beneficial to everybody to bring forward back when this feasibility study was was done. So allowing us to scope that properly, it also allows us to address some of the questions, concerns around the cost of what that consultant um study might come in at.

05:31:13
Uh just for some reference, I guess the um we did confirm, like I said, we’re going to pay for it out of the downtown parking reserve funds. There are three funds in there. Total value, and I know this came up during the delegation in one of the questions, the reserve funds are about $12.5 million in and um balance at this point.

05:31:32
Um, and of which just for for council’s awareness, the the funding that or the levy of the downtown businesses pays about uh 10% or 11% of that fee of money that comes in. Other fees are also generated from um parking uh permits or parking fines as well as that revenues comes in and helps out.

05:31:50
So of the 245,000 give or take that is this levy is composed of about a million dollars goes into the reserve each year from other sources uh not tax-based uh reserves and then that funding is what’s pays for all the parking lots and the garage at Locust right now. So of that funding there’s about $4 million already earmarked in the next five years for repairs to existing lot downtown.

05:32:15
So we just want to make sure that whatever feasibility study is undertaken is looking at all that stuff um as well as the stuff east of Brandt. Uh so I like I said I think we have a sufficient funding but let us come back with the rough cost of what that look like at the next cow. >> And can you can you share uh sort of the order of magnitude cost of a study as well as um you were talking about for example if we were to look at lot four uh for any kind of a structure that the value of the land plus the structure would have to be taken into account. uh just to get an order of magnitude for uh so that there’s no sticker chock when this comes back uh what we’re actually talking about and this would obviously be refined further as part of the feasibility but uh that that information when we spoke during the break was eye opening and I think it would be helpful for all of council to hear it.

05:33:15

Uh sure. So through you chair to the mayor the uh part of the feasibility study be looking at uh the total gross cost or the feasibility or the economic impact as per councelor Nissan’s question or concern. So whether or not the land is city-owned or or private owned through a developer or some leadership we’ll still need to look at what that true feasibility and economic impact is of that land.

05:33:37
Uh so for example, if we had the lot four is what we looked at briefly last time we were in front of council you’re looking at about 17 million for the land of love for another 40 million for the parking garage similar to what was built at Locust right now. So and then give and take a parking garage lasts about 75 years. So we’re almost halfway through the life expectancy of the garage at Locust where need to be replaced as well.

05:34:00
So all those assets come out of the same parking reserve. That also allows us to look at um one of the questions about I believe the counselor Karns is about um looking at development or looking at deals with developers. So we’ll also want to look at that as well. So that keeps it an apples for apples uh comparison.

05:34:22

Thank you. Okay. So um Suzanne, are you able to put the motion up on the screen? Okay. So, it’s a referral motion. Any uh questions or comments must be with respect to the referral which uh takes precedence. Councelor Karns, questions related to the referral, please. >> Thank you very much.

05:34:53
So, I wanted to identify the feasibility scope and costing And I heard that the costing is recommended to just come out of the downtown parking fund although they’ve already taken significant uh funds from there for other studies. I’m wondering can we explore the eligibility of a partial or cost share out of the um uh tourism fund because there is a lot of the pressure coming off of the hotels uh into the parking supply that I think would help to justify some of that scope and cost especially when we have potentially another development pipeline hotel with pretty much no parking. So um can this not be can you report back that costing options be delivered uh for how the feasibility uh scope will be costed >> uh through uh the chair? Yes. Yes, we

05:35:50
will. I think they could both obviously be uh cost shared, but we’ll we’ll include that. >> Okay. And I appreciate that because we’ve already paid for a lot of uh EV chargers out of that fund. So that’s taken almost nearly a million on EV chargers. So um it’s continued to fund other priorities. Okay.

05:36:08
Can I still can we go back to the main motion? Is this just one or is it dead after the referral? >> The referral takes precedence. So we’ll be voting on the referral before looking at >> So then I’m going to make the motion will come back in June. So >> Okay. So then at some point when we’re done the questions, can I add a friendly amendment to the referral? Uh you can suggest one and um I believe it is amendable.

05:36:31
Uh Suzanne, yeah it is amendable if you want. Uh but you could start by suggesting one. >> You need a second or you want to go ahead? >> I’m ready when you need. >> Yeah, go ahead. Y >> Okay. So, some of the conversation has happened because of this and that’s why I brought my trusty old 2018 uh budget with me that scoped the future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities in 2022 to 2027.

05:36:54
That was um that was PKPK87. Then when we did the 2026 budget, we have RD-PK87, which is a transportation services project called future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities. And here’s where the issue has come to light. So in this budget, by 2027, the design and completion was supposed to be done for $18,500,000.

05:37:24
Now we have in the 2026 budget a push out for 2030 being facility design and 2032 for construction. So at this moment in time we’re telling the downtown business community, tourists, guests, visitors that there will be no facility until at least at minimum 2032 to 2055. And that is the crux of the issue. So I’ll take a recommendation.

05:37:53
How might we amend this referral to come back with potential timelines for um you know justifying the need or or the need and justification of the future downtown parking facility. So it’s already been moved from 2027 to essentially 2035. How do we scope that to give the certainty to the businesses that they need to renew their leases and to stay in a vibrant downtown and to support the ongoing and growing tourism.

05:38:27
So through the chair to councelor Karns and maybe I’ll start and may look to pass it on to others. So through staff’s report um part of the data analysis was actually to take a look at what was currently in the application pipeline currently right now. And so that scenario actually looked out to the next 15 years.

05:38:43
So through the data analysis and through the consulting assignment um they have indicated that through the capacity that will happen through those developments that our current capacity will be able to support that additional growth through the next 15 years. >> And just to follow up, how can that be when the budget came before the March 2026 parking needs assessment? Sorry, can you just repeat that question again? >> The budget came in the fall, December, and that identified the 2030 to 2035 timeline, but the parking needs assessment study wasn’t adopted by council until March of 2026. So, how can those two inform each other when one came before the other? >> So, through the chair to the counselor. So, um a lot of the data collection happened early on in in the um in the study. So although staff brought the report back in March, we still had a lot of the assumption already made um sooner

05:39:42
which was shared with our our downtown park committee as well as we went through that process. So it did take us a bit of time just to bring the report forward to committees for approval. >> Uh okay. So that would be the cool September of 2024. I got it. Okay. Thanks. Over to you chair. Okay. >> Back to the referral motion councelor Charman.

05:40:06
Yeah, I I have a question with respect to the referral and maybe it’s more to the main I I’m not sure as to whether or not can address one of the questions that were asked during the uh during the discussion. Um but I think saying I talk to the referral. So I’ll I’ll just stick to the referral. I’m okay with referring it.

05:40:28

Paul, we can’t hear you. >> We can’t hear you. Councelor Sherman just >> Yeah. Not yet. >> It’s uh you’re coming in and out. Maybe you can. >> All right, let me try something. Testing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. How’s that? Is that better? >> Yes, much better. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um yeah, I I I I get we’re having this heavy conversation about a referral of a report.

05:40:59
I’m not even sure that I don’t really understand that well. Um, so I’m okay with the referral. Maybe I’ll just have a private conversation with uh with Craig. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thanks. >> Okay. Fair. Thank you very much. So, u about ready to go to the vote here. I do want to just confirm, Scott, what you uh said here because it wasn’t what I had heard earlier.

05:41:24
So 12.5 million in multiple reserve funds and they’re all dedicated to downtown parking. We have multiple reserves. I heard a number of 11% of that contributed from uh from the business community. Is that correct? Do you have the raw number of that or >> uh nope just so some clarification I guess.

05:41:52
So, there’s three accounts, three reserve funds. There’s the parking district reserve fund, which is about $245,000. There’s the parking growth reserve fund, which is 7.8 million. And then the parking renewal reserve fund was 4.4. So, that gives you your total of the 12.5. So, of all those reserve funds, the parking levy component was about 245, I believe, thousand a year.

05:42:17
Then the remaining funds that comes in is from parking revenue and the uh parking fines and any fines that occur as well. So all the fees from parking goes back to those reserve funds. >> So 245k a year of revenue from the downtown businesses but the total amount of their share of the 12.

05:42:33
5 million is 11% of whatever 12.5 million. Is that is that correct? the each year the annual revenue that comes in for the that’s the reserve fund balance. So every year the amount of money that comes in to the reserve they make up about 10 11% of that value. >> Okay. So they represent 10% of the annual contribution >> right and that total the total is 12 a.

05:42:59
5 million available now >> based on all the years >> it goes in it goes out every year money comes in and we have to spend it. So they’re on average they are they are contributing 11% of the total >> value of of these reserves >> of the revenue >> on an annual basis. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If I could just add as well. So um 12.

05:43:19
5 million is currently on the balance. However, some of that money has already been um >> allocated to certain projects. So committed. So technically right now we’re at approximately 11.2 million that is uncommitted. So not allocated to a future project. So I just wanted to clarify those numbers.

05:43:39
Just finance had provided that to us. So currently right now 11.2 associated to those three accounts within the parking reserve is available. >> 11.2 is available. Okay. Thank you. And second question. So, um, the executive director, the BDBA, uh, intimated at the possibility of seeking to have their funds returned to them.

05:44:05
How much would that actually be >> through the chair? I I honestly would have to dig in and look at the history to get back to you on that. would it deviate from the 11% that we’re getting annually like as a as a percentage? >> I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably a reasonable estimate uh to go on, but but I wouldn’t want to confirm until I’ve had some time to look into it.

05:44:38

Okay, that’d be good to have confirmed. Thank you very much. And councelor Sherman, is that a new hand? >> Yeah. Well, since you asked the questions, you did. I’m going to ask the question I have um relating to the whole issue. Um, so the question that’s been going through my mind after we talked about, you know, hearing that they’re going to withdraw funding and they they don’t want to spend any more of your money.

05:45:00
Um, and I I guess the question in my head is, well, okay, but if they have a lot of employees taking up all the space, then when that wasn’t the intention, so so why wouldn’t they be paying for it? So the question I I have that I asked earlier for staff and I and I know you don’t have the answer. So my question is can we find out how many employees of these businesses are parking in our parking spots in our parking lots and could we therefore cause find a way to get them to park in a remote parking lot and then put a shuttle service in which the businesses can pay for out of whatever it is so that we actually make available customer parking. And maybe we could do this by surveying the businesses as to how many people park in our in in the city parking lots. Please >> through through the chair to councelor

05:45:58
Sharon. Um yes, we can speak to um the BDBA and the DPC to see if we can get some type of analysis on staff parking. Um, but further to your comment or question about other options, um, that’s something that we can look into. But right now, we can likely commit to, uh, finding out a number, um, of staff that may be parking within our lots.

05:46:21
It will be difficult because if we can’t get that information from the business owners, um, so it will likely be a representative sample for each business. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. At least we would have asked, right? Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Karns. >> Thank you very much for that line of questioning to councelor Charmin.

05:46:43
And I just am wondering uh if that is something that’s going to be undertaken, will the city endeavor to do the same for its own uh city employee parking permits that are issued um as well uh which are all month long, not just Monday to Friday during business hours. Um, and in addition to that, could anyone um validate my recall that when we were looking at this uh we couldn’t actually um based on like I don’t know something charterish, you can’t actually restrict where people park because construction and um those types of um interim uses were being uh validated as a as a valid use in the downtown. So when we do have to go through heavy construction, we can allow people who are working uh to use any spots that they want so long as they’re properly abiding by the pay for parking rules. Um

05:47:41
so can can staff just say if this is a something that can actually be done and if if you’ll either do it equitably or if it if it ought to not be done at all because of the the protected rights of people accessing a municipal asset. So through the chair to councelor Karn. So our ask would be just of the business owners and we’ll do that through the BDBA just to see if we could get a number uh to work with with respect to city staff.

05:48:08
So we do um have two scramble lots uh which we call lot 2 and 10 on Algen. So it’s further out west. And so the philosophy is that we don’t want staff uh parking in sort of our our prime prime lots, you know, lot four for example. And then we do have a lot that we have at St. Mary’s as well that is used for staff scramble.

05:48:28
So as we look at um additional staff parking, it will always be with the lens that we put them in the more peripheral lots to make sure that the prime locations are available to uh to our customers. >> So just as a followup, will you include all of that data when you report back on any of the local businesses employees as well? >> Yes, we can.

05:48:51

Okay, thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh back to the to the to the mayor. Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you, chair. Um yeah, and in keeping with information that would be helpful um for staff to bring back. I think um I guess I’ll ask this question uh but I assume it’s a yes that that you can um provide some um historical data around well really the history of why um the businesses pay a levy.

05:49:24
they don’t have to provide on-site parking the way a mall does or a strip mall that uh they would have to build um pay for the maintenance um and so forth. So, in exchange for not having to pay for their own parking, they pay into this levy, which we know is 10% now of the uh the total revenues that go into building future supply.

05:49:50
I think it would be helpful to um to have some information on the supply that has been added over the years. I know um over time we’ve repainted uh on street parking spaces and made them a little smaller. We’ve added on street parking in places it it didn’t have, including in the east side. Uh, of course we have the partnership uh at the moment with the um the Carnicelli property at uh Caroline Street.

05:50:20
I can’t remember how many surface spaces but that is on the east side about 30. Uh we also bought um some houses and turned those into parking on the other side of the street Caroline and added again I don’t know the number but over time there has been an addition and that may provide some comfort to the businesses and I’m just speaking now of uh what’s been added on the east side.

05:50:45
There of course has been uh some added on the west side as well in some of those same measures. So I think that’s interesting. I think it’s um it would be helpful uh to um alert folks to the fact that you know a standalone parking structure would be uh the value of the land say it’s lot 47 million plus another 40 those are the numbers you just provided us that’s 57 million and we have 11 in the kitty so not sure where the rest would come from um but that that would be helpful information to include in in the report back Um, so some of those uh some of that information I think would be really helpful for council and the community and maybe some of the businesses to understand sort of how this all works and what their levy uh goes towards. Uh and maybe just to um to set to rest whether they can even stop paying the levy. I don’t know if I can stop paying my property taxes. I don’t know if that’s even feasible. So I’m not sure we

05:51:44
want to uh even go down that path if it’s not something that’s feasible and and not really helpful to our conversations. we’re all in this together and we work together to make sure that we look out for each other. Um, and then if there are different uh sources of funding outside of the parking reserve, we’d want to know uh what that is too.

05:52:01
So those are some of the things I’m hoping to get which we don’t have today uh in making a informed decision as well as what the um a feasibility study might cost which is in the order I think you said of about $350,000. So, a significant amount of of dollars that would be drawn, but we have because we have that money, but it’s a significant uh sum. Thank you.

05:52:30

All right. Thank you. Uh I’m just going to ask before going back to the counselor, uh mayor, the language here is with a feasibility scop scope and costing. I think what you’re asking for is the scope and costing of a feasibility study. Would that be more accurate or I’m just Yeah, just struggling with that language a bit.

05:52:52

Yes, >> that’s what you’re going for, right? >> Yes. So, what would the scope be and what would the cost of that be? Yes. >> So, if you explore if you’re willing Yeah. to report back in June 286 with scope and costing of a uh potential feasibility study. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study, you could just put the there if you want.

05:53:29

Is that good? Uh your worship or did you want something different? >> The source of funding is always helpful. we’ve heard verbally today that would be the parking reserve, but if there’s other sources, we’d we’d want to know that, but I think that would be part of the of the costing.

05:53:42
So, I’m open to changing adding it or just leaving it. I think staff will give us that regardless. >> Yeah, I think there I think that’s how they understand it as well as the actual cost potential cost of of such a study. So, we know what we’re what we’re buying before we buy it. Uh, okay. Councelor Karns, last round.

05:54:02

Yeah, thanks very much. I just want to make uh something on the end of this because I think we’re losing focus on what we’re asking for very specifically. And so I will draw your attention to uh the last page of the motion memo which is clearly the strong demand which is to deliver new parking by 2030.

05:54:19
Um and again I’ve referenced the timelines that were presented in the 2018 budget. I’ve referenced the timelines presented in the 2026 budget. Um, so really what the the BDBA and what the business community was asking for as well as all the uh frustrated individuals looking for an option is to to work back how do we get to increased capacity by 2030.

05:54:43
And so if that can come on the back of this um I would be very happy to see that. So with the scope and costing of a potential feasibility study for future downtown public off- streetet parking facilities by 2030. Uh that’s what I would like to see for absolute clarity. Again reminding folks that at this point there is no intention to deliver any parking until uh 2035 uh and has been moved out at least eight years from the initial um projections.

05:55:23
Okay. So, >> I can tell you the wording. So, >> it’s just to to deliver future downtown public off streetet parking facilities. That’s right out of the budget. >> Could >> Sorry. Can you go >> future downtown public off streetet parking facilities? >> Parking facilities. by 2030. So, I’ll just share some rationale around that and it’s to um identify where those pressures would be and to come back and if you can’t do it by 2030, when can it be done by? But uh to just leave it open-ended to 2035, that’s the pressure point that that will have an adverse effect. Okay, Suzanne, do you have what you uh

05:56:23
what you need? Okay, so that’s an amendment to the referral. Uh mayor, is that a friendly amendment or would you like a vote on it? >> Yeah, go ahead. So, the amendment’s on the floor for now. >> Yeah. So just with respect to that timeline, um if if you started today on a structure, would it be built by Well, you don’t Yeah, you you don’t have we don’t even have it funded.

05:56:47
So um I don’t want to have any false impressions about what we’re up against here. So we still need to do the work to determine what is even uh required. So do staff is this even possible? And if no, then we shouldn’t be putting it there. >> Through the chair to you, mayor. Um, I think it’s loud and clear that we’re being asked to try to accelerate first of all the study and then understanding uh what it would take to actually construct.

05:57:20
So, what I would suggest as part of our report back, we will take that uh that time frame under advisement and incorporate that into our recommendations. So you think for a timing you think you can build a structure in by 2030 because that that’s how I understand this. >> Not that we could build it but that we’re looking at that it would like to be an accelerated timeline and we’ll prepare what that timeline looks like as part of our consultative approach back with our report.

05:57:46
So through the analysis that we do um we will then provide what we think is a is an achievable timeline moving forward. >> Okay. So, I’m I’m I think it would be helpful to be clear about to the community as well. I don’t want anyone leaving today to think we’re building a parking structure by 2030. So, if this is an accelerated timeline that is shorter than the 2032 which is on the books, maybe we just say on an accelerated timeline.

05:58:17
I I don’t and I don’t know if I can amend this uh chair. I think we’re two out. So, I’m I’m really in your hands, but um I think it’s Sorry. >> Well, you can go two out. Your other option is to vote on this amendment and then get back to the referral after that and see what committee wants to do. >> Uh so we are not two out because referral is a new motion.

05:58:42
So it’s up to you. >> Okay. Uh all right then. Um yeah. So I will suggest that we uh we change targeted for 2030 to an accelerated timeline. Okay. So you will give us a timeline for what’s feasible that will be realistic for folks and that uh we can confidently stand behind. The last thing I want to do is signal something that we can’t even achieve and then have people disappointed.

05:59:23
All right, we are two amendments out, three questions on the board or comments. Is everyone clear about where we’re at? All I want to hear about is whether you are asking about accelerated timeline. Do you support it or do you not or do you have a question about the amendment to the amendment to the referral motion? Okay. Accelerated timeline.

05:59:46
Uh, councelor Charman, question or comment about that? >> Yeah. >> Can you put it back up, please? >> It’s Yeah, we’re just working on it here. >> All right. The question for me is is the language. Um, we’ve heard

06:00:00
already that that there’s a pricing opportunity that would cause part um would increase the price of parking downtown. Um we’ve also heard that we were using capacity to to uh for for for employees uh when we could actually put in a a different solution whereby causing people to park outside of the downtown.

06:00:20
So really the question for me in the amendment, are we actually talking about off- streetet parking facilities or simply parking capacity increase? Because it strikes me that we could increase the capacity of our downtown parking substantially by by pricing strategy and also by moving people out of downtown. >> What? It’s a question for Craig, but I think that we’re getting caught up on on on building something.

06:00:49

Appreciate the question. I’m going to ask that we hold it until we manage the amendment that we’re on since you’re referring to something that would is actually part of the first amendment. Uh we got we got to we got to muddle through this uh efficiently. So uh hold your question for that. >> Well, hang on. Sorry.

06:01:05
I’m thinking is associated with that whether it’s on an accelerated timeline. That’s assuming it’s for a building. And I’m just asking the the mover, the mayor in this case, do we really is this really a critical issue or do we just want to increase parking capacity downtown? >> Okay. I No, I’m going to ask that we continue on the accelerated timeline path.

06:01:25
And you asked that question once we deal with with that element because that was uh drafted by councelor Karns not by the mayor and has and I believe she had a different meaning than what you’re suggesting. So to manage us sufficiently please just hang in there and uh again questions or comments on accelerated timeline versus targeted for 2030.

06:01:50
Councelor Bentovenia. >> Thank you chair. I’ll be brief. Uh certainly accelerated is what I’m looking for and um uh we can get into the other conversations about parking facilities. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Karns. Uh between the two options. >> Thanks. I’m happy to do an accelerated timeline, but I would be more pleased if it put a cap on the back end because accelerated just means it won’t exceed what? 2035.

06:02:20

Okay. I just don’t understand how we would end an accelerated timeline when this is asking for the front end of the staff RDPK87. It’s it’s already noted there. >> Okay. So, >> so it could be open to >> I’ll help you here. >> Initiating parking facilities for 2030, which is exactly what it says in the um budget.

06:02:46

Okay, let me help you here. I I hear you saying that you’ll take accelerated timeline as a friendly amendment. That puts us one amendment out and then we can look at that in a second. Is that okay? >> Yes. I’d be happy to do to initiate as opposed to deliver. >> Mhm. >> On an accelerated timeline, not to exceed 2030 and I think that four years of studies and etc. is is far more than enough time.

06:03:15

Okay. So go ahead uh and not to exceed 2030 and we’re going to change deliver to initiate. So just hang on everyone. Just to be clear, we are merely scoping what we’re going to get back in June here. We’re not making decisions about delivery. We’re just scoping a report. So, I think we might be getting into the weeds a little bit and uh let’s try the staff is hearing the whole conversation and they’ll review it as well.

06:04:04
So, um and they also have the um the capacity to to provide the best advice that they that they see see fit within the scope of what we’re asking. So that being said, uh, Councelor Karns has taken a friendly amendment on board. We’re now one amendment out. She has modified her own amendment to what we see in front of us now, which is an amendment to the referral motion.

06:04:31
And so the amendment is on the floor, and I’m looking for questions or comments to the uh, amendment as is. U Mayor Mid Ward, you’re first on the board if you’re still interested in a question or comment about that. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you. So I um I’m not sure what to do with this. Uh it I don’t know what initiate but we want to initiate before 2030.

06:04:56
Um, so I don’t know uh if if that if it still suggests that we’re delivering by 2030, but I will um suggest in light of what councelor Charman said, and I think it’s a good uh a good reminder um to amend the word facilities to parking capacity. That gives us maximum flexibility. It could be structured.

06:05:18
It could be on street. It could be whatever it needs to be including um the uh all of the steps that are going to be taken in the short term to better manage the parking capacity that we have. So, uh that is an amendment um around uh uh around this. Since my amendment’s gone, I’ll I’ll take that out.

06:05:41
And I guess my question would be to staff, do you understand this to still be delivering a parking structure by 2030 or initiating studies before 2030 on uh and and if we’re if if facilities is changed to capacity, I guess it’s kind of moot at that point. >> I’m just going to intervene just for one sec.

06:06:00
I believe the the intent of the amendment is to initiate the study after June and the goal is to initiate the initiate the delivery of that >> of any parking facility before 2030. >> Thanks. >> Rather than to complete it by 2030, but to initiate not the study but the actual facility itself. Council Karns, I think I may have characterized that correctly if you heard me, but does that help because I think you were talking about having a study done by 2030.

06:06:29
They’re their their scope for their study is 2027 Q2. >> Yeah. I’m just wondering what not to exceed 2030 is is >> to initiate an actual parking facility by 2030 is is council Karns correct? >> Yeah. Like we’ve got a plan, we’ve got a funding plan, we’ve got, you know, design completed, etc. all the things that have to happen so that it could be shovels in the ground in the near future around 2030.

06:06:59

That works. Yeah, I will still ask a parking facility to change to parking capacity to give us the broadest amount of options here. >> Okay, thank you. So, that would be an amendment to the amendment unless council karns considers it friendly. >> Um, so thank you for asking me, chair. I think it’s uh not friendly whatsoever.

06:07:14
I think it’s um moving the agenda for the on demand transit which I think is fabulous um but it’s not part of this conversation which is part of a very different uh defined conversation. So if there is an adjacent conversation related to piloting Argo specifically in the downtown or some on demand transit I would welcome that.

06:07:36
I I know a lot of residents are asking for a bus loop um a hop- on hop off trolley. That would be fabulous. But I would like to keep this scoped uh in respect to the underlying BDBA executive motion uh which underpins this and uh keeping it scoped to the uh parking needs assessment study by Stantech that was done. Thanks.

06:07:59

Okay. So, we’ll consider that your first comment to the amendment to the amendment. And uh just make sure Suzanne has the new amendment to the amendment. Change the word facilities to capacity. Okay. I think everyone should be clear about that. That’s the only thing we’re going to discuss.

06:08:17
I’m going to essentially clear the board, but councelor Bentovenia, do you want to do you want to say something about facilities versus capacity? with your mic on please. >> I have a question for staff. >> Okay. Please just confirm that it is about facilities versus capacity or else we can ask it later.

06:08:39
Is it about facilities versus capacity the wording in the of the amendment because the mayor would like to change the word facilities in the first amendment to capacity. >> So if it’s not about that then please hold your question. My my concern right now is that staff understand what we’re doing here and are they capable to deliver what we have here. That’s my concern.

06:09:06
We can make whatever we decision we make. If they can’t do that, it’s for nothing. >> Well, I’d suggest we land on the language and then you can ask that question on the main referral motion. Okay. Soon enough. Soon enough. I’m sure we’re almost there. I think uh councelor Charman uh facilities versus capacity >> certainly um capacity does not exceed a new building.

06:09:32
So I’m I’m okay with the word capacity. I think it’s totally inclusive and it can get us to where we need to be. We have to look at all sources of parking capacity. Um whether it be um moving changing the prices and and freeing up space or putting in a new building. I have to comment that when we start talking about spending $57 million and trying to make an urgent decision in a time when we don’t have a long-term cash flow uh with respect to the needs of the city, with respect to many other matters that we’re aware of. Um it it is it doesn’t make sense to be saying it’s got to be a building. We got to look at all options. Um and by the way, at no point did I mention Argo or on demand transit. I was talking simply about a parking lot where there’s it’s out of out of downtown where we can move people along. So, I’m completely good with the change to uh the word uh capacity. Thank you.

06:10:29

Okay. Thank you. Uh I’ll just take my chance to note that 57 million is a standalone locust street type facility and we’re going to learn about a lot of different options through this feasibility study if we ever get to it. Uh, Mayor Me Ward, you’re next. >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that uh capacity has nothing to do with Argo, has nothing to do with on demand transit.

06:10:54
Uh, for me, it has to do with additional ways to provide parking, which may uh include partnerships with um developers. It might include additional on street parking. Uh it can include uh as councelor Shman said, different pricing options. uh making sure that what is available uh for short-term is available for short-term. So it’s really about uh managing parking capacity.

06:11:17
It has nothing to do with transit. Thank you. >> Okay, councelor Kern second time on the second amendment. >> Thanks. It’s going to be a comment and my comment again is a note of caution which is how we got here in the first place which was uh statements that were unsubstantiated by staff identifying uh the realm within 50 to 55 plus million dollars relating to parking and so um I am very aware of the financial pressures.

06:11:45
However, there is a defined parking fund that is supposed to be for increasing this facility. And you know, you can use the word capacity. Your own business cases in the budget starting in 2018 specifically said future downtown public offreet parking facilities. This is the language the city is using. This is the language that is captured in the um bylaw levy for the collection of exactly these funds.

06:12:16
So we can squabble about capacity and facility. All that capacity is already addressed in the stand uh report back. That is your scaling uh cost. That is the public private partnerships of which we have a success rate of zero. uh we do not even have a a a template from legal on what that would look like even and in fact the lack of that um initiative was what prevented us from moving quickly and with enough agility to capture 409 Branch Street for additional parking options.

06:12:48
Um we have a correspondence that actually identifies the request for an opportunity um that hasn’t been acted upon at all at this point due to some other issues um that can be responded to. I didn’t even include that as a motion, but there is correspondence in this package. So, uh, if we are going to have something captured in 12 years worth of budgets that specifically say future downtown public offreet parking facilities, today is not the day to make up a brand new name for something that doesn’t even line up with what we’re budgeting for and what we’re collecting a levy for. So, I would ask my colleagues to please not throw around numbers. that’s how we got here in the first place. I’d ask staff to not hypothesize, which is why we’re asking now for a study. Um, and I would ask that we keep these comments to be not alarmist. Uh, and if they are going to be alarmist, then we either increase the funding on the levy so that we can

06:13:46
quickly pay for this new facility or we dismiss the levy because, um, it’s not being administered equitably and it’s not even uh, enough of a resource to to deliver these. and it’s continued to deliver on other priorities like EV charging, like facility repairs that should be coming out of infrastructure, uh like the parking uh fee collections and the administration of parking permits to a heavy number of staff.

06:14:11
So I would like us to keep this as focused as possible as an adjacent conversation related to the outcomes of the Stantech uh parking study which did deliver a high number of lowhanging fruits which staff are actively implementing. >> Thank you. I’m going to just use my prerogative as chair to uh to note that looking back at the at what uh occurred with respect to the 50 to 55 million the staff were put on the spot um and did their best having been put on the spot I don’t think so I just want to state that that’s exactly why it’s important that we um be careful when we ask staff that we don’t put them in difficult uh positions uh to answer questions right uh in front of us and uh also uh you know those hard questions uh very hard questions that’s why we have our CEO as well to intervene

06:15:10
on those. So uh let’s try to that that’s why we got to do think these things through ahead of time. Yes, councelor Charman it’s uh it’s over to you for your second and last on the amendment to the amendment. >> No, it’s really a question. It’s really I just want to ask question to staff. Do you understand staff the word capacity to be either existing space, additional space that doesn’t require a whole building or a whole building? Is it clear when we change the word from facility to capacity what we mean >> through the chair? Yes, it’s clear capacity. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I’m going to call the vote on this amendment to the amendment to the referral to the main motion. Uh, a change the word facilities to capacity. All those in favor, keep your hands up. Okay. Opposed? That carries. Okay. So, we have an amendment uh to the

06:16:07
referral motion on the floor. To initiate future downtown public off streetet parking capacity on an accelerated timeline not to exceed 2030. Questions or comments on that? I see none. I’m going to call the vote on that amendment. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. Uh now the referral motion.

06:16:39
And we’ll just uh clean it up here. Yeah, perfect. Refer motion memorandum COW1326 to staff to report back in June 2026 with a scope and costing of a potential feasibility study to initiate future downtown public offreet parking capacity on an accelerated timeline not to exceed 2030. Questions or comments on the referral motion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? That carries.

06:17:10
So that concludes the item. See you next month. All right. Uh public works regular items. This is where we address the pulled consent item which I believe was pulled pulled by councelor Bentovenia. Resource uh 7.2 resource funding agreements for fiber network buildout PWS 2426. Councelor Bettoven, I believe you pulled the item.

06:17:45
Y >> go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair. I just want to uh get some clarification. Um and I have some questions for staff as well. I understand the recommendation and it’s pretty straightforward. We want to get paid. We want the staff to be there and we want them to compensate us for that. My concern is once that’s done, we have some responsibilities.

06:18:13
So I’m asking staff, do we have any guarantees down the road if we have issues or problems, whether it be with roads, infrastructure, whatnot, whether we pay for it or the telecommunication companies pay for it. Yeah, through the chair to the counselor. So, basically there will be two separate agreements.

06:18:39
One agreement will be for the utility tell the utility to be in place in the rightway and that all agreement will ensure that whatever damages in the future or any other issues that happen um are covered by the the utility itself. So, it’s not on the taxpayer for that work there. What we got here in the report in front of you is a service level agreement which is something new.

06:18:59
So basically this utility provider wishes to have a increased level of service per se. So instead of our typical typically now when a utility comes in it runs through a process staff are paid for uh through the tax base and they run those programs but it takes a significant amount of time for those applications to be reviewed and approved and inspected.

06:19:17
uh this utility provider has approached the city to ask for an expedited model and in order to do that we need to staff up and they’re covering the 100% of the costs for that ex expedited review and approval. >> Thank you for that and we’re obviously giving you delegated authority to move forward with this which means we’re done after this vote one way or another.

06:19:43
Is there any mechanism that we have that you will give us to report back as to where we are at certain milestones for whatever reason and I have another question after that. So that’s the first one >> uh through your chair. I think it’s something we can report back as the work progresses because this is a rather large uh buildout within the city.

06:20:05
Um, I think we could do a simple CIP just to keep council informed of where they are within their progress. Uh, as with any utility, we’re not in control of where they build or where they don’t build and when they come in and to supply uh, service to the residents, but we can help inform council and the public of where they’re at with their with their build as it goes on.

06:20:30

Thank you. So, I just want to add to my I want to circle back to my first question and add to it. At any point during these negotiations, will we be discussing revenue potential with the telecom companies so that 10 or 20 years from now if the unintended consequences would occur that we have funding to take care of whatever issues that might come uh through the chair if I understand the question correctly.

06:21:13
We do not take uh funding for the work that happens. It’s not a revenue for the city. We are not able to generate revenue off of utilities in our rightway as per the public highway utility act. What we can do and what we do do is we do take securities during the period of work in the maintenance period to um help that uh any kind of maintenance issues or problems with the work and we do have um fees.

06:21:37
So if they don’t pay their fees in a time or they don’t fix the problem within a timely fashion, then staff can go in there and and take over that that plant. So of all the the years doing this, we’ve never had any utility provider not come and fix something. um getting them out there is a little trickier, but at the same time, it’s never been a cash flow or a cost uh situation.

06:22:03

I’m still not convinced. I guess one I want to be more specific then what enforcement tools do we have if for whatever reason these fiber installations need to be reinstalled for whatever reason 10 years from now who’s on the hook >> so through the chair we do not have the authority to tell the telos or the utility companies when they have to do their their plants. It’s their service.

06:22:37
It’s their business. We just have to what we can control is what they do within our city owned right away. So, if it’s something that’s failed or causing damage to our property or our assets, we can then force them to fix that or replace that. But if it’s a service that goes down or they decide we’re not going to service a quarter of this ward or the city, that is between themselves and and their their customer.

06:22:57
We have no authority over telling them when they do that. just like we have no authority to tell them where we’d like them to go into the city and service those areas of the city. My last question is, will we get some sort of report on that as to how we’re going to do that if we discover any unintended consequences later with this discussion that we had earlier about the CIPs or whatnot that you might want to put together >> through the chair, the counselor? No, there will not be a report back on what that utility provider’s business case or what their model is for that. I can say that if there’s any issues that happen throughout their installation or construction process, yes, we can report back on our mitigation measures that we do for that as part of the CIP. Any work in the railway will be tied to our

06:23:55
bylaws for our municipal consent permit. And that allows us the ability to take money up front during the construction to in order to mitigate any damages or risk that may happen. But once that work is completed and the warranty period is over, it’s really on the utility provider if they wish to proceed with carrying on that service to the resident or not.

06:24:14

Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Benia. Move the report. >> Okay. Someone else move the report, please. Mayor me, move it. Thank you. Any comments? Go ahead, Angelo. Go ahead, council. >> Sorry, I’m um I just have I’m not convinced that the taxpayer is going to be off the hook down the road based on experiences that we’ve already had.

06:24:46
So, in all of our wards, we have complaints where wires are hanging out, wires are over overhead with um because they’ve been repaired and they can’t go underneath. So they’re going overhead. We’ve all had that. They are expensive to fix. Those wires overhead cost a lot of money to put them back underneath.

06:25:12
That’s why they’re not doing those. So I am concerned that we have some liability that we’re not anticipating down the road when we’re all gone. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Charman. >> Thank you very much. I mean, very excited about this project. The uh the uh the cables will be buried in the ground.

06:25:39
They won’t be floating off city uh or hydro poles or city lamp posts or anything like that. Um you know, I have a long long history or long um career in in telefan and telecoms and uh Nell where we used to make those fiber optics. bury that stuff and it is not the problem of the city. It is entirely the pro the problem of the service provider and when it breaks they fix it really quickly.

06:26:05
You can be guaranteed on that especially when it’s fiber optics. I have no concerns about this. Um other than of course they have to deal with infrastructure in the roads and location locates to make sure we don’t kind of drill into uh other buried wires for the uh street lights. Um they’re not going to do that I’m sure.

06:26:24
So, I’m very pleased this is coming. And uh good news good news for the city. As you recall, we had a we had the business people telling us just a very short time ago, they want they want fiber to premises and they’re going to get it. I’m going to do it, too. Thanks. >> Thank you, councelor Karns. So, I just wanted to say that I did I I take councelor Bentovenia’s comments very seriously around um the standards of service performance and it is one thing that I didn’t see captured uh clearly within the report. But I did ask the commissioner of engineering services if uh a it would be to the level of um standard that the city expects and b to reconfirm that it was a costneutral um meaning like all costs would be assumed by by the provider. Uh and both of those were affirmative responses. So I guess I’m not sure if I have a question if if there if that is still true. Um maybe that will be my question.

06:27:24
Is that still accurate? And I’m still under one one minute. through the chair. Yes, that’s still accurate. >> Okay. So, I’m going to support it and maybe if anything needs to come back by council like um a service standard schedule with penalties or anything like that, I’m I’m sure that that would be welcomed.

06:27:48

Okay. Uh councelor Benia, >> thank you. I’ll just finish up. Uh the cost recovery is shortterm. While the work is being done to make sure that we have staff for permits, we have staff for engineering services and that they’re making sure the work is being done as per again the concern is moving forward what we don’t know and we talked about in the past at this table we heard maybe years ago that there was going to potentially some revenue with another organization and and that’s gone in the wayside. But I am really really concerned here that we’ve given the telecommunication companies full access

06:28:45
to our roads, to our to our streets, our boulevards, whatever. For what? Yes, our businesses need upgrading. We need upgrading. I get that, but pay me for that. Give me something for down the road. Thank you. Thank you. We’ll now call the vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. On to growth management regular items.

06:29:16
12.1 proposed new building permit bylaw DGM1825. Any questions for staff about the new building permit bylaw? Councelor Karns. >> Yeah. Um, thank you very much for this. I think that it it does represent a great opportunity um to, you know, bring comprehensive coverage, find a clear delegation of authority for uh permit applicants.

06:29:40
Uh the schedules for clarity are really helpful. I like the appendices at the back. Um, and I like some of the procedural safeguards related to incomplete or inactive uh, applications, renovations, and refunds. I just want to ask a couple of questions about some of the limitations. So, the one I’m specifically looking at is appendix C, uh, which is the schedule C of appendix A.

06:30:03
Uh what how do you understand where there is a discretion here on if the application doesn’t require all of it? If it says that the every application has to have every single one of them by digital copy um unless otherwise spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe specified, how do you how do you wave some or or determine if they’re not required uh for an individual application within the context of the bylaw appendix >> through the chair to you counselor.

06:30:41
Sorry. Uh you said you noted appendix. >> Yeah. So it’s schedule C of appendix A which is all of the drawing specifications and documents required for everything. So even just a change of use for permit you would have to provide every single one of the items listed in category A and B in order to get a permit.

06:31:04
Even if it’s just change of use, that seems like a lot. So, how do you have the discretion procedurally within this document to to make those determinations of what’s adequate when the document says um the application for a permit shall be accompanied? >> Yeah. So, it goes back to the scope and complexity of each application.

06:31:27
So based on a change of use application, it can vary from um a simplistic change of use where you’re going in changing the use but there’s no material change to um in addition adding uh barrierfree bathrooms uh a new kitchen. So based on the appendices here, the professional designers on the other side of the counter need to examine the application at state and applicable design criteria with the scope and complexity.

06:31:55
So we we provide a holistic list to them. The engineering architect will look at the scope and determine what do I need in regards to that submitting the required documentation. >> Okay. But in section two of that it says that you may wave the requirement which is great. You explain that. But how do you do that within the context of this new bylaw? Like is it a list? Is it a different schedule that’s filled out that says you don’t need uh mechanical plans and fire separation plans but you need everything else like how do you do that? >> We don’t do the the engineer architect will provide that. We just give a comprehensive one. So they’ll through the digital uh pre-conultation with the building department we’ll look at the scope. If there is no kitchen design for instance you wouldn’t have to require the mechanical drawings. It wouldn’t make sense. um if there was you’d include that in the relevant drawings for uh barefree bathrooms so forth and

06:32:54
so on. We just try to give an overview of what we’re typically looking for um from a simplistic perspective. >> Okay. I I’ll I’ll appreciate that. I just wasn’t clear where the may wave and then you know deemed as necessary and then the scope of work. It just doesn’t flow procedurally on how that would would work.

06:33:14
Um my second question is related to the fasttrack service limitations uh which is section 3.12 to 3.16 and it does say that it’s subject to resource availability and doesn’t guarantee faster permit issuance. So, how would we address that um misunderstanding or dissatisfaction amongst applicants who pay those fees expecting the expedited service but are unaware of how to disclose when any of those disqualifiers may be occurring >> through the chair to you counselor.

06:33:47
Um that’s done through the pre-conultation. So, we have conversations with the applicant if they’re interested in this service before they actually pay those fees. the manager of building permits will check with staff, see if they have capacity um all dependent on vacation coverage and that sort of thing and based on this the answers of staff go back to the proponent uh and have that conversation regard is it feasible to supply that service in that specific time of the year.

06:34:15

So do we have a separate policy on how that process works? That’s part of this because it was it wasn’t captured like how you are explaining it in this document which is my question around concerns around ambiguity >> in 315 it talks about uh subject to the availability of city resources. So all depending on where we are within the year vacation coverage if we’re if we’re looking at holiday seasons or midsummer due to vacation coverage and that sort of thing.

06:34:43
If we get an influx of fasttrack um presumably fasttrack applications or or submissions, the manager will go back. If there’s no staff capacity, we go back to the opponent say at this time we don’t have capacity. You’ll go through the normal building permit process. Therefore, we don’t take the fasttrack fee or don’t expedite that review.

06:35:01

Just see Blake has his uh >> Yeah, that’s two questions also just for >> Yeah, you’re the only one right now, but go ahead Blake. Uh thank you chair and and through you to the council just in respect to the uh question where in the bylaw itself would help give some guidance to uh what is required and that would be at 3.

06:35:19
1 of the bylaw 3.1b uh where uh every application shall be accompanied by documents information specified by the act the code the bylaw or as otherwise required by the CBO. uh that in conjunction with 3.1D which is uh um the permit for application should be subject to pre-screening to confirm the requirements of met to the satisfaction of the CBO.

06:35:42
So those would be the two sections of the operative authority I think you’re working for how that appendix would work. >> Yeah, that’s helpful. I’m I’m also trying to read this as if I were making an application. So that’s why I’m trying to understand it from a user lens instead of a a policy lens. Thank you, counselor.

06:36:06
Would you like to move the report? >> Happy to move it. >> Okay. Would you like to comment? >> No. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Seeing none, I’ll read out the uh motion here. Approve the proposed new building permit bylaw substantially in the form attached as appendex A to development and growth management report DGM1826 to repeal and replace city of Burlington bylaw 66209 the building permit bylaw being a bylaw under the building code act 1992 respecting construction demolition change of use occupancy transfer permits and inspections. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. On to our last item 12.2 for today. Amendment to Burlington Housing Community Improvement Plan DGM 3526. Staff have been waiting patiently for their turn. Glad you can make it. Kate Hill uh Montigue supervisor planning

06:37:06
policy will provide a presentation >> through the chair. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council, and the public. I’m pleased to be here today to support the recommended amendment uh to the city’s housing community improvement plan. So, at the statutory p public meeting back on April 14th, staff did provide an overview of the proposed amendment and heard feedback from the community and council.

06:37:31
The draft amendment was attached as appendix A to staff report DGM2726 and it proposed at the time four draft temporary community improvement plan or CIP programs. Since that statutory public meeting, the team has been working to finalize the amendment based on the comments received from the public, the development community, and from council and have received additional comments through engagement with the pipeline department to permit committee, the housing and development liaison committee, meetings with the Burlington accessibility advisory committee, and with members of the development community and the public. The purpose of the presentation today is to provide a brief overview of the changes that have been made to the CIP amendment over the last few weeks. The finalized amendment is attached as appendix A to the recommendation report DGM 3526 which is before committee today and for council’s consideration on May 26 and it includes five temporary uh community improvement plan programs. Next slide please. Uh this slide provides a summary of the

06:38:34
funding considerations for the temporary programs over a three-year period. So staff have identified the city’s housing accelerator fund as the funding source for the temporary uh community improvement plan programs. Year one, which would be 2026 um of the program will be funded by $5 million in available funding from the housing accelerator fund.

06:38:52
Um but I did want to flag that due to the structure of the housing accelerator fund, all available half or housing accelerator fund dollars must be spent by December 31st, 2027. and any additional funding is subject to the city’s ability to meet its housing accelerator fund targets. In 2027, early 2027, staff will report back with information about program uptake, confirm the availability of any additional uh housing accelerator funding that may become available and recommend a 2027 funding approach.

06:39:26
In year three and beyond, long-term community improvement plan funding and administration will be determined by future business cases that will be informed by the monitoring of how the first two years of the uh temporary CIP programs operate. Next slide, please. So, the table on the slide uh shows the funding approach for just 2026.

06:39:46
That’s at $5 million available through the housing accelerator fund. and it shows the funding caps for each of the temporary programs and the estimated number of units or projects that may be incentivized at the discretion of the commissioner of development and growth management. The funding may be redistributed across the temporary programs subject to funding availability and this will allow for flexibility that is responsive to program uptake to help ensure the funding is available for those well subscribed programs. So I’ll just go through the table really quickly. Um, so first up is the development charge reduction grant for purpose-built rental units. The funding cap is set at $2 million. For the development charge reduction grant for ownership units, the funding cap is set at $2.3 million. And the I wanted to flag that the estimated range of units that may be incentivized is quite wide for this program. Um, this is because the number of units um that may be incentivized will depend on the type of pro of developments that uh

06:40:44
choose to participate in the program. So, this program does provide a 100% grant for the city’s portion of the development charges for our missing middle type developments and a 30% equivalent grant um for mid-rise and tall buildings. So, what this means is that the grants for units in a mid-rise or tall building built form cost significantly less to incentivize um per unit um compared to the low-rise buildings.

06:41:08
Moving on to the missing middle and municipal fee waiver. Um the cap is set at $400,000. Um and based on the feedback we heard uh about simplifying programs and ensuring the delivery of units quickly, we removed the missing middle affordable grant temporary program and replaced it with the simplified missing middle municipal fee waiver program.

06:41:28
This simplified program waves up to 100% of eligible municipal permit fees for missing middle housing forms to a maximum of $40,000 per project. The tax increment equivalent grant program um relies on the deferral of property tax uplift and does not require any funding and therefore has no funding cap.

06:41:49
And lastly, the accessible design grant has a funding cap of $300,000. And this program was added to the suite of temporary CIP programs as a result of the feedback received at the statutory public meeting as well as subsequent engagement with the Burlington Accessibility Advisory Committee. And this program can be um paired with other programs to grant eligible applicants um funding uh to incorporate universal or barrierfree design or accessible design practices and features that exceed the Ontario building code.

06:42:19
Next slide, please. So this slide summarizes the changes made to the amendment based on the feedback received and we’ve sort of rolled them up into four categories. Uh this is a very brief summary. Um a detailed list of the changes that were made to the amendment can be found in appendix B of staff report DGM 3526.

06:42:37
So that first one, the streamlined eligibility criteria and application process. So, some examples include um establishing an application window to provide clarity um and also increasing flexibility by introducing a 2% variance at the discretion of the comm director of community planning for programs with a unit mix requirement and a 5% variance available to submissions that can be made before December 31st, 2026.

06:43:02
Number two is uh the restructured missing middle support. So, as I mentioned in the previous slide, the missing middle affordable rental housing grant was removed and replaced with the simpler missing middle municipal fee waiver program. That third category is greater certainty for near-term development.

06:43:19
And some of those changes include um the removal of the minimum rental tenure requirement for programs uh allowing program stacking and an early admission pathway for shovel ready projects was introduced. So, the early admission pathway will prioritize applications to the CIP programs that demonstrate the ability to submit a complete application to a temporary CIP program and a complete application for a building permit by September 1st, 2026.

06:43:49
This pathway does not limit the ability of an applicant to make a successful application to a temporary CIP uh program outside of that pathway. Um this pathway does proide priority access to CIP program funding and given the limited funding available participation in the early admission pathway provides more certainty related to access to funding.

06:44:08
And lastly um enhanced accessibility initiatives. So the addition of an accessibility improvements um were added to the eligible cost for the tax increment grant equivalent program and also the addition of the new accessible design grant uh temporary program. Next slide please. So this slide just covers next steps. So should the amendment be approved by council on May 26, um staff will work to prepare the uh to accept applications for the programs as soon as possible once the 20-day appeal period has been cleared in order to get the programs online as quickly as possible. Staff will also continue to monitor funding opportunities at the federal and provincial level as more details become available. This concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to take any questions. Thank you very much. Who would like to go first? Councelor Bentinia. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, thank you for the, uh, presentation. I just want to clarify, and I know I’ve had the

06:45:08
discussion already with our commissioner, but I want to make sure that everyone’s aware of it. So, our seniors rental retirement homes, we know are part of the program. We have funding in 2026 through half. When will we know or if we know whether it will be fully subscribed in 2026? And the reason why I ask because I is will any leftover funding go into 2027 when you come with the report.

06:45:40
And I I appreciate the fact that we might get more half money from the government in 2027. Let’s assume, put that aside. Will any leftover funding go into 2027 >> through the chair? So, we will come back in early 2027 um providing um a monitoring report on the uptake of the program, any and any funding that’s left available or if any new funding’s become available.

06:46:08
And so, at that time, we’ll be able to recommend what what should happen should there be any funding left over from that $5 million we know we have right now. In addition, if I can add through the chair to the counselor, we as part of that monitoring report, we will also be looking at projects are advancing or not and in regular contact with applicants and if we are of the opinion that the project is not advancing or the applicant indicates they’re not proceeding with it, then we will reallocate those funds to sort of the waiting list. I was just looking at the accessory dwelling unit where we offered half grants to those homeowners who wanted to add an accessory dwelling unit and approximately 16% of the people who originally contacted the city and initiated the process for one of those grants ultimately withdrew or cancelled their application. So then we took their money and put it to the next individual on the waiting list rather than just having unutilized funds because the goal is to get housing units started. So that’ll be part of the monitoring

06:47:06
program to ensure that we are advancing the funds or cancelling somebody’s allocation and reallocating it to the next person on the list. If we feel that the project that was originally qualified for a grant is not advancing based on conversations with the applicant. Obviously we won’t unilaterally do it.

06:47:22
We will give them a chance to what’s going on. But if we have a conversation with them and we both agree that they’re not proceeding this year or next year, then we will just withdraw those funds and reallocate it to make sure the money is actually getting out the door because that is our primary objective to award these grants to help stimulate new construction from happening.

06:47:42
So if somebody is, you know, if there’s 50 spots and you’re number 51, it doesn’t mean you may not get a grant. It all depends what happens with the other projects. Thank you. >> Thank you. That sounds like an awful lot of work back and forth, but I appreciate the that was one of my next questions. So, thank you very much for that.

06:48:00
Very helpful. >> Mayor Mewood is next. >> Thank you. Uh, we have received some uh correspondence and there were some additional questions that I’d really be interested to hearing your thoughts on. Um, so in no particular order, there was uh a request to potentially extend or remove the September 1st early admission deadline, particularly for mid-rise and high-rise uh buildings uh just to kind of reflect the fact that those take a little longer to land versus the ground oriented. What are your thoughts on that >> through the chair? Um, so I think remembering that the um, advanced pathway does not preclude someone from making an application that doesn’t meet that September 1st deadline. It doesn’t necessarily mean the application won’t be successful. Um, I think also remembering that because we’re using housing accelerator fund dollars, um,

06:49:00
we’re trying to kind of do two things with this sort of early adoption sort of, um, application process. Um, part of the housing accelerator fund is that we are trying to make good on those targets for the housing accelerator funding. We can only get credit for building permits we pull until December 31st uh, 2026.

06:49:20
Um, so part of it is about trying to get those who are able to take advantage of the programs quickly to do so so we can get credit towards our targets. And the other piece being that we also can only spend this money till the end of December 31st, 2027. then that money can no longer be used um by the municipality.

06:49:36
So I think remembering that the September 1st is really to get those who have the ability to get shovels in the ground quickly to incentivize them to do so which is part of the incentivization pro pro um process acknowledging that some may not be able to do that but that there’s other opportunities to still make that application and still make use of the funding if there’s funding still available.

06:49:59

Okay. Uh, and just so just to follow up on that, um, I’m just trying to bring together the two deadlines you mentioned. The, uh, >> you have to pull a permit by the end of this year, but the funding program goes to the end of 2027 next year. >> Yeah. So, so through the chair, um, so we have construction criteria that, um, set some timing around when we think it would be feasible to pull a permit and then get that permit approved and still be able to um, get the money spent by December 31st, 2027. So, we did work with our colleagues in um buildings to make sure that we had sort of set these timelines out in a way that ensures that we’re setting up the applicants for success so that they can actually make that December 31st, 2027 deadline so that we can still pay out the funding from for the CIP.

06:50:57

Okay. Uh thank you. And then uh the second question is around uh is there any consideration to projects that are kind of already underway um with active or substantially complete applications to qualify for this or does it have to be a brand new start to finish? No. No. Absolutely. So part of the work that was conducted in the background over the course of the last few weeks was there was outreach to those who um have applications within the pipeline at varying stages to alert them to the programs that we’re trying to get approved and to to gauge interest in participation in those programs. We did get some responses back, some informal responses um showing interest in the programs. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Councelor God. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Uh, that was kind of along the same lines as my question. I I I have some projects that are uh they’re phased projects. So, phase one has been virtually completed,

06:51:57
but phase two will, you know, is is subject to sales, subject to the changing uh economic environment. So, a phase 2 project of a similar the exact same site would would be eligible for um some money under this program or some relief >> through the chair. Uh assuming they can get a building permit pulled.

06:52:19
So, for a mid-rise or tall building, assuming a building permit for an above ground building permit, I should say, can be pulled on or before December 31st, 2027 or an occupancy permit for um a missing middle uh development. >> Okay, that’s great. Um, and then I don’t uh do we do we track uh jobs at all? I know we talk a lot about units and how many units uh potentially are can can be created with some of these funds, but do we ever do we ever look at jobs? It’s just an important figure that I’ve sort of been focusing on um >> through the chair um through this monitoring work. We haven’t identified that. However, I will flag that the Halton um employment survey does track and monitor employment by location in the region on an annual basis and so we may be able to to pull some data from that.

06:53:16
I think it would be a good measure to um at least locally um you know these half funds are are creating much neededed housing but uh um the job market was very concerning uh with with no construction happening and and I you know I I always look at that as a good figure in our local economy for for success.

06:53:36
So if we could relate that somehow it would be a great measure. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you Mayor Midwart. back to you. >> Thank you. Um, we we received again another uh piece of correspondence with uh some questions for clarification. There were about six of them. I’m not going to ask you to answer all of them here.

06:53:58
Although uh I’m going to ask you if you can provide the the answers to some of them. Uh for example, the first one was whether there would be additional half funding available over and above the 5 million. I think that’s addressed in the report, but um could you undertake to um respond to those clarification points and make sure that council and the community is copied between now and council just so we know as well those the clarification answers.

06:54:30

Yes. >> Through the chair, we’d be happy to prepare a memo that is circulated in advance. >> Thank you. That’s it. Okay. Thank you. Could I have a volunteer to move the uh report please? Councelor Charman was first. Councelor Charman, would you like to comment? >> I certainly would. Thank you very much.

06:54:49
We started this journey in the pipeline to permit with all good intentions. We got a little derailed along the way with some very valid arguments and uh we little bit of bobbing and giving and worked with staff who helped us uh shape reshape the whole model into a CIP project that has been funded by half money.

06:55:13
Um we’ve we’ve gone so far with this refunding accessibility um the aspects to homes. I think this is a major success. um in principle. Now we have to deliver housing out of it. So I’m I’m delighted that we’re on the we’re on the path and and deliver something that we had hoped we could deliver in a very effective and efficient way. Thank you.

06:55:36

Thank you very much. Any other commenters? Mayor Meboard. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh I want to thank uh the entire staff team and everyone for uh a lot of work in a very short period of time. Uh it’s been uh quite a journey and um you know I think the community has had a number of opportunities as well to weigh in and I think what we have here shows that uh municipalities have a role to play in the delivery of housing and this is a way for us to play our role in an appropriate and responsible way and contribute to ensuring that we do incentivize the kind of housing that we want and that our community needs and is asking for. Um we don’t have the details as noted in the report on how we might access the $ 8.8 billion that the federal and provincial governments have partnered together uh

06:56:35
for those municipalities that do DC cuts uh as this report contemplates. Right now it’s funded through housing accelerator fund. Uh but I will be very interested to see how we might uh access some of that funding as well um in an appropriate way uh to bring some of that money back to our community.

06:56:55
And one of the conversations that’s have that’s being had among um mayors and others is uh if you do a DC reduction inside of a community improvement plan so it’s not that across the board uh reduction uh would that still you know qualify for uh applying for that for some of that 8.8 uh billion dollar funding.

06:57:19
So that is a question that has been put to the minister and team at the minister of municipal mun um municipal affairs and housing department. Uh the staff there have received that uh query and they are looking into that. Uh which is good because that would uh certainly allow us then to uh get in the queue and and see how we might access some of that funding to do even more for our residents.

06:57:44
So still to come on that. This is um this is a really good step and it shows that we are serious in doing our part to incentivize housing of all types and levels. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Seeing no more comments and I’ll call the vote on the following motion. Approve the proposed new building permit bylaw substantially in the form attached as appendix A to development and growth management report DGM1826 to Oh, I’m on the wrong one.

06:58:15
on the wrong one. Hang on. I knew that was gonna happen. Oh, this one’s even longer. Approve the amendment to the affordable rental housing community improvement plan attached as appendix A to development and growth management report DGM 3526 at the direction of council’s referral motion of March 2nd, 2026 and instruct the clerk to prepare the necessary bylaws to amend the bylaw to designate the community improvement project area and amend the bylaw that adopted the affordable rental housing community improvement plan in accordance with section 28 of the planning act and deem that section 1721 of the planning act has been met. and approve the recommendation for implementation and funding found in this report related to 2026 and direction for 2027 and direct the director of community planning to prepare a budget business case for the 2028 budget to identify program priorities and propose for council consideration city budget or other

06:59:15
budget sources to support implementation of the full range of housing community improvement programs. All those in favor? Any opposed? That carries. That concludes our agenda for today. See you tomorrow. We will recess and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30.