Posts by tag: Hamilton City Council

Hamilton City Council Meeting April 10, 2013 [replay]
Posted by
10 April

Hamilton City Council Meeting April 10, 2013 [replay]

Hamilton City Council meets at 5pm today to ratify the 2013 City budget and vote on a new transit fare parity policy.

Livestream at 5pm

2013 Budget

The 2013 Budget is coming in with a 1.9 percent property tax increase, approximately $60 per household in the city. The impact will vary across different regions of the city due to area rating. Those numbers are not yet available.

HSR Fare Parity

Councillors will vote on a new fare policy for persons with physical disabilities that will change the “voluntary pay” policy into a no-charge policy for those with wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers. Four-pronged canes will no longer be exempt from paying fare as of June 1st.

Don Hull, director of transit, states the change is a justifiable accommodation for those who need to board HSR buses by the rear door.

CNIB cardholders will continue to use transit at no-charge as well. Hull notes that for many of the citizens covered by this policy, the mechanisms of paying fare pose a barrier to using the transit system.

The new HSR fare structure will be carried over to DARTS – the city’s specializated transit services for those requiring more assistance to use transit services.

Live Updates

0 1 10 April, 2013 more
Posted by
03 April

Hamilton City Council GIC Budget – April 3rd, 2013

The morning session can be viewed above

Morning Session – Police Budget, Clappison’s Corners

Hamilton City Council meet in General Issues Committee on April 3rd to debate the police budget and transit fare parity.

Police Budget

Council voted to hold the line on the police budget at a 3.52% increase over 2012 with clear direction to the Police Services Board and Chief of Police Glenn DeCaire to not hire any new staff in 2013.

Council’s budget must now be considered by the Police Services Board at their next meeting on April 15th. The Board can accept Council’s budget or appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

After the meeting, Police Services Board Chair Nancy DiGregorio would not state how she expected the Board or herself to vote. Mayor Bob Bratina gave strong indications during the GIC meeting that he will vote to appeal to the budget to OCPC.

If OCPC hears the appeal, their decision will be final and binding upon Hamilton City Council. OCPC is empowered to set the budget higher than requested by the police service.

Clappison’s Corners

The Ministry of Transportation attended Council to discuss their plans for constructing a grade-separated interchange at the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 6 in Flamborough. MTO is planning to make Highway 6 a separated highway between the 403 and 401. The impact of a grade-separated interchange will significant for access to local businesses in the area.

Highway 5 east of Highway 6 was downloaded to the municipality in the 90s and the City will be paying 25% of the interchange cost.

The MTO needs to buy land on all sides of the intersection for construction of the interchange and is currently paying fair-market value for land. Eventually, the province will move to exproitate as needed.

Afternoon session

Hamilton City Council GIC meeting – April 3, 2013 (Afternoon Session) from JoeyColeman on Vimeo.

Police Budget (Morning Session)
Transit Fare Parity
Downtown Improvement Grants (Morning Session)
Clappison's Corners Interchange Proposal (Morning Session)

0 0 03 April, 2013 more
Posted by on 20 May

City Hall again releasing Council agendas on Fridays

City Council agendas are again being released to the public on Fridays. This follows two months during which the release was delayed three days until the Monday prior to the meeting.

Using the City definition, this is a rollback in transparency.

The withholding of public agendas was one of the weirder decisions at City Hall this spring during a period in which Council promised a new era of transparency after the Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin slammed them for improper in-camera meetings.

It seemed the definition of “transparency” used by Council was the same as their infamous “accountability and transparency” sub-committee.

The delay started Easter Weekend when City staff decided to withhold the agenda over the long weekend and only make it public the day prior to the Council meeting. I noted this here.

The response from City Hall? From that point forward, all releases would occur after weekends, not before as had been practice for as long as anyone could remember. I protested this blatantly anti-transparent move. I emailed Council on a regular basis and made a point of noting this blatantly conflicted with their promises of transparency.

It appears the message was received.

So, with Council agendas being released on-time again, I’ll turn my attention back to getting the “accountability and transparency” sub-committee to be both transparent and accountable. Wish me luck…. I’ll need it.

 

This week’s

0 0 20 May, 2012 more
Posted by on 12 April

Expropriation – a new tool to address problem properties in Hamilton

Hamilton City Council voted yesterday to expropriate the City Motor Hotel.

It’s a significant and precedent setting vote – it’s the first time our city government is using the expropriation process as a means to solve a property standards (crime) issue.

Matt Jelly asked yesterday why the City is not using expropriation to deal with toxic sites and other properties with known danger to the public.

Could this be the next front of expropriation?

What about properties with owners who wish to abandon their properties? The present method of abandonment is tax arrears. The owner allows the city to seize the property after years of not paying properties taxes and is left with nothing but gains the lost of a headache property in the process.

If they instead allow the property to become a haven of crime, does this lead to an expropriation and the property owner walking away with fair market value?

There is no doubt that something needed to be done about the City Motor Hotel – the problems there and caused in the surrounding neighbourhood are well documented – and the community is relieved to know their long nightmare is nearing an end.

The city will soon own a property to redevelop. There is some discussion about “private developers” eventually being involved in the redevelopment. While this could happen, the ownership will likely remain with the city – any attempt to sale the property must begin with an offer to the previous owner. (Section 42 of the Expropriations Act)

It’s a new frontier – let’s hope it doesn’t encourage neglect of other properties in the city.

0 0 12 April, 2012 more
City voting on expropriation of crime hotbed City Motor Hotel
Posted by
10 April

City voting on expropriation of crime hotbed City Motor Hotel

City Motor Hotel

Hamilton City Council is holding a special meeting tomorrow afternoon to vote on expropriating the now-infamous City Motor Hotel.

The rundown landmark is a hotbed of criminal activity at the Queenston Traffic Circle. Council’s special meeting comes exactly a week – and nearly to the hour – of the latest incident at the City Motor. Police swooped in last Wednesday around noon to arrest Jason Fraser, 40, in the murder of Ron Crawford.

During the arrest of Fraser, police found three other people, including his girlfriend, in the unit. All four are charged with possession of cocaine.

The expropriation

A report by City staff recommends the expropriation of the property – which is listed for sale by two separate parties – due to land ownership complications. It is not actually clear who the title for the property belongs to.

From the report:

This property is listed for sale by two independent real estate brokerage firms at
different prices and representing different owners.

The title to these lands is clouded and it is unclear as to which party actually owns the property. Furthermore, the corporation that is the registered owner, has been dissolved, and there are several court orders registered against the title. There are also various liens registered on title in favour of both the federal and provincial governments, plus other writs, and notices.

The report states the City plans to redevelop the property and the budget line for purchase is “Ward 4 Capital Re-investment” which points to this being an initiative of ward 4 councillor Sam Merulla.

Merulla and the City Motor Hotel

Councillor Merulla waged a high profile campaign to change municipal bylaws to increase regulations on the City Motor Hotel following a series of high profile concerning crime incidents, especially a shot fired incident last fall.

Merulla successfully passed a new hotel/motel licensing bylaw last month. His legislation is city-wide, but motivated by incidents at the City Motor Hotel.

An interesting past… a promising future?

The City Motor Hotel is an iconic Hamilton site. Once a Holiday Inn, its history is a series of ups and downs. A popular and respected motel for the early years of its existence, the business appears to have suffered it’s decline into notoriety during the recession of the early 90s.

This Vancouver Sun article from 1986 describes the hotel as “”the fabulous City Motor Hotel (“each room and suite appointed with TV, radio, phone and private bath, heated”)”

1995, a man was evicted from the property after 100 pigeons were discovered living with him.
1996, The Spectator has a story of a cocaine dealers arrested at the hotel.
1997, the hotel went bankrupt.
1999, things were looking up for the hotel as it hosted 300 Kosovar refugees.
2003, new owners invest heavily in the hotel and it hosts attendees of the world road cycling championships.

From there, it’s been downhill. Today, it’s at rock bottom with ownership unclear.

Let’s hope our (City) ownership of the hotel results in something great for the city.

The meeting starts at 1 p.m. I’ll try to be in attendance.

0 0 10 April, 2012 more
Posted by on 06 March

The problem of not-so-secret secret Council documents

Update: at 0825EST on March 7, 2012, the city clerk’s office sent me a copy of the TO2015 letter.

City Hall has a problem, they often don’t release public documents presented to and debated by Council in a timely fashion.

Once a document is debated by Council or slides shown to Council, they are public documents – full stop.

By law, they should be available. Too often, they are not.

Pan Am baseball stadium letter

The latest public document the City is refusing to release: the letter from TO2015 requesting interest from communities to build a baseball stadium for the games.

Council discussed the letter during their meetings last week.

I requested a copy of this public document from Clerks only to be told it will be released tomorrow night during the Council meeting.

The letter was received by the City on March 1st and should’ve been included with the documents released as part of the Council agenda posted Monday. It was not.

Not released – why?

Usually this means the letter was not forwarded to the Clerks by the receiving staff. This happens on a regular basis.

It means citizens are not able to read the letter in advance of Council debating it and not able to provide their elected official with direction.

In this matter, the outcome is known – Council has no interest in the Pan Am and the public is with them on that.

Fixing the problem

The planned City website must include easier upload of public documents and staff must quickly forward documents to the Clerks. When slides are presented to Council, it must required that an electronic copy is immediately posted to the web.

As soon as a document is provided to Council for open session discussion, it should be posted as well.

In short, public documents should be publicly available.

0 0 06 March, 2012 more
Posted by on 11 January

Hamilton City Council for January 11, 2011 (12-001)

Apologies to my readers for the shortness and lateness of this post. Swamped with open data emails this week.

Hamilton City Council is holding their first meeting of 2012 tonight.

The Agenda is available on the City website here: AGENDA
The live video stream (and archive afterwards) of the meeting is here: VIDEO

I’ll be posting the entire agenda, with links and background links, to my site shortly and will be doing so for all future City Council and committee meetings. My New Year’s Resolutions include improving the civic discourse and coverage of civic government by providing comprehensive coverage of local government.

Following the meeting, I’ll host a Google+ video chat. Please visit my Twitter feed for that link when posted after the meeting.

Below is a live discussion box. It will automatically pull in any tweet with the hashtag #YHMgov

 

0 0 11 January, 2012 more
Posted by on 26 July

Lesson learned: Never give Hamilton City Council a deadline

Update: Moments after posting this, The Hamilton Spectator reacted by publishing that they’ve been told there is now a deadline of August 30. I’m only slightly annoyed that days of dogged reporting is for nothing. The post below remains on my site, despite the sudden change from information given yesterday.

The Toronto 2015 Pan American Games organizing committee learned a valuable lesson from last year’s Pan Am stadium fiasco in Hamilton – NEVER give Hamilton City Council a deadline.

The proposed velodrome in Hamilton was scheduled to begin the “Request for Proposals” stage at the end of this week.

However, Hamilton City Council has not yet debated a site or the cost of the velodrome. There is no timeline for this debate to occur. Council’s August agenda is not public for another two weeks. If the velodrome is not on this agenda, the debate will have to wait for September.

I contacted Toronto 2015 on July 15 enquiring if the RFP’s would be issued this week.

“The date mentioned below [July 28] was a proposed date and we are still on schedule with this project,” replied Toronto 2015 communications advisory Carlene Siopis.

I emailed again yesterday. The response: “We are working with Infrastructure Ontario and the city of Hamilton on the velodrome project to bring it to closure as quickly as possible and deliver the desired outcome.”

Smart communications by Toronto 2015 – they learned.

0 0 26 July, 2011 more
Posted by on 17 July

City needs more from Mac to justify $55-million

Hamilton City Council is considering a request from McMaster University for $55-million to build a medical arts building on the property that currently houses the public school board headquarters.

The McMaster building is being promoted as a major breakthrough for downtown redevelopment as it is estimated by McMaster the building will bring 450 jobs, 4,000 student visitors, and 54,000 patient visits to the core each year.

McMaster is making an offer they believe City Council will be too afraid to turn down, lest they were known as the Council that kept McMaster from locating downtown.

We’ve seen City Council make decisions motivated by fear of a major community stakeholder leaving the table. The stadium debate last year was the starkest example of this dynamic in play.

Repeatedly, members of Council would state ‘I don’t want to be remembered for losing the Tiger-Cats’. This unwillingness to walk away from negotiations, even if the other party was not negotiating, allowed the Ticats to dictate the terms of the stadium debate.

The result is a renovated stadium with minimal city building potential.

City Council must not repeat this error; we need to make sure the city building potential of McMaster University downtown is not lost.

This building will not fix what ails the core and City Council needs to receive more in return for the $55-million that McMaster is requesting.

McMaster is dangling the possibility that, in the future, the university may consider building commercial space and condominiums on the north side of the property where the school board parking lot currently resides.

Upon first glance, it appears McMaster is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength. The University has the funding to build their medical centre anywhere they choose. None of the funding for the building restricts the site.[pullshow id="McMeekinDowntown"]

David Braley, now a member of Canada’s Senate, donated 50-million dollars to McMaster’s Faculty of Health Sciences in 2007. $10-million of this donation is directed to the new family medicine centre. Braley was clear in 2007 when, during the donation announcement in the McMaster University Student Centre, he stated McMaster should work with all three levels of government to locate in the core.

During the media scrum after the announcement, Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, stated:

“I cannot think of any place better where $10-million dollars can go than here at McMaster to go towards building a family medicine building in the downtown core” [pullthis id="McMeekinDowntown" display="outside"]“I cannot think of any place better where $10-million dollars can go than here at McMaster to go towards building a family medicine building in the downtown core” – Ted McMeekin, MPP[/pullthis]

It is clear that the political direction that influences McMaster is pushing the university to locate the building downtown.

The province and federal governments have both committed funding to the project.

McMaster’s negotiating position is equal to City Hall. They need the money from the City to successfully expand their medical program.

The university’s bond rating was downgraded in 2010 by DBRS. The rating remains high at AA (low). The downgrade was reflective of concerns about the university’s high pension deficit and the expectation that McMaster will be returning to the bond market in the near future to raise $100-million.

McMaster, like all Ontario universities, received a partial reprieve from pension plan solvency obligations last summer. The province extended the usual five year timeline for meeting solvency obligations to ten years for universities. McMaster’s pension deficit previously stood at $373-million, the second highest of any Canadian university.

The University’s unfunded pension and post-employment liabilities reached $589.9-million in 2009-10. The plan’s most recent evaluation was completed on July 1. It was expected to return a higher liability figure. (No response was received from McMaster University’s office of public relations to email sent Monday requesting the updated figure.)

McMaster’s debt was $153.3-million as of April 30, 2010.

Patrick Deane, the new president of McMaster University, has wisely started addressing the long-term financial challenges facing the institution. It is in this context that one must view the University’s requirement that City funding for the new building include a long-term lease commitment to house staff of the City’s public health department.

McMaster’s current hand contains a “We’ll move it to the Innovation Park” card. Will McMaster play this card or is a bluff?

It is, yet it is not, a bluff. McMaster could play this card, but playing it will impact the long-term revenue of the university. The MIP lands are designed to generate revenue for the institution by either housing private corporations (leasing revenue) or facilitating research that generates patents which are licensed or commercialised.

{I wrote about IP policies for Maclean’s in 2007)

The family medicine centre will not be a revenue generating facility and there is a limited supply of land at the MIP. It is not in the long term interest of the University to find the facility at MIP due to a lack of presently available capital funds.

The City does have its own trump card. McMaster needs the $20-million upfront and-$35 million long term.

It is not in the City’s interest to overplay its hand either.

The City is facing the real possibility of a vacant building directly across from City Hall. It’s not healthy for a prominent intersection such as the one housing City Hall to contain two vacant properties. It will further depress the downtown core.

The medical building will not correct the greatest problem facing the inner-downtown core. It will not bring any new permanent evening population into the inner-core.[pullshow id="MacInnercore"]

[pullthis id="MacInnercore"]The downtown needs McMaster to locate a student residence building in the inner-core[/pullthis] with an eventual expansion of undergraduate programs into the core.

The City of Hamilton should request, in exchange for $55-million for the medical building, that McMaster sign a Memorandum of Understanding committing to locating their next student residence in the downtown core.

The City should include a commitment to assume a third of the mortgage on the building in exchange for a commitment from the university to operate the residence as a summer hotel. The addition of hundreds of hotel spaces in the summer will greatly assist the city to secure convention business (one of our main barriers is a lack of accommodation). Additional conventions will make HEFCI a more attractive asset to potential private sector operators.

Hundreds of students living in the core will spark a boom in businesses catering to a younger demographic. One only needs to look at King and Main streets west of Catherine to see the impact of a student residence on the core. The Columbia College student residence in the former Holiday Inn on Catherine Street South is the driving force supporting a number of small businesses. The sushi restaurants in this area have become an attraction drawing people to the downtown core.[pullshow id="RoyalConnaught"]

[pullthis id="RoyalConnaught"]Imagine the possibilities that a joint bid by the City and McMaster University for the vacant Royal Connaught Building would create.[/pullthis]

University conversions of high quality hotels are success stories for every institution that have expanded their residences using this method. It’s also more cost-effective than the construction of a new building.

There’s an opportunity for City Council to see great returns on $55-million, they just need to see the forest for the trees they are hiding behind.

0 2 17 July, 2011 more
Posted by on 11 July

Hamilton City Council facing July deadline for velodrome

Hamilton City Council may need to hold at least one special meeting before the end of July as external deadline for the velodrome Request for Proposals process is July 28.

That’s when Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop stated he plans to issue the RFP for the new facility. In order to issue the RFP, a site is required.

When last updated by city staff, Council was looking at a partnership with Mohawk College to build the velodrome at the Fennell campus.

Unless Toronto 2015 delays the RFP process, we should expect City Council to meet in the next three weeks to decide the location.

 

0 0 11 July, 2011 more