February 17/04 Report
9:30 am

Present

Kelly
Ferguson
Pearson
Horwath
Merulla - arrived 11:18, left 12:04
Mitchell
Whitehead - absent
McHattie - absent
Also present:
Jackson
Morelli 11:48, left 12:11

Meeting began at 9:42 am and ended at 1:50 pm. Neither Glen Peace nor Joe Rinaldo were present.

Additions to the agenda.
4.2 Delegation request from Scott Snider
8.1 Requests to speak to this item on Meadowlands IV secondary plan: Ed Fothergill, Ron Gough, Gerry Shea, Ray Wilson, Mike Ryan, Adi Irani,
7.1 "There's a last minute report. This has just been given out this morning. We've just received it. That matter will be addressed by Guy Paparella." (COPY OBTAINED. It is dated February 12!)
Three requests to speak to 7.1 Murray Lumley, David Cohen and Lynda Lukasik.
All requests to speak were accepted without debate.

6.1 Application for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, "Fernwood Park Estates", for Lands Known Municipally as 243 East 45 th Street (Hamilton) (PD04042) (Ward 6)
Property is currently occupied by two schools that were recently shut down (Fernwood Park and Hampton Heights). Proposal is to build 46 homes here on 2.2 hectares. Staff say there's no need for more parkland in this area. The proponent is Adisco. In the 2000 elections, Adisco gave money to five councillors - Caplan, Collins, Kelly, D'Amico and Jackson. Issues raised by citizens include poor water pressure at existing homes.
Angelo Commercia (ph) representing Urbex Engineering spoke in support - wasn't picked up on the tape.

Public delegation by Joan Roberts: She noted David Miller's comments on CBC yesterday and Mr. DiIanni's commitment to transparency. She noted that Adisco had given campaign contributions in 2000 to councillors and asked the present councillors if any received contributions in 2003 election campaign and if they declare a conflict. The tape did not pick up her microphone (at the podium) Part of her initial remarks included: "So, I have a question to ask re Adisco, who is the proponet in this application. In the 2000 election, councillors Caplan, D'Amico, Jackson, Kelly, and Collins received money from Adisco Development. As you know, 2003 election records are not available yet... So in the light of being transparent, honest, and decent, I am asking all those who took money from Adisco in the last election to declare a conflict of interest with this project and thus refrain from voting on this application."
(tape kicks in) Kelly asked "Are you finished". Roberts replied that she'd asked a question and was waiting for an answer. Kelly: "I can only speak for myself. I can't speak for other councillors…. What I would ask you do is finish your presentation since you only have a five minute time limit, and council will deal with it accordingly"
Roberts: "Well depending on what they say, I need to respond to it. Developers often fund councillors so it has to be a conflict of interest. It's so very very closely connected. If it is, they should not be able to vote on items such as this. So what I'm asking you Mr. Kelly is that going to happen?"
Kelly: "Ms. Roberts I can only tell you that's your interpretation, and that's clearly not the interpretation. It's up to each individual councillor's judgement and interpretation themselves as to how they want to deal with these issues. That may be your interpretation."
Roberts: "Well, what is the law?"
Kelly: "The law, madam, is that it's up to each councillor's conscience whether or not they decide to declare a conflict in situations like that. That's the state of procedure and that's the state of process. I would suggest to you though that since we're here for a Planning and Economic Development meeting I'd be happy to entertain a discussion about the procedure later on, but my guess is from my standpoint, no I won't be declaring a conflict. And I can't speak for anyone else."
At this point Jackson is trying to get Kelly's attention and Kelly tells him to wait until Roberts finishes her presentation.
Roberts: "Can you tell me why it's not a conflict of interest? I need to know this. I don't understand this. We just had a nasty episode a little while ago with a contract being awarded to StrategyCorp and to the mayor's executive assistant's wife who works for them. Now that is quite a distance and it took umbrage with that. so certainly this is much much closer. It's not even arms length when a developer gives money to a councillor, and a councillor sits on and has a chance to vote whether an application is going to go through or not. Are you trying to say they're not influenced by that? Is that the feeling that they're not influenced by donations?"
Kelly: "Ms. Roberts I'm going to answer this on my behalf and not on behalf of the rest of the council. And I will simply tell you this, that every time that I put my name forward for public office, I promise people one thing - that is good government and fairness. That is all they are going to get from me. There is no favourtism on my part. Never has been. Never will be. And quite frankly the fact that you're even insuinating that one leads to another is a giant leap on your behalf. I'm going to end the conversation at that point because I really don't that that's fair at this stage on behalf of the other councillors who aren't here to defend themselves either. If you want to talk about the issue, I'd be happy to listen to you for about the next minute because that's about all the time you have left. If in fact you came down here this morning to cast aspersions on the character of councillors this is hardly the forum for it ma'm."
Roberts: "That's not the point I'm trying to make.."
Kelly: "Well the point I'm trying to make ma'm is that we're here to discuss a certain issue. I invited you down here to speak on this issue. If you have a concern about the quality of the councillors or about the integrity of the councillors, this, this morning is not the forum to do that. I suggest that you've made your point and I've discussed it and I've given you an answer. You may not like the answer, but if you don't want to continue to talk about this issue we're simply going to move on."
Roberts: "It's not that I came down here to make trouble. I need to have clear in my mind, because I'm not the only one that thinks that developers have a pretty good hold on a lot of things that happen. My question then is why would developers give donations to councillors, specific councillors in specific wards, if they didn't think that would be an influence. It's a rhetorical question, okay? They don't give donations to everybody, but it's to specific councillors so that's my concern. And if you're telling me that they do it out of the goodness of their heart, well then I guess I'll have to believe that."
Kelly: "Maybe ma'm, it's because they expect that the people they're making the contributions to can offer good government."
Roberts: "Well why don't they support everybody then?"
Kelly: "Maybe they do. Maybe there's people that they don't think can offer good government. And that's a rhetorical question. Anyway, I don't want to get off on track and I'm not going to entertain your question because that's not what we're here for today."
Jackson wants to speak on this, but Kelly tries to discourage him, the relents because he was mentioned.
Jackson: "Since Mrs. Roberts is casting aspersions and used my name along with several others, I just need to respond if I could, please. Mr. Chairman, I have represented the people of Ward 6 to the best of my ability for 15 plus years. I take.. I give donations. I get support from individuals. I get support from ordinary people. I get support from unions. I get support from developers and business people. And I'm very proud of the fact that I do at the end of the day what's best for the people of Ward 6. And you know it's ironic. Mrs Roberts talked about the contracting out last week, but of course she doesn't give credit to those who voted against the contracting out, which I was one of. But of course she doesn't give credit for that, but simply credit.. or she just casts aspersions. It's because I know the agenda. I know that there's one or two issues that people, some people, are extremely passionate and fervent about, and in my humble opinion, it drives the other comments and the other opionions and feelings that they express and that's very very unfortunate. And I say that Mr. Chairman because my record in terms of what I've done in Ward 6 whether it's been to build libraries, rec centres, renovate Macassa Lodge, build an animal shelter, with community and staff. I'm very proud of the record I've got and I have here before me and I won't be swayed by any one individual or any one developer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me that."
Kelly: "Thank you councillor and I want to get back on the beam here. I want to start talking about the issues involved here. We're talking about issues, and we're going to come into this an awful lot as we go through this budget this year. There's going to be some rather contentious issues. As long as I'm chairing this committee, as long as I'm the one at the head of this table, we will talk about the issues, and not impugning the integrity of anyone around here. If you can't talk about the merits of the issues or the demerits of the issue, then fine. But to try to impugne the integrity of those that may be opposed to you is something I don't want to tolerate around here."

Jackson subsequently spoke about the development and indicated that "we had a choice between adding an extra 15-20 feet - a swath from 9th to 10th Avenue" or "taking the cash-in-lieu which amounts to $120,000". Long range planning document in last term of council that said two areas most deficient in parkland and greenspace "are the Peace Memorial neighbourhood in Ward 6 and Sherwood Heights". So Jackson promises to earmark these dollars towards. Note that the staff report says the City reviewed the schools to determine if they should be acquired for parkland and they there were "not identified as a Priority Acquisition site for the City, due to the fact that the site is immediately adjacent to Fernwood Park and in very close proximity to Hampton Park". Also said: "This is an infill development. We're constantly accused of urban boundary expansion development."

Comments on this item by Councillor Pearson and Mitchell both praised Jackson.

Motion adopted without opposition.

6.2 Application for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, "Jerome Estates", and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Known Municipally as Part of 114 and 128 Limeridge Road East (Hamilton) (PD04045) (Affects Ward 7)
Item 6.2 is for a subdivision of 45 single family detached homes on 3.2 hectares of agriculture-zoned land. This is low density and is located more than 400 m from the nearest HSR line, on the north side of the Linc, west of Upper Wellington. The land is currently agricultural and there is a historic pear orchard and old homesite on the property. Staff report supported by proponent. No questions from councillors.

Don McLean spoke to this issue: tape did not pick up the podium microphone. McLean noted that the subdivision is immediately adjacent to the Linc and consequently staff are requiring a noise assessment. He suggests that an air quality assessment also be required because (1) there is extensive scientific literature documenting adverse health effects on people living near major roadways; (2) Hamilton has done a specific study on the air pollution effects of the Linc and found that it does generate increased levels of pollution especially particulate pollution; and (3) the City has also received a report from Clean Air Hamilton that warns of the increased particulate pollution from trucks and the Linc is anticipated to have an increased number of trucks as a result of the construction of the Red Hill Valley expressway. McLean noted that the provincial policy statement requires steps to prevent adverse effects including those of contaminants. McLean also raised concerns about the fact that the subdivision is more than 400 metres from transit services and argued that the City needs to avoid unsustainable forms of development. No questions from councillors.

Horwath: Comments from McLean are important and asks staff for comments and recommendations.
Tim McCabe, Director of Development: "I do agree as well that these are important issues, but they are much more broader issues that should be taken into account at the Official Plan stage. These lands, similar to other lands, are already designated residential. In 23-years of development planning, I've never seen a condition attached to a draft plan to do a study on air quality and it would be fairly difficult to come up with abatement measures with respect to a specific plan of subdivision other than not designating it residential. Again, I do think it's important. I don't think it's appropriate or even possible that we could put an effective type condition related to a specific subdivision application but it should be taken into account and studied seriously as part of our Official Plan review." Horwath asks if there is an intent to look at this in OP review. Kelly refers question to Joanne Hickey-Evans: "Part of the GRIDS process, there is a study that we will be dealing with air quality. In addition, we will be looking at general air quality issues throughout. The specific policy reference, I'm not sure, we're not at that stage yet, but it will be something we will take into consideration."
Motion carried with no registered opposition.

6.3 Regional Official Plan Amendment Application to Remove the Mineral Aggregate (Gravel and Sand) Designation from Certain Lands in the Former Town of Ancaster (PD04043) (Ward 12)
Application is by Silvestri Investments. P. Silvestri made a campaign donation in 2000 to D'Amico. The lands are currently designated for aggregate extraction which prevents other uses. Silvestri wants this designation removed. There's no indication of what they want to do with the land now, but the new Highway 6 will run right along the boundary of the property. The staff proposal is to eliminate the aggregate designation over the whole area, except a small part where there is currently a viable sand and gravel business. The justification is that the sand and gravel is "of low economic value". Silvestri lands are about ¼ to 1/3 of the designated area. Tony Thompson spoke briefly on behalf of the proponent.

Objection raised by a citizen named Ann Hewitt, living at 33 Garner Road East across from Silvestri lands. She wanted to know what Silvestri planned to do with the lands. Thompson replies that "the Silvestri's are developers" but doesn't say what they plan to do. Staff note that the lands are outside the urban boundary so development is not going to happen "tomorrow". Hewitt presses that the change in designation is helping Silvestri develop the lands. Joanne Hickey-Evans (staff): "It is not hastening this along. We would be looking at our mineral aggregate designations anyway as part of our new Official Plan, as well as dealing with the growth strategy. We will be dealing with all lands in the City." Also notes that these lands are affected by the greenbelt moratorium. Kelly "explains" to the citizen and says there will have to be a further public meeting in future to deal with any proposed development on the lands, after the moratorium expires.
Hewitt recommends that the removal of the mineral designation only apply to Silvestri's lands, but not the rest of the area nearby. No response from staff to this.
Horwath: "Is the intention of the developer to bring an application for urban boundary expansion outside of the GRIDS process". Thompon: "Eventually, I'm sure there will be an application on these lands." Horwath asks staff for update on GRIDS. Hickey-Evans: In the midst of doing background studies, looking at series of options. It will be 2005 before this is completed. Horwath notes that staff has asked previously not to entertain urban boundary expansions prior to GRIDS completion because it disrupts staff work and delays GRIDS. Asks if staff has changed its view. Hickey-Evans: "We continue to want urban boundary expansions to be dealt with holistically". "Staff would still recommend that they be considered comprehensively, not outside the GRIDS process."
Kelly: "I can tell you some of the discussions I've had with Mayor DiIanni, we've attempted to try to find a way to fast-track the GRIDS process as quickly as we can. Obviously that's going to be a priority for a lot of this. We're going to see if we can move it up". Horwath suggests have to keep GRIDS in mind and supports holistic approach. "We should really make some commitments as a council about not having urban boundary expansions" prior to completion of GRIDS. Also notes that "lots of people in the community were not happy with the fast-tracking because it reduced the amount of consultation". Notes that proper discussion is a serious issues. Kelly: "I totally concur with you councillor. The one-offs are going to be problematic until we have this program finished."
Ferguson says application should be treated "just as an application to remove the mineral aggregate designation". Says he can't see development in this area "for a minimum of 10 years". Moves the motion.
Mitchell concerned about removing designation for full area. Ferguson responds but doesn't answer the question. "As far as development on this property, I'll be dead and gone before it ever happens.". Kelly: "Point taken". Pearson seconds the motion. Carried.

6.4 Representatives from HABIA respecting information on Hamilton`s Business Improvement Areas. This group had six speakers address committee for a total of 18 minutes, basically saying give us more of what you're giving us and then some. Also speaking to two other committees. Supports BTR and also calls for revival of urban forest program. Mitchell responds by praising the group and supports comments about "public-private partnerships". Looks forward to BIAs in Binbrook, Winona, etc.

6.5 Mr Ron Williams respecting his request for a building permit at 8 Lakeside Drive, Stoney Creek.
Williams application stopped at last minute after staff discovered that his property is on a private road and the owners haven't given permission for the sewer pipe to go under their road. Two adjacent homes have done this but without permission. Williams is willing to install septic tank but staff not in favour of this. Mitchell wants to push ahead. Horwath moves to table for two weeks to get a legal opinion and this motion eventually prevails.

7.1 Staff update regarding the new Provincial Regulations for the Golden Horseshoe Green Belt. (No Copy)
7.1.1 Mr. Ed Fothergill, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce respecting the new Provincial Regulations for the Golden Horseshoe Green Belt.
7.1.2 Mr. Ed Fothergill, on behalf of clients, respecting the new Provincial Regulations for the Golden Horseshoe Green Belt.

The province has slapped a moratorium on development on all Hamilton lands outside the urban boundary, while the province decides the exact configuration of its proposed half millon acre greenbelt. This has aggravated some City politicians and likely the Chamber of Commerce and Fothergill’s clients. The proposed greenbelt is an anti-sprawl smart communities measure.

Kelly introduces this item by “apologize that this [report] has just been handed out this morning” “I think they just finished putting the report together early this morning.” However, report is dated February 12.

Paparella makes presentation on report. Identifies four significant changes. (1) blocks individuals from appealing to OMB to expand urban boundaries without agreement of municipalities. City supports this. (2) Increases time available to municipalities to review planning applications. City also can’t disagree with this. (3) Changes Planning Act wording from “have regard for” to “be consistent with”. “We cannot now make decisions that conflict with provincial policy statement”. “We think it’s prudent from a best practice standpoint to start applying the consistency with the PPS now, as opposed to the less restrictive shall have regard standard. We’re reviewing this and will get back to council. (4) Minister can now declare provincial interest at the OMB. Thinks this should be done earlier if it’s going to help.

Second item is Greenbelt Protection Act. Includes Hamilton. “One-year moratorium preventing new urban uses outside the existing urban boundaries on rural or agricultural land within this greenbelt study area.” Affects whole City of Hamilton. Impacts GRIDS and OP review and “approval of our Stoney Creek urban boundary expansion”. Still trying to determine what this means.

“There is an accompanying zoning order which has been characterized as an interim bylaw on steroids by some Ministry staff and its far reaching in that it basically freezes a lot of the applications we have now. They are in limbo. We can’t consider any new applications under zoning, OP or subdivision if they are proposing any kind of urban uses in the rural areas.” Greenbelt task force headed by McIssac has been established receiving input between April and June. Hoping for a coordinated municipal response. “I think it’s important for the mayor and council to put forward positions so that [the province] understands what our concerns are.”

Appendix A of report lists applications that are stalled. Paparella says there’s talk that some may be exempted, some may be able to proceed part way, some may have to be dropped altogether. “Once the greenbelt is set, we understand the province is working on a growth strategy, an infrastructure strategy that will be tied to that. That’s good news. It means the province is back in the planning game.”

Ferguson: “anything that’s on “A” is in limbo?” Paparella: working with province to see if any can be exempted. This is just a list of applications affected “in various stages of limbo”. Hoping to get task force to consider this. There are other municipalities with concerns.

Ferguson: “Mr. Chairman, we have to make delegation to this task force that there’s been applications made based on the reasonable assumption they’d be approved, and capital structures built, again on the assumption they’d be approved, and they are just in suspension here. And the applicants are in suspension. So that has to be addressed.”

Mitchell (acting chair at this point) : No representation on task force? Paparella: members all from outside this area. “All from outside Hamilton”. Mitchell “that is very unfair to Hamilton”. Met with Jennifer Mossop last week and “Ed Fothergill is next on speakers list and I believe our Chamber is going to be meeting with Minister Gerretson and I’ve been invited to go to that meeting as well”. Asks Fothergill to speak.

Ed Fothergill (on behalf of Chamber of Commerce): tape didn’t pick up presentation but he did state that the Chamber “agrees with staff report in front of you”. This is curious since the report was only handed out at the beginning of the meeting. A handout distributed by Fothergill said in part: “the City of Hamilton has properly protected environmentally sensitive land and farmland and does not experience rampant and/or uncontrolled growth. Existing planning policies and decisions of Council have generated a growth pattern that has been managed and controlled. Approved planning policies in both the Regional Official Plan and the area official plans confirm the need for a firm Urban Boundary and set out very specific and rigorous tests for expansion of the Urban Boundary. For these reasons, the problems to be addressed by the new Greenbelt Protection Act are not evidenced in the City of Hamilton, and therefore the need for additional provincial control is questionable. The Province, over the past decade, has gradually and consistently transferred more control over planning decisions to the local municipalities. This Act could have the effect of reversing that trend.”

”The second complication is that the Minister’s Zoning Order, being such a broad, all-encompassing and overpowering action, takes away municipal control over a number of rural development issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with Urban Boundary expansion. The Minister’s Zoning Order while intending to address concerns about urban expansions into the rural area, eliminates the consideration of many legitimate rural issues being considered in the rural area. As a result, a number of legitimate planning issues and responses to rural problems have been drastically affected with the undermining of local autonomy on local zoning issues.”

The Chamber statement proposes the following Resolutions:

1. “That the City, jointly with the Chamber of Commerce, inform the Province that the City of Hamilton has effectively contained urban growth and protected environmentally sensitive land and farmland through proper implementation of locally prepared planning policy.
   
   
2. That the City, jointly with the Chamber of Commerce, inform the Province that as a result, there is no need for any further intervention in local planning matters in the City of Hamilton, other than the need to have regard to the Provincial Planning Statement.
   
   
3. That the Minister of Housing be requested to remove the Minister’s Zoning Order as it affects the City of Hamilton immediately.
   
   
4. That as an alternative to recommendation #3, the Minister of Housing be requested to modify his Zoning Order such that it only applies to the expansion of urban uses into the rural area and does not interfere with local decision making with respect to rural uses in the rural area.
   
   
5. That the Minister of Housing be encouraged to seek input from local municipalities, chambers of commerce and affected parties before final approval is given to the Greenbelt Protection Act.
   
   
6. That the Minister of Housing, in approving the final draft of the legislation, recognize that each municipality has different needs, challenges and opportunities, and that a blanket solution to respond to specific problems in one area is not appropriate for municipalities throughout the rest of the Province.”

Mitchell: Asks if Stoney Creek Chamber would endorse this resolution. Fothergill thinks they would. Mitchell agrees: “I believe they would. Councillor Pearson, Councillor Bruckler and myself have met with them over the last two weeks and they want to be involved, they are concerned.” Suggests doing the work on the files and sending the whole package to Toronto and tell them to approve it - “trying to make a point that there’s a problem here and you’re [the province] shutting the place down”

Kelly: Agrees but asks Paparella about this. Paparella: “With respect to new applications, the act is very very clear. No person with land outside an urban settlement area – which would be all the urban areas that are within the City of Hamilton – may make an application or even a request.” Applies to zoning, Official Plans and subdivisions. One’s in process we need discussion, but because of the retroactivity of the Act, “it would be very difficult to just send files to Toronto as councillor Mitchell has suggested”. “I don’t think we’re in a position to accept any new applications in those areas”.

Coveyduck: “Our recommendation is that we proceed with the recommendations that you have before you here. Both 2 and 3 will allow us to continue discussions with the province to see if we can get some exemptions. We think doing that collectively with other municipalities will give us a lot more strength because we think there’s groupings of types of applications that should probably be exempted.” “In the meantime, there’s no question that council does not have the legal authority to proceed with those applications, even the ones that are currently in process.”

Mitchell: “We have six recommendations from Guy on the staff report and we also have six here from Ed from the Chamber of Commerce and they’re all excellent, and I don’t know whether we need to incorporate the best of both or just totally pass both but the proposals brought forward by Ed I’d like to see go forward”. “Before it goes to Council can these two be amalagamated together and get endorsements from Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce.” Ask Fothergill if this can be done. Fothergill: “I think that would be good.” Want to work with staff. Note that Tim McCabe is actually on one of our committees at the Chamber.”

Mitchell: “Need to be on the same page 100% and the Stoney Creek Chamber as well.” Coveyduck recommends Chamber and City submit separately.

Horwath: Prepared to move 7.1 and ask that the Chamber submit separately “I don’t believe that a wholesale endorsation of the Chamber’s position is the appropriate thing to do.” Supports staff proposal. Merulla leaves and doesn’t return.

Fothergill then speaks a second time (on behalf of his clients – unnamed) Says he has to leave soon to meet with the Minister. Speaks about projects of his clients that are not on the Appendix A list that have also been “caught” by the moratorium. [tape very poor]. These apparently fall in the group of projects that were going to be submitted but now can’t be accepted.

No questions for Fothergill. Kelly invites Lynda Lukasik to speak. Tape can’t pick up that microphone. Mitchell leaves and is out for nearly all of the next 80 minutes. Lukasik followed by David Cohen and Murray Lumley. Ferguson leaves during Lumley’s presentation so the committee no longer has quorum. Mitchell is there for part of this, but chatting with Kelly. Pearson is “studying” the lights. Only Jackson and Horwath appear to listen.

Staff recommendation is carried.

7.2 HR Matters II- Hamilton's Human Resources Strategy Update (No copy); Staff presentation by Sylvia Renshaw of Economic Development. Report handed out to committee members at beginning of the presentation. Study done in response to economic development strategy adopted in June 2002. This is a plan to mitigate aging population impacts. Over half-million dollars spent on this. Gail Holmes of HHSC presents the work-in-progress report. Workforce crisis because of retirements as early as 2011 and certainly by 2016. Large immigrant population in Hamilton. “Critical to support small and medium businesses in their HR plans”. “We could become a retirement community”. “Starting to hit the radar screen of both federal and provincial governments.” In 2004 doing seminars for small and medium businesses led by Chamber of Commerce.

Horwath: “We keep missing in this community is not so much what Foote talks about but what Florida talks about in how do you attract people and keep them in your community. How do you provide a community where people want to choose to bring their talent, and that’s a piece I don’t see in here and I’m wondering if the committee has discussed those issues particularly around issues like communities that are environmentally sustainable and communities that have very good quality of life, communities that the creative classes, if you will, attempt to choose. Has that discussion occurred at all?” Holmes: Yes. Group can’t take on alone making Hamilton an attractive community but supportive of others doing this. “Our experience is that people who actually get over here to Hamilton find that it’s quite a wonderful community. It’s the impressions from outside our borders that we really have to battle.” Another HR person refers to the newsletter “making our community aware of the importance of the bohemian class, or the creative class, to the future of a sustainable community.” Have a roundtable chaired by the mayor with leaders of the education community. “Imagine that those sorts of discussions will come up – how do you take creativity that comes out of our colleges and school boards and translate it into productivity in our community.”

Horwath: Effect of other decisions on this group’s work – affordable housing. “Cannot get a good labour pool if you don’t have places where people can live in decent affordable housing, particularly for entry level positions. And we have failed miserably on that regard in this community.” Are these issues being discussed by the group? “the current labour force that we have is underutilized – and I’m talking about what someone raised earlier, the one-fifth of the people in this community that are living in poverty” “Our decisions have been the opposite of what should be done in terms of investing in the people that we have already. And we don’t do that. We in fact cut our budget on the backs of those people.” Asks if those broader discussions come up? Also “issues such as the removal of investment in our downtown because of budget cuts to maintenance and upkeep”. Response: HR Matters initiative is “so broad” because it has social representatives at the table. Skills development is one of the legs of the social stool along with housing and support for families. Trying to promote this work as part of the economic development strategy. “We are quite holistic in our approach. We think the right people are at the table and those voices are heard.”

Horwath: Asks if expectation is that the HR Matters plans will translate into decisions at Council. “Wouldn’t it be a shame if we are making budget decisions that are contrary to the things your group says we need to invest in?” How does this get back to us. Response by Sylvia Renshaw: “Neil Everson is completely apprised of the project, has been all the way through, and has taken it to the city management team.” We’ll come back in the future to keep you apprised. “In the outside world, we do have representatives from the business community, the chambers of commerce are intimately linked. We’ve actually started discussions with the city-wide BIA”.

Ferguson: “How many commuters leave Hamilton on a daily basis to work outside Hamilton?”. Renshaw doesn’t have number and passes question to Paul Mason. Mason: “The total number of out-commuters in 2001 was just a little under 58,000 per day. … We have a net commuter deficit of about 22,000 more people leaving every day than are coming in.” Ferguson: “How does that relate to 30 years ago?” Mason: “20 years ago we had a net commuter surplus of a little about 8,100.”

Ferguson: Asks about retraining of people to get them off Ontario Works. “Is social and public health an integral part of the equation.”. Renshaw: “Absolutely” Presentations made to various groups “making sure that the economic development strategy, vision 2020, GRIDS are all in alignment”.

8.1 Amendment to the Former Town of Ancaster Official Plan to Implement a Secondary Plan for Meadowlands Neighbourhood IV (PD03232(a)) (Ward 12)

The landowners here are “Meadowlands of Ancaster” and Paletta International. In 2000 Paletta gave the maximum campaign contribution to Caplan, Collins, D’Amico, DiIanni and Morelli. This plan covers over 200 hectares and there are significant issues regarding the Tiffany Creek headwaters and ESA and provincially significant wetlands. Fothergill is arguing for permission to build on some of the ESA lands. The secondary plan calls for 3250 homes in this area and over 8000 residents. 70% of the housing is described as “low density”, 25% is “medium” (townhouses) and 5% of the land is set aside for “high density” (maximum 3-storey apartments). Tape of this is missing. Several citizens spoke with concerns about specific aspects of the plan and one was particularly angry. There was concern that existing residents would have to pay for the upgrade of Springbrook Road and connection of sewers. Ron Gough’s property will include a stormwater pond and he wants it located in the hydro right-of-way so he can sell more of his land for house lots.. Councillors support this but decision is up to hydro.

Ray Wilson said he was disgusted with the council and the whole process, that he had not been notified even of this meeting. He pointed out that earlier notices had not been delivered to homes along Garner Road. The method of notification was admitted by staff to be through the Brabant newspapers rather than direct letters to landowners. Wilson also sits on board of trustees of Bowman church which has land inside the secondary plan area and never received any notifications. He reads two legal documents into the record demanding compensation of $3 million in one case and $5 million in another case for damages to property. He says a pond is being located in such a way that water has to run uphill to get there, and that the plans call for a road to pass right through his house. He denounces provisions where he says residents are providing a road for Paletta.

Adi Irani speaks on behalf of Meadowlands of Ancaster and supports the staff recommendations.

Horwath asks for staff response to Mr. Wilson. Another neighbour (Gerry Shea) agrees that notice wasn’t provided, and it becomes clear that the Church has not been notified. Ferguson agrees that there is a notification issue but believes that the Church should have known about the plan and urges the committee to move forward. Pearson points out that this is just a secondary plan and changes can be made later when plans of subdivision are brought forward.

9.1 Notice of motion on Industrial District Energy and Co-Generation by Councillor Powers. This was tabled because Powers was not at the meeting.