Hall Marks with Emma Reilly

Inside the bombshell

Yesterday was one of the craziest days to hit City Hall in months. When the day started, we knew that there was a special Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss "Pan Am land acquisition." Then, we started hearing rumours about the Oilers wanting to take over Copps. It didn't take long before we realized the two were connected - and then things started hitting the fan, so to speak. We have a ton of stories in the paper today about the Oilers' proposal - my news story, Steve Milton's NHL column, and Andrew Dreschel's column about how the TiCats fit into this.

The atmosphere yesterday at City Hall was tense, with a mix of both excitement and trepidation about what this would mean for our city. The committee of the whole meeting started at noon, with the meeting alternating between closed and open sessions (although there's been some discussion about whether they should have gone behind closed doors in the first place. There will be more on this in the coming days).  Our usually rambunctious councillors were quite quiet during the meeting as they digested what LaForge was proposing. At about 3:30 or so, the mayor, city manager Chris Murray, and Patrick LaForge held a press conference, which solidified some details but still left several questions unanswered (for example, the memorandum of understanding proposed by the Oilers' group is confidential, so we have no idea what the conversations will be like over the next few months). By about 5, we were back in the newsroom and putting together stories for today's paper.

We're going to be going at this story from so many angles over the next few days, so keep your eyes on the paper and on our blogs. But there's one more thing I wanted to point out today. Remember this story about Eisenberger's trip to NYC to meet Gary Bettman? Seems to take on a different connotation now, doesn't it?

Leave a comment and let me know what you think about all of this.

Glitches

Last night was the big debut of the new technology in the council chambers - automated voting, timed microphones, and a computerized speakers list - and I have to say - it was a bit of a comedy of errors.

There were two big votes last night - one on the aerotropolis issue and the other about aiming for a zero-per cent property tax increase. Both times, councillors pressed a button beside their microphones to vote. But both times, there were problems with how the system recorded the results. For some reason, several councillors' votes were missing from the final tally. After both botched attempts, Council resorted to the old low-tech standby: the standing recorded vote.

One thing that did work perfectly? The five-minute microphone cutoff. As soon as a councillor's mic clicked on, a stopwatch starting displaying how much time they had left to speak. As a reporter who has attended way too many long meetings, I thought I would really love this feature. However, Lloyd Ferguson was in the middle of a very impassioned and interesting argument about the aerotropolis consultation when his mic clicked off. I actually thought it was kind of a shame.

Thoughts?

On time, on budget

Tonight's council meeting -- the first back in City Hall -- started off with a bet, some 12-year old scotch, and a big laugh.

Councillor Bob Bratina opened tonight's meeting by reminding council of a wager he had made with Councillor Lloyd Ferguson back before the renovations started.

"I made a bet that this building could not come in under $100 million," he said, holding a box of what we thought was a full-sized bottle of McCallan Scotch. As the renovations came in at about $72 million, he acknowledged that he lost the bet and was prepared to give Ferguson his due.

"This bottle of scotch comes not only on time, but on budget," he said, pulling out a tiny airplane-sized bottle of scotch.

Needless to say, everyone cracked up.

***

I've just been told that Cable 14 isn't broadcasting council tonight, and from what I've heard, the new internet streaming function won't be available until the fall.

So - to keep you updated - the aerotropolis debate is going on right now. The mayor has introduced an amendment to hold public consultations in July, August, September, with a report coming back to council in late September. So far, Duvall and Mitchell have spoken in favour of the mayor's amendment.

Ferguson just spoke very passionately against rushing the process. He also fell prey to the very first five-minute microphone cutoff.

OK. The vote is final - Eisenberger's amendment passed. Council will be making a decision on aerotropolis in late September, after three public consultation sessions over the summer. For more info, check out this story and watch tomorrow's paper for details.

What's your reaction to the new public consultation timeline?

Back in business

  

It's taken $74 million, 10 years of debate, and 2+ years of construction - but it's finally done. The city is marking the grand reopening of the Hall today with an official ceremony at 5 this afternoon. Check out a timeline of the renovations here.

Looking back at the history of City Hall, it was really interesting to see how close it was to being knocked down. Even after the renovations, the building still only holds a small portion of the city's employees. On the other hand, heritage buildings are a mark of a great city and our City Hall is a beautiful example of the International style of architecture. It's also interesting to note that back in 2001, the estimated cost of building a new space was $74 million - the same cost of the renovations.

So folks, what do you think? Was it right to renovate? Or should we have started from scratch?

No-fly zone

What do you folks think about the aerotropolis delay?

There are two camps of thought on the issue. The business community and the mayor say it's best to make a decision in the fall rather than waiting until January 2011. Others, like Environment Hamilton, say this is a complex issue that needs more time for public consultation.

My story today looks at how aerotropolis is one of several controversial issues that council has been delayed this term. (My colleague Meredith MacLeod compiled a list of several examples here.) Here's an excerpt from the article:

The economic development and planning committee voted Tuesday to shelve any decisions on the planned industrial park near the airport until 2011 to allow more time for public consultation.

The move has angered members of the business community, who accuse council of stalling a development pegged to bring the city thousands of jobs.

Along with area rating and ward boundaries, it's the third significant issue that has been put off until after the election.

Councillors defend the need to take time to consult the public on important issues. In the case of aerotropolis, planning committee chairperson Lloyd Ferguson argues his constituents deserve enough time to decipher the planning documents.

"It's not to delay -- it's to get it right," he said.

But Richard Koroscil, the CEO and president of the airport and the chairperson of the Chamber of Commerce, says the move denotes a lack of leadership.

"We're a community looking desperately for jobs, and here we are saying let's just park it for six months," he said after the committee's decision. "For half a year, we'll just sit on our hands. Why would we do that?"

There are other instances, on issues such as garbage bag limits, sign and animal control bylaws and controversial planning decisions, where council has delayed decisions, asking for new reports or new information.

Duncan MacLellan, an assistant professor of politics and public administration at Ryerson University, says delaying isn't good planning or good for economic growth. He argues local politicians will almost always choose to avoid alienating their constituents, even at the risk of being accused of waffling on tough calls.

"Voters have short-term memories," he said. "Whatever happened in 2006, most voters won't remember; but if the issue is on the table now, it's an election issue.

Thoughts? 

Electioneering

October's municipal election is picking up some steam. Over the past week or so, there have been some definite signs that we are wading full-on into campaign season.

First, I learned yesterday that Mayor Fred had his first election fundraiser over the weekend. As it was a private event, he wouldn't say where it was held, who was on the guest list, or how many people attended - but he did say "it went very well."

Also, word on the street is that there is some polling going on. I don't have too much information about it at this point, but I will do some digging and see what I can come up with. 

Has anyone gotten calls asking who you would vote for?

Ontario's best-kept secret?

As a big CBC listener, I was very interested to hear Harry Stinson on Metro Morning last week. Stinson and Matt Galloway had a conversation about why Torontonians should consider moving to the Hammer. It's a great interview and I would suggest you all check it out (here's the link - just click on "listen.") This morning, they played some reactions from listeners, and the chatter about Hamilton was all incredibly positive.

As a lifelong Hamiltonian, I always get really excited whenever our city gets good publicity. There have been a few articles and radio pieces about Hamilton being an up-and coming city within the past few years (in fact, I wrote a story in 2008 about a few of them). However, one of the listeners who responded to the Stinson interview this morning said something that made me think. She mentioned that homebuyers drawn to Hamilton for its cheap real estate/green space/great cultural scene are driving up the cost of homes in the area. She also argued that Hamilton is one of the best-kept secrets in Ontario - and it should stay that way. 

What do you think? Can we strike a balance between promoting Hamilton while maintaining the relatively low cost of living? Or is Hamilton's secret out?

Lights out on the Convention Centre

Tonight is the last council meeting in the Convention Centre before we move back into City Hall - and it was anything but conventional.

Just before the meeting started, the power went out in most of the downtown core. For the first 45 minutes of council, we were sitting in semi-darkness. One of the Convention Centre staff offered Mayor Fred a gigantic flashlight, which he said he would use to put the spotlight on anyone who was out of order.

"Watch yourselves," he warned council.

The power finally came on in the middle of a question from Councillor Bob Bratina.

"I'm happy to shed some light on the situation," he quipped.

Swimming in debt

Here's a snippet of my story today:

The city owes millions of dollars in back pay to hundreds of part-time lifeguards.

The lifeguards became entitled to almost double their hourly wage after they joined the city's union in 2008. But the city didn't raise their pay.

Now the union wants the city to pay up -- and the price tag is estimated to be as much as $7 million.

The issue dates back to February 2008, when 500 employees joined CUPE Local 5167. About 400 of those employees are the part-time lifeguards, while the other 100, primarily part-time workers, were from public works and other areas of recreation.

The lifeguards -- whose hourly wages were about $15 before they joined the union -- became entitled to rates of $23 to $26, as laid out in the city's collective agreement.

According to local president Derron Vernon, some of the public works and recreation employees have received the back pay, but none of the 400 lifeguards have been given theirs.

The city and the union are still negotiating exactly how much will be handed over to the lifeguards. Each will get a different payout depending on the hours worked.

But for some, the amount is significant.

The city's part-time lifeguards can work up to 24 hours per week. An employee who worked the maximum amount since February 2008 would be entitled to $30,000 in catch-up pay.

A student who worked as a part-time lifeguard for four months during one summer would be entitled to about $4,000.

"Council wasn't aware, apparently, of the obligations from this round of bargaining to pay out that money owed," Vernon said.

Read the full article here.

I'm interested to know you what you think. Should the city be paying this money? Should council have been more on the ball about this issue? Should lifeguards be making $26/hour?

What did you get?

UPDATE: One of the new candidates for October's election, Jose Pablo Bustamante, just sent out an interesting release about this infrastructure money.

Free money to campaign

Stoney Creek, Tuesday June 8, 2010. Not only that the incumbents already had an intrinsic advantage just by being in the media all the time, but now they are giving themselves $241,000 for infrastructure to “campaign”. This is not only unfair is a corrupt practice and should be banned by the 
Municipal Elections Act.

This is not a matter of taking care of sidewalks, playgrounds and other infrastructure. City Councillors had four years to do that and it is not that I am against of investing in infrastructure, I will be always in favour, but it is the timing. Why are City Councillors doing it now, just before elections? I believe that they are afraid of losing their chairs. After an initial research, I estimated that only 50% of the actual City Councillors will be re-elected. For this reason they are giving themselves this money, to invest in their respective wards. In my opinion this is a corrupt practice from people in power to extend their position and should be banned.

Jose Pablo Bustamante was the first candidate to file his nomination papers in the City of Hamilton on January 4, 2010 and is seeking the election to the office of City Councillor – Ward 10 in the next municipal elections to be held on October 25^th, 2010.  For additional information, make a donation or register for volunteering, go to www.voteforpablo.ca.

Opinions?

***

What is your councillor doing with his or her $241,097? Take a look!
(FYI - As my friends at CATCH say, "deficient concrete infrastructure repairs" is bureaucratese for fixing sidewalks).

Ward 1 - Brian McHattie
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Westdale and Locke BIA's and surrounding areas

Ward 2 - Bob Bratina
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Beasley and North End Neighbourhoods

Ward 3 - Bernie Morelli
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the St Clair, The Delta, and Crown Point Neighbourhoods

Ward 4 - Sam Merulla
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the McQueston, Homeside and Normanhurst Neighbourhoods

Ward 5 - Chad Collins
$20 K to Sam Manson Park Play Surface Replacement, $40 K for Ward 5 Mountable curb driveway requests and $181 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Neighbourhoods of Redhill, Kentley, Gershome, etc.

Ward 6 - Tom Jackson
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs on East 38th from Fennell to Queensdale, including Patricia Place and Burns Place.

Ward 7 - Scott Duvall
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs on East 27th from Mohawk to Burkholder and Thomson Court.

Ward 8 - Terry Whitehead
$200 K for William McCulloch Park Project, $41 K to West 5th Asphalt repairs, from Stone Church to Sonata Ave

Ward 9 - Brad Clark
$20 K for Albion Estates pathway conversion to Asphalt, $221 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure within Heritage Green and Downtown Stoney Creek Neighbourhoods

Ward 10 - Maria Pearson
$5 K for Plateau Park Asphalt pathway improvements, $5 K for Peachwood Parkette Park furniture, $40 K for Francis Ave north shoulder Asphalt upgrade, $191 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs - various locations throughout Ward

Ward 11 - David Mitchell
$80 K for Asphalt Pathway on Twenty Rd, North side, linking Twenty Place to Garth St, $50 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Winona Neighbourhood, $111 K for Rural Surface Treatment Program

Ward 12 - Lloyd Ferguson
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs on Wilson St. West and within the Neighbourhoods of Oakhill, Mohawk Meadows, Nakoma, etc

Ward 13 - Russ Powers
$40 K for Dundas Natural Playground at King and Matilda, $201 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the old Dundas Neighbourhoods, west of Sydenham St.

Ward 14 -  Robert Pasuta
$100 K for Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Communities of Sheffield, Copetown and Greensville ( Brock Gardens ), $141 K for Rural Surface Treatment program

Ward 15 - Margaret McCarthy
Deficient Concrete Infrastructure Repairs within the Community of Millgrove and the older portion of Waterdown, primarily Mill Street