Artists manage to convince the city to refund some of the licensing fees. Looking now for a by-law change.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON  December 9, 2011  The Artists and the Bureaucrats met – and the Artists won the more important part of the battle.  With any luck the matter will get to city Council and a stupid rule will get re-written or set aside.

The Background.  Arts in Action, a collective of artists that hold a Studio Tour once a year that gives the public a chance to see what artists in the city have been doing and an opportunity as well to show and sell what they do.

Burlington stained glass artists Teresa Seaton, took her skills to city halland tried to get the bureaucrats to cut up the bill they had to pay for a license to sell their art. She thinks the Art in Action group might manage to get half the fee they paid back.

The city’s Building Department decided to require the artists to apply for a Transient Traders Licence  and charge them fees that amounted to more than $1000.   The artists gulped but felt they didn’t have a choice and ponied up the money. Artists, who don’t have a pay cheque never mind the fat pensions that city hall doles out – felt they had no choice.

Artists in Action (and they were certainly in action on this file) complained and after a suitable delay they got their meeting with the bureaucrats.  Teresa Seaton, co-chair of the Artists in Action, reports that the bureaucrats had decided before the meeting  that “because we were a not-for-profit organization we will have to submit a Transient Trader Licence application two weeks before the event but  we will be exempt from fees.  Now that the city has the Artists in Action “on file” they get goodies.

Seaton further reports: “As far as being reimbursed the fees paid for the 2011 Studio tour that have already been paid – it will be looked into”.  “We came away from the meeting with the impression that we will receive at least half of the $1000. + back.  The rest will apparently get kept by the city for “paper work costs”.   Someone has to pay for all that paper work and the artists learned that this time they get to pick up that tab.

Don Graves, Burlington artist, helped to get the city to look at the plight of a starving artist a little differently. He got half a loaf.

Seaton reports that she and “her wingman” Don Graves, who attended the meeting with her, chose not to argue that point We did go on to argue that we felt forced by the city to obtain these licences under threat of fines being levied against us.

“It was an interesting discussion with the supervisor at city hall. They are now more aware of the plight of us poor struggling artists trying to “Make a profit”.  It is our understanding that a Bylaw review will be done in the next couple years of which we will be advised. As well, they have us on file as an organization that will be consulted as the bylaws are amended.

Seaton adds that:  “We fought the cause for every artist with a showing studio in their own residence. According to the city, these artists would still have to pay this licensing fee since they are not known to have a not-for-profit status.

“Basically”, said Seaton  “we were left with the impression that what the city doesn’t know can’t hurt you. Although this is not the most advantageous solution it will do until the bylaw reviews proceeds. Seaton promises to argue the case of the poor starving artist more strenuously then. She might push for a full refund of the fees they paid for 2011 as well.

The Artists in Action now feel they won’t have to increase their membership fees and are now going forward with their end of December call for the 2012 show.

 

 

Return to the Front page

If you can’t beat them, then you join them – so former Acting City Manager Scott Stewart accepts an award.

By Staff

Burlington, ON  November 8, 2011  This city is big on two things: Galas and awards.  There is hardly a city council meeting that doesn’t have some kind of an award given to someone for something.  Senior city hall management used to insert a page at the front of many of their reports which stated that the contents had been given an award.

And talk about Gala’s – you name it and there is a gala to raise funds for it.  In the very neat future Our Burlington will be putting up a What’s On! Feature which will set out everything we can learn about taking place in the city and we are pretty certain there will be some kind of a Gala every week of the year and in some weeks more than one.

Burlington General Manager Community Services Scott Stewart with his award for leadership at the Tier 1 level of Public works Commissioners.

This type of social interaction is typical of cities the size of Burlington that has a smallish geographical footprint.  Some of the awards are very significant – the one given to Burlington Firemen for their bravery in a  rescue mission of a citizen whose life was suddenly in very real danger was a much deserved reward.

Last evening at a City Council meeting the former Acting City Manager and General Manager of Community Services Scott Stewart was asked to leave his seat and come to the podium to accept an award for his work since 2003 on the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario (RPWCO), which is an organization of Tier 1 municipalities and the Regions that meet regularly to iron out policies that are consistent across the province and to work collectively to influence the province and the federal government on issues that are important to municipalities.

The Walkerton water disaster is one of the issues that the organization was in on from the very beginning, explains Stewart.  “We have worked with the province and the federal government on the quality of water in Burlington Bay and Hamilton Harbour where several jurisdictions have a significant say”.  It is vital that senior management in the municipalities be able to work together and both lobby and advise the federal and provincial governments on what actually happens at the municipal level.

Stewart came out of Hamilton where he was Commissioner of Public Works which is the equivalent to being a General Manager Community Services in Burlington.  But for a guy like Stewart “Commissioner”  seems to fit him better.

 

 

Return to the Front page

We got up close and personal with The Pier. It was not a pretty picture. You had no idea how much steel has to be removed.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON  November 7, 2011  The city took a slew of media people out onto the Pier and gave us all time to wander about and have a look at just what it looked like up close.  There were a number of politicians along – The Lady Jane, our freshly minted MPP, Jane McKenna, who now gets a bit more than $1500. each year to drive from Burlington to Queen’s Park, where she will work on our behalf, was on hand wearing two right-footed work boots, which we thought might have been a political statement.  Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster was also on hand but not wearing her delightful pink work boots.  “They give me blisters” she explained, “unless I wear thick socks”.

It was a bit of an experience to walk out on the Pier.  While very clearly a construction site, what was noticed immediately was that the “instant beach” that has formed on the west side of The Pier at the edge of the breakwater, has grown considerably since we last saw the site.  This is where the city wants to, at some point in the future, put in something in the way of a boat dock. We just might have more beach to work with than we thought we’d have.

The Pier as it stands today has three parts. The trestle to the right which is used for construction purposes and will come out when the work is completed. The round section in the lower left of this picture, which is built above land. The rest, that large S shaped section that reaches out into the lake - every inch of that steel has to be taken out. The caissons the S shape rests on are embedded five metres into the lakebed and are solid and do not have to be replaced.

What had not been made clear to the public, and I have followed this issue for some time, is the amount of steel that has to be taken out and trucked off the site into storage somewhere. Basically all the steel is going to be taken out.  That was never really made clear during the many council committee sessions or in the 10 Pier Update releases the city has put out since this mess came to the surface.

What the city is faced with is replacing all the steel that has been put in place.  The only things being kept are the caissons (those are the big round pipes that have been driven five metres into the  lake bed.  All the steel, ALL the steel that has been put in place is being taken out and placed in storage, while the lawyers work through the legal difference of opinion.

And that is what the legal fight is all about – the steel used for the construction of the site was not what was needed but that didn’t become evident until the crane accident.  Can’t blame the contractor for that one – he didn’t specify the steel, he just built to plans he was given.  Architects and structural engineers do all the designing and planning at work and they sign off on that.  So the goof was at the architect and design levels.  We have been saying the contractor walked off the job – think I can understand why he walked.  He couldn’t build a Pier based on the plans he was given.  Quite why the original contractor didn’t do the level of due diligence that would have revealed the problems is something we don’t understand.  This is probably something the contractor will regret for some time.  But we think it will become clear that the city issued a call for bids and gave the contractors drawings that called for steel that proved to be unsuitable.

In the illustrations you can see just how much steel is involved – basically ALL of it.

The problems were not the making of the current Council.  They approved a contract that involved plans that had been prepared and signed off on by professional architects and engineers.

Should the city engineers have taken a closer look at the drawings they issued?  The designers and the structural engineers signed off on the plans – is that where the city’s responsibility ends? Someone, somewhere at the design level really screwed up on this – and that will get worked out by the lawyers.  However, you the public may never know just what happened.  The city doesn’t care if we know what happened – what it want to do is recover as much of the money that has been spent as possible.  This project was supposed to cost $9.2 million in 2010.  Graham Infrastructure, the firm hired by the city to complete the Pier, is being paid $5.9 million.  Other costs total $8.4 but we’ve not learned yet what the legal bill for all this is going to amount to – but know this; it is not going to be a small bill that will get paid out of petty cash.

The "instant beach", a natural formation of sand that was formed as a result of the currents around the Pier is a gift from Mother Nature. It is now twice the size of what is shown in this photograph and just might grow to be even larger. Plans to put some kind of boat docking in place are in the thinking stage.

City council will not even go along with saying how much they have spent to date – they claim that would reveal their legal strategy to the people they are suing.  The people the city is suing already know the strategy – a claim has been made.   Some Council members talk in terms of recovering some of the additional money they have had to spend.  Given what they have known since last December that was irresponsible.  The city would like to recover as much of that money as possible.  Don’t think they’re going to get what they were hoping for.

The engineers and architects that screwed up don’t want you to know what they did wrong either.  This will get dragged out for as long as the people the city is suing can drag it out – but when it comes down to the short strokes the people we are suing will settle.  Just hope that the city stands tough and gets as much as they can for the damage done to our reputation.

Where does all this leave Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd., the original contractor?  They are between a rock and a hard place.  All they did was attempt to build on plans the city provided.  They may find a judge deciding the contractor should have taken a much closer look at those plans but if your doctor gives you a prescription you assume that he knows what he’s doing – after all he is a doctor.  A judge might also decide that the city bears some responsibility for giving out plans for a Pier that in effect could not be built.  Had that crane not fallen over we perhaps would never have known about the deficient quality of the steel. That’s something the courts will work out – but methinks that  Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd. has been had – to some degree due to a bit of negligence on their part, they should have perhaps checked those plans a little more closely.

The structural problem, according to reported comments city engineer Tom Eichenbaum made, came to the surface when the city hired a materials testing firm to do an analysis of the steel. Eichenbaum is reported to have said: “Through forensic destructive testing, they were able to chop up beams and do some testing on the actual metal content …there was enough concern that it may not meet the long term strength requirements”.  That steel certainly didn’t meet the requirement when the crane toppled over.

Now we understand why the Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd. insurance company came back with a proposal to re-do the deal.  The city didn’t buy the deal (although we’ve no idea what the deal offered was, because the city’s legal department keep the kimono on that matter tightly closed).

As for The Pier – it is going to be, in the words of  Director of Engineering Tom Eichenbaum, “fantastic”.  During his comments, while we were all out on The Pier, Eichenbaum mentioned  there was “going to be 150 LED lights spread out along the Pier, which will be quite a site from the Skyway bridge”.  “It will” said Eichenbaum, “define a part of the Burlington shoreline.”

The 150 LED lights that will go on the Pier will be powered by the small wind turbine that is part of the structure. City engineers expect the Pier to be quite a sight from the SkyWay bridge at night. They will define the look of the city's shore line.

Marianne Meed Ward took part in some of the tour – the Mayor was there for the full Monty but the other council members took a pass.  They didn’t need to see the site – they had already seen it – last December when it was a lot colder than last Friday afternoon.  But on that cold December day every member of your council knew exactly how much of the steel had to be taken out – ALL of it.  But they didn’t pass that fact along to their constituents.

Will it all come out in the wash – yes but that wash will never get hung out to dry.  The city will settle with the architects and the general contractor and the insurance company and the  agreement will include a gag order which will prevent you from ever knowing all the facts.

It is nevertheless going to be quite a thing to see.  It will make a big difference to the shoreline and the way Burlington sees itself.  But we will have paid far more than we should have to get that Pier built.  That isn’t something the current Council did but there are three members of this Council – Craven, Taylor and Dennison who were on deck at the time and they bear some of the responsibility.

The Mayor wasn’t on the Council that did the original deal and he wasn’t Mayor when the problems came to the surface.  What Goldring has done is make the best of the hand he was dealt and for the most part he has done a very good job.  But he could have and should have let the public know just what he was up against.  Had he done so however, those who wanted the Pier torn down would have been howling at his doorstep – not something he deserves.

 

 

Return to the Front page

How did she get to see a copy of the contract and what`s in that big orange boxÉ

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON  October 5, 2011  The contract isn`t signed – yet; lawyers need time to get all the documents together,  but there is something going on down at the Pier.  Either that or aliens have landed and they are hiding in that bright orange container parked on the Pier.

The contents of that container is the beginning of the construction of what the city is euphemistically calling  phase two of the Pier development.  Phase 1 was a total bust but Phase 2 has gotten off to a great start.

With the contract price for the completion of the Pier fully understood by everyone and the schedule in place, it was time to move on to other issues.  But before your Council could do that Ward 1 Councillor Meed Ward wanted to know more about the sub-contractor that Graham Infrastructure was planning on working with.  The question several people had when the council meeting adjourned was: Who cares ?    Graham Infrastructure is the company the city has contracted with and who they use to work with them is entirely up to them but Meed Ward said she had researched the Joint Venture partner and couldn’t find very much about them and asked staff to provide more detail and background on the company.

Staff has better things to do with their time.  And the councilor needs to let the contractors get on with their job.  Meed Ward didn’t support the decision to re tender – she felt that something could have been worked out with the original contractor.  When it came time to vote for the project, Meed Ward did support the decision and said at the time she would have “preferred the city go through a different door but that door was now closed so we should move on“.  Indeed – it is time to move on.

What's inside that orange container? The three missing lights? Continers are the first step to getting contruction of phase 2 underway. Will we hear jack hammers soon?

Meed Ward however is sticking with this one.  She somehow managed to get her hands on a copy of the contract with the contractor, which has yet to be signed, and mentioned to her fellow council members how thick the document is.  Some time ago this council decided that it didn`t want to “get too far down into the weeds“ when it came to project oversight.  Going through a contract that has yet to be signed is best done by the folks over at legal.

There is a building level of exasperation on the part of several council members (probably safe to say all council members) over the often unnecessary questions that Meed Ward asks and the requests for information that tie up staff time and for the most part serve no useful purpose.  The member for Ward 2 has been on council long enough to have learned just what the job is and t let staff do their work and allow council meetings to proceed in a more timely manner.

What the folks at legal have been doing however is a concern for Ward 3 councilor John Taylor who wanted to know what the city`s legal strategy is going to be once the case gets into what lawyers call the “discovery phase“ and what the legal costs have been to date.  Council has a right to at least be briefed on the legal strategy (that will be and should be a closed council session) and Taylor pushed a bit to get a commitment from staff as to when council would learn where things stand on the legal side.

We will know what legal is thinking before the end of the year.  Taylor pressed for a specific date and wanted something during the last cycle of council meetings in November – the best he could get was a guarantee that there would be information before Christmas.  We can expect a hefty number when the legal department eventually opens their kimono – expect to experience some heartburn.

[Facebook]

 

Return to the Front page