You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Environment’ category.
This is worth sharing — from the series Profiles hosted by Terry Bradshaw….
As per the Mayor’s blog, it is worth noting that Guelph is the ONLY Canadian city that was featured in this series. One of several Canadian cities….
From today’s Mercury (with my comments below):
Council approves 10 per cent water rate
February 01, 2011
Drew Halfnight, Mercury staff
GUELPH — Council approved a 10 per cent increase to city water rates Monday evening, the second of four projected consecutive annual increases at that rate.
The vote came at the end of an occasionally tense, two-hour meeting, as Janet Laird, the city’s executive director of planning, engineering and environmental services, fielded questions from councillors about the 2011 water and waste water budgets worth a combined $456 million.
Coun. Gloria Kovach presented a motion to exclude two new staff positions from the budget. After her motion was voted down, Coun. Bob Bell chimed in with an amendment to have a different new staff position excluded.
When challenged by Maggie Laidlaw, who spoke in favour of the new hires, Bell answered he felt most people would find the rate increase “a little high.”
“I think we’re leading the pack with the 10 per cent increase,” he said, adding: “I only see a couple of places to trim.”
When pressed on the new staff positions added to this year’s budget, Laird raised the spectre of delayed inspections, overtime costs and the endangerment of the water supply.
Bell’s amendment was also voted down.
From March 31, increases to both water and waste water rates will add $71 to the average household’s hydro bill for a total of $781. By 2013, when the projected schedule of increases is finished, that number could reach $944, nearly twice what residents paid in 2005.
During her presentation, Laird showed a chart comparing the cost of water in different, comparably sized Ontario cities. Guelph was in the middle of the pack.
Laird defended the rate hikes, which she said would help the city meet provincial environmental standards, offsetting the continuing decline in water use and growing capital reserves to address looming infrastructure deficits.
One reason rates are rising, she added, is that water consumption is falling in Guelph even as the population increases.
Coun. Leanne Piper pointed out this presents a catch-22 where “when we conserve, we end up paying more,” to which Laird replied: “Yes, there’s a trade-off there for sure.”
Piper also aired concerns that Nestlé, which owns a permit to access groundwater south of the city, was somehow driving up costs for residents in Guelph. Laird said: “At this point in time, their drawdown is not affecting our wells,” though she did not provide specifics.
There has been little public outcry over the increases in Guelph since they were revealed last week.
By contrast, city council in North Bay, Ont., convened a public meeting this week after a six per cent water rate hike was proposed there. In St. Catharines last year, councillors staged a protest when faced with a 16 per cent regional hike.
Daphne Wainman Wood, president of the Old University Neighbourhood Association, said the organization was not taking a stand on the issue. “It’s not within our purview,” she said. “We actually have terms of reference, and it doesn’t fall within our terms of reference.”
Local water activist Norah Chaloner said modest rate increases for such a valuable resource are “inevitable.”
“As long as the rate hike is modest, and is going to go back into publicly delivered water. I think we’re going to have to support that,” she said, adding “those with the least” should be spared higher rates.
COMMENTS:
In asking the question during the debate about bulk water taking permits (Nestle) — I already knew the answer. I was in fact, attempting to refute the commonly held misconception that bulk water users are driving up residential rates by “not paying their fair share”. I have heard this comment many times from constituents, and wanted to set the record straight.
Nestle does not draw from the same well aquifer (they draw from the Mill Creek acquifer). In addition, it should be noted that other bulk water users within Guelph (industry) do pay their fair share of water rates, by the cubic metre, just like everyone else.
Re: Water Rates. Conservation is still the answer to lower bills. Residential users pay by the cubic metre and rates are set per cubic metre. Although fixed costs are included in the rates, and fixed costs are going up, there are still savings to be had. For more information on how to lower your water consumption, and thereby lower your water and wastewater bills…
Check out the City’s Water Conservation program at: http://guelph.ca/living.cfm?subCatID=1762&smocid=2338
LP
This article from the weekend Guelph Mercury is a good opportunity to talk about how city dwellers can live more sustainably within the urban environment.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/742996
Obviously, city residents can’t live off of the land to the degree that Arlene Slocombe is doing, but there are ways that the City is encouraging us to move in that direction — through the Community Energy Initiative and Water Conservation Strategy — with stated targets such as “lowest energy use per capita than comparable Canadian municipalities” and increasing locally-produced clean energy (solar, co-gen, etc.)
Here’s a sampling of initiatives already underway:
- rainwater collection incentives
- urban farming / community gardens
- solar installations / green roof buildings
- pollinator park
- increased tree canopy targets
- adding bicycle lanes
- improvements to public transit
- by-law allowing backyard chicken coops
- district heating and cooling precincts
Any more ideas? Share them here…
One idea I heard recently was to add canoe docking facilities along the two rivers, so that residents can paddle to work and/or school. I like it!
LP
How is Guelph doing on its environmental commitments? Read the 2010 updates here.
Water, waste, transportation, energy and greenspace — our future as a city depends on our continued improvement on all five fronts. See how we’re doing, what we’re doing and how we can do better in 2011….
I have received several inquiries about the status of the “Private Tree By-Law” that was presented to the Community Design and Environmental Services committee this past Monday. I am happy to try to add some clarity….
The Tree By-Law report can be viewed HERE (starts on page 22)….
The recommendation in the Tree By-Law report contained 5 clauses. Clauses 1, 2 and 4 were moved and seconded and supported unanimously. These three clauses were to: a) receive the report, b) approve amendments to the existing large lot tree preservation by-law and c) amend the user fee schedule to implement the amended large lot tree by-law.
Clauses 3 and 5 were to: a) enact a tree by-law for small lots (less than 0.2 hectares) and b) to bring forward a plan to fund implementation of the by-law in the 2011 budget.
Clauses 3 and 5 were not moved or seconded by any member of the committee (as Chair, I cannot move or second motions).
Therefore, the committee (including myself) did not vote “against” or to “remove” anything. A Guelph Mercury article is quoted as saying that the committee “voted to remove the provisions of the private tree bylaw dealing with regulated trees on small lot sizes”. This is not accurate – because the small lot tree by-law never made it to the floor to be voted on.
So where does this leave the small lot Tree By-law? Only the motions ratified at committee (Clause 1,2 and 4) will go forward to Council on July 27. However, at that meeting, any member of Council could choose to add Clauses 3 and 5 back in, or add them in as separate motions.
In the past, I have publicly stated that I support the protection and preservation of our urban canopy. I still do.
But there are many ways to do this – the small lot private tree by-law is not the be-all-and-end-all — it is one potential tool of many.
The city must “walk the talk” too – planting more trees on public land, better maintenance practices, increased naturalized areas, etc. I also believe the majority of residential property owners understand the benefits of planting and maintaining trees and are excellent stewards of the urban forest.
The goal behind the tree by-law has merit — to increase the city’s canopy to 40%. A healthy urban forest has immense public benefit – air quality, temperature regulation, energy use reduction, etc.
So the question remains — does the proposed small lot tree by-law do anything to help the city reach its stated outcome of 40% canopy? Is it too much “stick” and not enough “carrot”? Are there better ways to achieve the 40% goal, such as education, tree planting incentives, free trees, etc.? Should we focus more effort on those areas with 10% coverage like industrial and commercial lands (ie. parking lots, my personal pet peeve) ? Residential neighbourhoods are not the problem. I suspect the canopy in R1 (small lots) residential neighbourhoods is well over 50%. (I am working on getting additional info on this. )
It’s still a year away, but the Strategic Urban Forest Master Plan will answer many of these questions. Many municipalities have stronger tree preservation by-laws than the proposed Guelph one. Many municipalities have no tree preservation by-laws. Are we not doing enough or going too far?
I welcome your thoughts, as always…..
LP
CITY OF GUELPH NEWS RELEASE
Salamander monitoring finds no Jefferson Salamander presence on Hanlon Creek Business Park lands
GUELPH, ON, May 10, 2010 – Results of the recently completed salamander monitoring program indicate no Jefferson Salamander presence within the Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) lands.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. completed a comprehensive salamander monitoring program at the site between March 11 and April 30, on behalf of the City of Guelph, Belmont Equity (HCBP) Holdings Ltd. and Guelph Land Holdings Ltd. The monitoring program was developed in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Guelph District Office, City staff and Dr. Jim Bogart, Chair of the Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team.
The monitoring program included 5.5 kilometres of drift fencing, 122 minnow traps and 611 pitfall traps to monitor location and direction of salamander movement to and from potential breeding grounds. The monitoring program was undertaken during peak salamander breeding season when salamanders begin emerging from their overwintering sites and migrating to breeding ponds.
Thirteen salamanders were captured and sampled during the monitoring program. DNA extraction and analysis was then performed at the University of Guelph by Dr. Bogart. In all cases, the DNA analysis found no presence of pure Jefferson salamanders or Jefferson-dominated polyploids (Jefferson-dominated unisexuals).
“In consultation with Dr. Jim Bogart and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, we have concluded that there is no Jefferson Salamander presence on the Hanlon Creek Business Park lands,” stated Mayor Karen Farbridge. “We will move forward with our plans to service and develop these important employment lands and grow jobs in our community while ensuring excellence in environmental protection and restoration. In Guelph, sustainability and prosperity go hand in hand.”
On May 7, 2010 the City received confirmation from the MNR, Guelph District that the 2010 salamander monitoring program was rigorous enough to ascertain the presence of Jefferson Salamanders on the site. Based on the results of the program, the MNR, Guelph District also stated that there are no requirements for authorizations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the HCBP and that no agreement or permit under the ESA is required to proceed with development of the business park.
The City will be moving forward with the development of the HCBP subdivision as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in November 2006. The 2010 salamander monitoring program has provided additional information on the location and movement of other amphibians within the HCBP subdivision. This additional information will be used to consider design refinements and to undertake measures for wildlife protection during construction activities.
Our urban forest is a major municipal asset. Cities spend a lot of time, money and resources maintaining “grey” infrastructure, but not enough on “green” infrastructure. Green infrastructure is linked to quality of life, recreation, air quality, urban cooling, carbon offsets, and so many other intangible benefits, such as aesthetic beauty.
Grey infrastructure is, let’s face it, boring. It’s underground, it’s invisible, and rarely appreciated. Green infrastructure is something we enjoy everyday.
It used to be that tree planting and naturalization were community efforts. Scouts, Rotary, OPIRG, Trees for Guelph etc. are still involved in such efforts and are making a difference.
We need to expand the community effort. Council is faced with a tough budget year in 2010. Tree replacements (1 for 1) will likely continue, but we will never make a dent in increasing our canopy at that rate. The saying goes “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is NOW.”
So let’s rally! Would you “adopt a tree” for your local park?
People buy far-away invisible stars as Christmas gifts. And service orgs adopt a km of roadside highway. Why not adopt a local tree you can see grow everyday and one that your grandchildren can enjoy a generation from now?
Royal City Park needs more trees. The park was originally funded by the IODE as a gift to the Royal City. Will our community continue this tradition? So many individuals and groups benefit from this park — Old University Neighbourhood Association, John McCrae School, the Boathouse, the Animal Hospital, just to name a few. How about adopting a tree?
Guelph Urban Forest Friends (GUFF), Sierra Club, Council of Canadians, LIMITS — would you adopt a tree?
I will. On behalf of my family, I will purchase a tree for Royal City Park.
Anyone else?
The Royal City Park Material Management Plan went to the Community Development and Environmental Services committee this past Monday. One of the key recommendations in the plan is to remove and replace 52 high-risk trees in 2010. A full copy of the plan can be viewed at:
The loss of 52 trees will have a significant impact on the look and feel of the park. As a regular user of the park, I can attest to the emotional attachment that the community feels for the trees and the impact it will have on the park experience.
I also recognize that the city should have been investing heavily in the last 25 years on regular species renewal planting, tree pruning and better park management practices (ie. cutting with whipper-snippers). This is true for our entire parks system, not just RCP.
However, “could have” and “should haves” will do us no good today. It’s 2009 and it’s time to plan for the future of the park — now — even if we won’t benefit, our children will.
The recommended plan is a balanced approach, basically:
1. Remove the trees that are at risk.
2. Plant new trees immediately, large calliper native species.
3. Schedule succession plantings to increase tree cover over the next 5-10 years.
4. Improve maintenance practices to increase survival rates.
I agree with this plan. I know that this will mean the park will look very different next year, and the year after and for this, I am sad. But our children will thank us. Here’s a good example — the naturalization efforts in Silvercreek Park (between McCrae and the Hanlon) are now reaping the benefits of a plan that was implemented 20 years ago. In another 20 years, Royal City Park will be in better shape than it ever was — diversity of species, increased canopy and healthier trees.
Would love to hear thoughts from park users and community residents….
LP
A friend asked me last week why members of Council have been “silent” on the Hanlon Creek Business Park issue. I suppose I never thought that I was being silent — because Council unanimously endorsed the project. Our collective position is very clear.
The recent events (most notably the on-site protest, injunction, Minister’s approval and the decision to resume work next year) have been widely reported in the media. No one from the media has ever contacted me, or any other member of council that I am aware of, other than the Mayor. The Mayor has the support of Council on moving forward with the HCBP, as evidenced by the vote to approve the site plan.
We are not moving forward blindly. This is a well-planned project that has been through years of extensive consultation and a thorough public process, resulting in environmental conditions that will protect and enhance the land. I attended the public meeting of LIMITS, including a second meeting where I was the only councillor in attendance, and have become well-read on Jefferson Salamander breeding habitat, among other things. I have also walked the site and am familiar with its natural heritage, beauty and features. I am deeply committed to protecting our environment, water sources, public health, trees, air quality, etc.
My support of the HCBP is not in conflict with these values. I truly believe this project is different. I believe this project balances the environment, economy and social/cultural fabric of our community. I do not believe the Jefferson Salamander is compromised by this project, nor the old growth forest or wetlands that protect our water supply. Land uses will be limited to those that do not pose a risk to the site. Significant wetlands and old growth forest areas are not being paved over. This is not a typical “industrial park” that you may think of in other parts of the city. Great care has been taken, and will be taken, to ensure the development meets the goals of the Community Energy Plan. A significant portion of the site has been farmed for the past century. The finished development will have more trees than the current site.
I am hopeful the project will move ahead successfully when work resumes in 2010. When it comes to protecting the natural heritage of our city as a whole, there are still areas that need protection and require public participation and diligence. The city has developed a Natural Heritage Strategy that will unfold over the next year. I encourage members of the community (including HCBP protestors) to participate in the democratic public process related to the NHS.
Last night, Council voted to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides within the City of Guelph. There are exceptions (read the by-law), but for the most part, the days of indiscriminate spraying of pesticides on lawns in Guelph is over. Exceptions for insect infestation (grubs and chinch bugs) will end January 1, 2009.
The new pesticide-free Guelph will require a cultural and behavioural shift. I think this community is up for it – we’re a resourceful and responsible group! So I will be joining the healthy lawn revolution too….
Although I would much rather tear up my lawn and create a lush Ontario native shade garden, the reality is that I still need a stretch of lawn. You see, I have three boys (and a daughter) and therefore, backyard soccer, badminton, volleyball and other lawn activities are still very much a part of our foreseeable future.
I’ve never sprayed pesticides on my lawn. But then again, I’ve never aspired to have the perfect lawn either. I’m okay with dandelions – they make great salad greens BTW – and the birds love the grubs.
This year, I have decided to try some of the techniques suggested by the City of Guelph “healthy lawn” education program to see if they make a difference. I completed the first step last week – dethatching and new “Eco-Lawn” seed with homemade compost. Thankfully, the rain soaked everything yesterday. So far so good….
LP
