HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-12-043 - Compass Kitchener LEAF Community Consultation ResuREPORT TO:Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
October 15, 2012
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Willmer, CAO, 519 741 2350
PREPARED BY:
Jeff Willmer, CAO, 519 741 2350
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: October 4, 2012
REPORT NO.:
CAO-12-043
SUBJECT:
Local Environmental Action Fund
Compass Kitchener Report on Community Consultation
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendations contained in the report from Compass Kitchener, attached to Report
CAO-12-043, be considered by standing committee and council.
BACKGROUND:
As per the council resolutions of January 16, 2012 and August 13, 2012 extension, Compass
Kitchener has been requested to lead a public consultation process and report back to standing
committee and council.
REPORT:
Please see attached report “Local Environment Action Fund Community Consultation on the
Future Use of $3 million”
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This initiative relates to the plan foundation of Effective and Efficient Government: Financial
Management (“Stewardship of public funds” and “It’s citizens’ money”); Asset Management
(“Prioritized funding”); and Communications, Marketing and Customer Service (“Access to
information is the first step to transparency, accountability & customer service”).
The process leading up to Council’s decision has achieved progress on the following community
priorities (with applicable strategic directions bracketed): Quality of Life (“All voices matter” and
“Nurture a sense of pride and community”); Leadership and Community Engagement (“Promote
informed decisions that last,” “Make it easy to get involved,” “E-engagement is here to stay,”
“Cultivate local leadership” and “Hand it to the youth”); and Diversity (“Take a stand,” “Offer
ample opportunities for inclusion” and “Be a leader”).
Council’s decision should address the community priority of Environment (“Lead by example,”
“Partner in protecting our natural environment,” and “Continue with the plans”).
ïð ó ï
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
As discussed in the attached report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
As discussed in the attached report.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Jeff Willmer, CAO
ïð ó î
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ACTION FUND
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE
USE OF $3 MILLION
REPORT
FROM
COMPASS KITCHENER
OCTOBER 2012
ïð ó í
BACKGROUND
The $5 millionLocal Environmental Action Fund (LEAF) was established in 2007 and provided
catalytic funding to many successful green initiatives across the community in 2009, 2010 and
2011.
In 2012, Kitchener City Council voted in favour of suspending the LEAF fund, pending a review
of the program and a full public consultation, The city wants to ensure the dollars that remain in
the LEAF program - approximately $3 million - continue to make a positive impact on the local
environment.
Compass Kitchener – an advisory committee to Council made up of citizens whose purpose is
to engage the community in developing and achieving a shared vision for the future - was asked
by Council to lead a public consultation process seeking feedback from the community on how
much of those funds should be allocated to one or more of five options (four suggested options
and “other”). Compass Kitchener subsequently appointed a sub-committee to oversee this
consultation and develop the report with recommendations to Council. Only members of
Compass Kitchener who did not wish themselves to express a preference for use of the LEAF
funds were asked to participate. While the city has supported Compass Kitchener by promoting
the consultation and providing background information on all of the tabled options, staff have
had no other role in the process.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESS
The following steps were taken to implement this community consultation:
Backgrounders were prepared on each of four suggested options being presented for use
of the approximately $3 million left in the LEAF fund
(http://www.kitchener.ca/en/insidecityhall/LEAF_Program_Review.asp);
A communications plan was prepared;
The process for four community meetings was developed;
Survey questions for an on-line survey were developed;
Outreach to various communities and the media was undertaken;
A special section of the city’s website was developed to house information about the
consultation process, backgrounders to each of the options and the survey;
An analysis of the responses from over 250 consultation participants was undertaken with
the report on those results reviewed by the Compass Kitchener sub-committee which then
developed recommendations for use of the funds;
1
A final report was written and submitted to Council in October, 2012.
1
The original timeframe was for a report to go to Council in September, 2012, but for various reasons,
including an extension for the online survey from June 30 to July 31, Council agreed to a request to delay
the report until October.
ïð ó ì
RESULTS
Introduction
Participants in the community consultation undertaken by Compass Kitchener totaled 279
people – 70 in four public meetings, 205 through the online survey and four by e-mail or
telephone. The online survey consisted of seven questions and is attached as Appendix 1.
Questions 1 through 4 were general background information while 5 through 7 gave participants
the opportunity to allocate the $3 million to one or more of the suggested options and give their
reasons for or against funding each option.
The dynamics of the public meetings meant that the questions asked on the survey could not be
duplicated exactly, since the process was intended to encourage discussion and sharing of
knowledge and opinions among the participants. However, participants in the public meetings
had the opportunity to complete an allocation chart similar to that in the on-line survey and to
state their reasons for or against allocating funds to each option. Appendix 2 is the agenda used
for the public meeting process. In the end, 47 participants in the public meetings submitted the
completed allocation chart on paper.
The allocation charts that participants were asked to complete allowed them to allocate the $3
million to one or more of five choices:
Development of Parks and Trails
Eradication of the Emerald Ash Borer
Maintaining the LEAF granting fund
Preservation of Hidden Valley
Other.
Of the total 279 participants, a total of 245 respondents allocated the funds to the various
23
options – 47 participants in the public meetings, 194 online and four by e-mail or telephone.
Process for Data Analysis
The analysis undertaken of participant responses to the questions asked through the online
survey and in public meetings, consisted of the following:
Summaries developed of responses to all questions from the on-line survey, both
quantitative and qualitative;
Listing of all responses to the discussion questions posed during each public meeting,
including the reasons given for and against allocating funds to any option;
Spreadsheets developed with all responses to both the online survey and the public
meeting participant surveys completed;
2
Participants in the public meetings were given the option of completing the allocation chart on paper or
doing it online at a later time, when, for example, they had greater opportunity to explore the background
papers on each option. This means that participants in the public meetings may also have participated
online.
3
Most of the online respondents who did not complete the allocation chart did make comments about one
or more of the options available and those comments have been taken into account in our analysis.
ïð ó ë
Analysis of the geographic distribution of all participants who completed the allocation
charts.
Analysis of responses to the questions asked related to: environmental priorities for each
participant; previous involvement in receiving LEAF grants; assessment of impact of LEAF
funding;
Charting of the funds allocated to each option;
Thematic analysis of all responses related to the allocation charts;
Writing draft report;
Feedback from Compass Kitchener sub-committee members on draft report;
Writing final report.
Citizens’ Responses
General environmental priorities
Two hundred respondents to the survey answered the question “what the City of Kitchener’s top
five priorities for the environment should be”. The following chart shows their responses:
TOP FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED BY
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
PRIORITY# OF RESPONDENTS IDENTIFYING AS A % OF 200
TOP PRIORITY RESPONDENTS
Trails and Cycling 12261%
Maintaining/creating
green spaces 11758%
Creating walkable
communities10854%
Wetland/natural area
protection10352%
Preserving/planting
trees10150%
Because of the discussion format, in the public meetings participants were not given a list of
environmental issues but were asked to suggest their most important environmental issues for
the City of Kitchener. The highest number of comments related to:
Preservation/protection of natural areas and green spaces;
Protection of clean water and air;
Deforestation.
As documented throughout the remainder of this report, these choices show consistency with
the choices participants made in allocating the $3 million remaining in LEAF.
Prior LEAF grants
Of the 205 on-line survey respondents, 156 answered the question related to whether or not
they had ever received LEAF grants in the past. Only 13, or 8% said they had. Of the 49 who
ïð ó ê
skipped this question, there may have been some who had received funds but did not want to
share that information.
In answer to whether or not LEAF funds distributed to date (2007 to 2011) had had a significant
impact on the environment, 49 (24%) of 201 respondents said yes and 25 (12%) said no. The
vast majority said that they did not know. Many respondents who did not allocate
any funds for maintaining the LEAF granting program in the future, stated that they did not know
about the fund, what it was for or how effective it had been. Some of those who did not allocate
any funds to maintaining LEAF and some of those who did emphasized that future projects
should be evaluated for their effect on the environment and to ensure that they are meeting the
goals and criteria of the Fund.
Participant geographic representation
The following chart indicates the distribution throughout the city of the 239 participants who
gave the correct first three digits of their postal code. We are very pleased at the wide
distribution of participants. Please see a map of Kitchener Postal Codes in Appendix #3.
Allocating $3 million
Participants were generally very thoughtful in their allocation of the approximately $3 million that
was left in the LEAF fund when the fund was put on hold in 2012. Most participants commented
on why they did or did not allocate funds to each option and in many cases explained exactly
what the money should be used for.
For each option, we will give a brief synopsis of the option, present a chart that shows the
amounts allocated by number of participants and then summarize important themes that arose
ïð ó é
from the participant comments, both on line and in public meetings We cannot, of course,
mention every point made by every participant but can assure the reader that we have been
diligent in reviewing and categorizing the main themes that emerged.
SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
WHO ALLOCATED FUNDS TO EACH OPTION
% OF TOTAL*
OPTION# OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS (245)
Develop Parks & Trails 16266%
Preserve Hidden Valley 13656%
Eradicate Emerald Ash Borer 10242%
Maintain/Redesign Leaf 9238%
Other5120%
* Figures do not add to 100% because respondents had the choice of allocating to more than one option
Developing Parks and Trails
The Parks and Trails Strategic Plan, and the Multi-use Pathways and Trail Master Plan, identify
capital projects for major upgrades, maintenance and development in various parks and
maintenance and development of trails for multiple uses throughout the city. Based on
comments made by survey respondents and participants in the public meetings during this
review, hikers, bikers and neighbourhood residents welcome these long-term plans but are
concerned with the high costs involved. While recognizing that the LEAF funds will not come
close to meeting the millions of dollars needed to fulfill these and various other plans for parks
and trails (neighbourhood secondary plans, cycling master plan, protecting natural spaces, etc.),
many participants feel that the LEAF funds, or a portion of them, would be a good start.
The following chart shows how the majority of survey respondents would allocate those funds to
this priority:
ALLOCATION CHART
Develop Parks & Trails
# OF % OF TOTAL
FUNDS ALLOCATED RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
(245)*
$3,000,000 14
$2,000,000 – $2,999,999 30
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 79
$500,000 - $ 999,999 28
$100,000 - $ 499,999 11
TOTAL16266%
* Number of survey respondents that indicated how they would allocate the $3 million
ïð ó è
A majority of the survey respondents who said why they would allocate funds to Parks and
Trails suggested that a good system of well maintained parks and trails are important to the
quality of life for Kitchener residents, promoting healthy living and encouraging clean, safe
outdoor activity. Many also felt that this option benefits the largest number of people because it
gives opportunity for recreational activities like walking and biking, often with easy access within
their own neighbourhood. However, beyond healthy living and recreation, almost one-half of the
participants who allocated funds to this option also mentioned the importance of preserving or
enhancing natural areas. For that reason, many of them also allocated some funds to
preserving Hidden Valley.
Some people who supported this option felt it was good for the environment, offering an
alternative to automobile use as well as benefiting the climate and reducing air pollution. A few
others suggested that parks and trails:
should be viewed as integral to the overall infrastructure of the city,
help develop a sense of community,
enhance property values,
attract business to locate here.
Connecting existing trails and developing new ones focused on connectivity for walkers and
bikers was the most often suggested focus for the expenditure of funds allocated to Parks and
Trails. A number of survey respondents, as well as participants who commented in the public
meetings, suggested that what was really important was the upgrading and ongoing
maintenance of existing and new parks and trails, including ensuring full accessibility, all of
which some people suggested is neglected in Kitchener relative to other communities with
which they are familiar.
While those who opted to allocate funds to the development of Parks and Trails obviously see
this as an environmental issue, some of those who did not choose to allocate any of the $3
million to this option are not convinced that such development has anything to do with bringing
about real environmental change. For them:
funds should be built into ongoing budgets as we can afford it,
there are enough “manicured” parks and trails already,
we need to protect “natural” ecologically sensitive areas and trees,
developers should pay for any new parks and trails.
Preserving Hidden Valley
Hidden Valley, bounded by the Grand River, Highway 8, Fairway Road and Wabanaki Drive
consists of an estate residential area (some of which has already been developed), a vacant
area zoned as industrial/business park and significant wetlands, woodlands, wildlife and species
at risk habitats and surface water protection areas. In 1981 Waterloo Region approved an
extension of River Road through this community to connect with Bleams Road. With a new
Phase 3 Environmental Assessment process started in 2011, it will be several years before a
final decision is made on that extension.
Developers who own large portions of the area are waiting for the River Road decision before
finalizing their plans for development. Environmentally significant lands designated by both
Kitchener and the Region in their new (as yet unapproved) Official Plans will not be able to be
ïð ó ç
developed by the owners. Despite this, those who wish to see the entire area preserved feel
that any development at all will potentially affect the sensitive areas and/or lead to pollution of
the water table.
Without knowing exactly how much it would cost the city to buy Hidden Valley or portions of it,
the second highest number of survey respondents feel that LEAF funds should be used for that
purpose, as demonstrated by the following chart. In addition, strong support for this option was
voiced by many of the participants during discussions at two of the four public meetings.
ALLOCATION CHART
Preserve Hidden Valley
# OF % OF TOTAL
FUNDS ALLOCATED RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
(245)*
$3,000,000 35
$2,000,000 – $2,999,999 28
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 39
$500,000 - $ 999,999 20
$100,000 - $ 499,999 14
TOTAL13656%
* Number of survey respondents that indicated how they would allocate the $3 million.
Although fewer participants allocated funds to this option than to developing Parks and Trails
(136 compared to 162), significantly more demonstrated their passion for this option by
allocating the full $3 million to preserving Hidden Valley (35 compared to 14). That passion was
further demonstrated in the comments many made, both in favour of this option and against the
other three.
As with Parks and Trails, many people talked in terms of quality of life – the beauty of the area,
a place where people can hike and relate to nature, the need for more green space in the city
and preserving a unique natural area for our children and grandchildren. Many more, however,
talked about it in terms of an opportunity to do something significant for the environment. They
argue that preserving ecologically significant wetlands, protecting endangered species, and
protecting our water supply is of immediate importance when compared to the other options. A
4
few of those noted that purchasing these lands fit well with the original LEAF criteria.
Many of these respondents bolstered their environmental arguments by noting that it is easier to
preserve an existing natural area than it is to develop new areas. Some emphasized that once
the area is developed it cannot be recreated. Others suggested that Hidden Valley should be
preserved the same way that the Huron Natural Area is being preserved and that it is at least
4
This includes the three mandatory criteria (see page 11 of this report) but also at least one of the
proposed project outcomes suggested in the LEAF terms of reference: “Increase city ownership of
significant natural lands where other techniques for acquisition have not succeeded”.
ïð ó ïð
equally important ecologically. A few people suggested that if the city contributed LEAF funds to
preserving this area then other partners would be persuaded to contribute as well.
Some participants from both those that wanted to fund Hidden Valley and those that did not,
noted that this option would actually advance the goals of the Parks and Trails Master Plan in
that it could be considered a natural park with the additional vision for some of a significant trail
running along the Grand River where it winds through Hidden Valley.
However, more participants had negative things to say against funding Hidden Valley than
against funding Parks and Trails or other options. The largest number felt the preservation of
Hidden Valley would impact far fewer people than one or more of the other options. Some of
those same people, and others, assumed that most of the people wanting to preserve Hidden
Valley and who would benefit from its preservation live in the immediate neighbourhood.
However, our analysis of the geographic distribution of participants in this consultation, shows
that there are no more from that immediate area (N2C – 4%) or even the neighbouring N2P
area (6%) than from many other areas in the city, and significantly less than a number of areas
that are a long way from Hidden Valley.
Other comments from those who did not want to allocate funding to the preservation of Hidden
Valley included:
there should be other ways to fund this, if it is really needed, either from the private
sector or from capital funds of the city,
the city is already preserving natural areas,
do not know enough about this to determine if it is important.
Eradicating the Emerald Ash Borer
The invasion of the destructive Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), introduced in North America from
eastern Asia in 2002, can be devastating to communities which have large numbers of Ash
trees as part of their streetscape and green area canopies. If unchecked, it will destroy every
ash tree, large or small. In Kitchener, the cost of replacing the 4500 Ash trees on residential
streets and 2000 more in parks and natural areas is $6.6 million. A plan recently presented to
Council by city staff proposes spending $7.5 million over ten years to inject mature trees over 30
cm (trunk diameter) with a chemical to protect them (907 trees) while removing smaller dying
ash trees and replacing them with other species over ten years. The staff report states that
funds already allocated in 2012 will allow for the injection of 300 to 400 mature trees this year
and the removal of other heavily infested trees.
During this review, comments from participants in the public meetings and from those
completing the survey indicated that while it is necessary to address this issue, they felt using
LEAF funds for that purpose would not be in keeping with its goals and criteria, which they saw
as being proactive rather than reactive. 102 respondents did not agree with that sentiment, as
demonstrated in the chart below:
ïð ó ïï
ALLOCATION CHART
Eradicate Emerald Ash Borer
# OF % OF TOTAL
FUNDS ALLOCATED RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
(245)*
$3,000,000 7
$2,000,000 – $2,999,999 14
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 36
$500,000 - $ 999,999 28
$100,000 - $ 499,999 17
TOTAL10242%
* Number of survey respondents that indicated how they would allocate the $3 million.
Twenty-one survey respondents allocated $2 million to $3 million to this option, many fewer than
in the previous two options - 44 for Parks and Trails and 63 for Hidden Valley. The majority of
respondents supporting this option saw it as perhaps necessary but wanted to support other,
options as well - even though the backgrounder on this option made it clear that even the full $3
million would not address the total need for eradicating the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB).
Most people allocating funds to this option wanted those funds used to protect the existing
trees, rather than for removal and replanting, their reasoning being that it takes so long to get
the tree canopy to a mature state. Most mentioned that they see trees as being a vital piece in
protecting the environment, especially air quality. Some also talked about their value in
providing shade, beautifying the community, cooling our homes and filtering air and water. This
suggests that they would probably support staff’s proposal for some funds to go toward the
injection of mature trees.
As noted above, many of those who did not want any funds from the $3 million allocated to this
issue felt that the EAB was a problem which should be solved through other means. Some
people in the public meetings even expressed surprise that this was on the list of options for use
of the $3 million LEAF funds, since it would hardly be in the spirit of the original LEAF program.
Others who were against using the funds toward this option felt that the destruction of all of the
Ash trees was inevitable and they should just be replaced as they succumbed, with costs
covered from the city’s regular budget or from other levels of government (federal, provincial,
5
the Region). For some, not only did they not believe that the invasion can be stopped but they
were also concerned that the chemical treatment may cause other environmental problems. As
with some of the other options, a few people said that they did not know enough about the
problem to know if it would be worthwhile to allocate funds to solving it.
5
In a recent report from the City of Guelph staff to their Council, it was stated that they have set aside
$3.9 million over the next ten years to replace infected trees because there is “no effective treatment to
prevent or eliminate the emerald ash borer”.
ïð ó ïî
Maintaining LEAF
Since the Local Environment Action Fund (LEAF) was established in 2007, amounting
eventually to $5 million, 30 local projects were funded totaling approximately $2 million. Based
on public input, LEAF criteria stipulated that:
proposed projects could come from not-for-profit or charitable organizations as
o
well as Kitchener city departments and other institutions,
for-profit corporations or other governments could access funds if their proposals
o
were in partnership with not-for-profit organizations or the City of Kitchener,
funded projects had to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, increase
o
public awareness/promote changed behaviour, and provide a long-term
sustainable benefit to Kitchener.
In addition, at least one of a list of suggested outcomes had to be achieved by funded projects -
enhanced air quality, reduced energy use, purchasing or improving already city-owned natural
lands, reduced dependency on the automobile in existing communities or neighbourhoods.
Many survey respondents felt that, even if not many project proposals for LEAF funding over
6
four years were seen as “transformational” by city staff and Council, they were still important to
the community for a variety of reasons. Therefore, 92 survey respondents wanted the LEAF
granting program to continue, at a level of $500,000 or more. However, few respondents (13)
felt that the fund should be maintained at more than $2 million. This compares to 21
respondents who allocated $2 million - $3 million dollars toward eliminating the EAB, 44 at that
level for Parks and Trails and 63 for Hidden Valley. During discussions in the public meetings,
very few participants expressed support for maintaining LEAF at its present level.
6
Please note that this term was not defined when it was first used by staff in the presentation to Council
which resulted in the current review, nor does it appear anywhere in the original LEAF terms of reference.
ïð ó ïí
ALLOCATION CHART
Maintain LEAF
# OF % OF TOTAL
FUNDS ALLOCATED RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
(245)*
$3,000,000 5
$2,000,000 – $2,999,999 8
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 24
$500,000 - $ 999,999 34
$100,000 - $ 499,999 21
TOTAL9238%
* Number of survey respondents that indicated how they would allocate the $3 million.
Most of those who wanted to allocate funds to this option gave similar reasons – they wanted to
encourage innovation, support new initiatives and be able to seed unique projects. They also
felt the existence of such a fund encourages citizens to be creative and empowers them to
create local changes through collective action to improve the environment. Others felt that such
activity builds community capacity overall to respond to environmental issues. A few survey
respondents felt LEAF projects had been transformational and that it was important to have
such funds available to further support good projects that had already received funding from
LEAF.
If any funding is allocated to the LEAF for the future, a number of participants felt it is important
to ensure that projects are properly monitored and evaluated as to their outcomes (not just
outputs) related to LEAF criteria; i.e., they be assessed in terms of their actual effect on the
environment. Some also thought there should be much better publicity about the existence of
the fund as they and/or others had not been aware of it prior to this review.
The majority of survey respondents did not want to allocate any of the $3 million to maintaining
LEAF in the future, for a variety of reasons. Most simply felt that one or more of the other
options are more pressing and need attention immediately. For them, it was not that LEAF was
not a good idea but that other options (in a few cases their own suggested option) were vital in
terms of their effect on the environment.
Some other survey respondents suggested that LEAF projects had not proven to be
transformational and that the only way to achieve that is to concentrate funds on large projects
rather than “sprinkling them around”. A few skeptics felt that LEAF was just a way to fund the
bureaucracy or corporations, or that there was no sense allocating funds to LEAF because the
decision had already been made to shut it down permanently.
ïð ó ïì
Other Options
In undertaking this review of the LEAF funds, we wanted to ensure that citizens had the
possibility of allocating the $3 million to other areas which they felt to be important. During the
public meetings, very few people expressed the need to allocate any of these funds to other
areas than the four options suggested. However, in responding to the survey approximately
20% allocated some or all of the funds to other areas that they felt were important, some of
those not related to the environment at all. The chart below breaks down those numbers:
ALLOCATION CHART
Other
# OF % OF TOTAL
FUNDS ALLOCATED RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
(253)*
$3,000,000 9
$2,000,000 – $2,999,999 8
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 15
$500,000 - $ 999,999 12
$100,000 - $ 499,999 7
TOTAL5120%
* Number of survey respondents that indicated how they would allocate the $3 million.
Almost all of those who allocated the entire $3 million to this option suggested that the funds
should be returned to the regular budget to be used to help lower taxes. At all allocation levels,
the highest alternative use of the funds was suggested for general public education around
environmental issues, or education directed specifically toward youth. Other areas where a few
respondents suggested a particular option included:
naturalization of waterways,
creating a solar farm,
increasing car share opportunities,
increasing street bike lanes,
creating an environmental contingency fund to address environmental emergencies.
Individuals suggested other options, including: support for community gardens, anti-idling by-law
enforcement, rare species habitat rehabilitation, improving sidewalk accessibility, and expanding
parking for Centre In The Square.
ïð ó ïë
Conclusion
In April 2012, Council unanimously agreed to have Compass Kitchener undertake a community
engagement process to receive input from local citizens on how to allocate the approximately $3
million remaining in the suspended LEAF granting program. Council also approved the four
options which were felt to be the most important and currently pressing relative to Kitchener
moving forward in improving Kitchener’s environment over the long term.
Since April, a number of staff reports to Kitchener Council have underscored the important uses
to which the LEAF funds could be directed. Both the Multi-use Pathways and Trails Master Plan
and the Emerald Ash Borer report note that significant short and long-term funding are required
for implementation. Imbedded in those plans and/or stated during discussions around those
plans, staff and some Council members have suggested that the remaining LEAF funds could
be an important contribution in the short-term. In addition, a report to Council on a survey of
Kitchener citizens suggests that, as the 2013 budget deliberations approach, they want Council
to maintain low or no tax increases. The assumption from that may be that using LEAF funds for
existing, unbudgeted needs related to the environment, would help reduce the need for
increased taxes.
We make the recommendations below assuming that Kitchener Council still wants the
remaining LEAF funds used in some way related to the desire to “Lead by Example” in focusing
“significant energy and resources on becoming more environmentally friendly” as stated in the
city’s strategic plan. We recognize that, given the data, different recommendations could have
been made for the use of these funds. However, we feel that, although they will not satisfy all
participants who took part in this process, these recommendations best reflect the thoughtful
responses from citizen participants in the review process. We believe that these uses of the
funds can help to make significant change in our stewardship of the environment. We also
recognize that, in some cases, funds additional to LEAF may be needed in support of these
initiatives if they are to become truly transformational. We also recognize that to transform the
environment or our relation to it (i.e. to make a thorough or dramatic change) often requires
incremental steps and is cumulative over time.
RECOMMENDATION #1
Kitchener’sStrategic Plan for the Environment includes the following primary objective related to
natural areas: “To develop and maintain an ecologically diverse open space which incorporates
typical naturally occurring landscapes, significant natural features and the urban forest, all of
which embody our valued natural heritage.”
Kitchener boasts more than 1,600 hectares of parkland, which includes more than 75 natural
areas, 220 parks and more than 125 kilometers of community trails. Their maintenance and
development can have significant effect on the environment. Natural areas, for example, assist
with: carbon sequestration, water recycling and water table recharging, control of soil erosion,
new vegetation production through soil nutrient movement and exchange, maintaining air
quality, etc. The use of these natural areas and other parks and trails encourage people to be
more aware of their environment and their effect on it and may give them an increased
commitment to stewardship of the environment. Citizens who participated in the LEAF funds
review often pointed to the importance of natural areas, no matter which of the five options they
allocated the $3 million to. Please see Appendix 4 for a map of Kitcheners natural areas parks
(and recreational parks).
ïð ó ïê
Based on the above, we recommend that:
a. $2,000,000 of the remaining LEAF funds be allocated to the development of new and/or
enhancement of already designated natural areas. This includes the development and
improvement of trails within those areas or the connection of existing trails and pathways
to those natural areas. Accessibility of these trails and pathways is vital.
b. A sub-committee of the Environmental Advisory Committee or a separate steering
committee be formed to have citizen input into decisions around implementing this
recommendation.
c. In allocating these funds, staff and the advisory committee consider recommending the
augmentation of the Region’s and the City’s Official Plan designated natural areas within
Hidden Valley, including the development of a Grand River Heritage Trail.
d. A portion of these funds may be used for the purchase of land designated as natural
areas, if there are no other options for acquiring those areas.
RECOMMENDATION #2
Many participants in the review saw real value in involving citizens and local organizations in
developing environmental projects and programs. Such engagement not only improves the
environment but helps to educate the local population about the importance of the environment
and its stewardship. While we are not recommending the continuation of LEAF, we do
recommend:
a. $1,000,000 be added to the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account for grants
through the Community Environmental Improvement Grants to be distributed over the
next five years.
b. That the CEIG grants criteria be amended to include grants up to $10,000 each.
c. That each grant application must include specific outcomes for change related to the
environment as a result of the project’s activities as well as their method for assessing
that change.
d. That additional resources be given to the Environment Advisory Committee or its CEIG
sub-committee for the purpose of adequately publicizing the existence of this fund and to
ensure that all granted projects are evaluated.
ïð ó ïé
APPENDIX 1
ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. What are the first three digits of your postal code?
2. What do you think the City of Kitchener's top environmental priorities should be? (Please select a maximum
of five items)
Air pollution
Climate change
Creating walkable communities
Education about green living
Energy consumption
Maintaining/creating green spaces
Preserving/planting trees
Trails and cycling
Urban sprawl
Waste management
Water pollution
Wetland/natural area preservation
Other, please specify
3. Have you or an organization of which you are a member received funds from LEAF since its establishment in
2007?
Yes No
4. Do you feel the results of the LEAF funds that have been distributed to date have had a significant impact on
the environment?
Yes No Do not know
Additional comments
5. How would you allocate the remaining $3 million in LEAF fund between the following options? You may put
the total funds into one option, or split them among the options. Please round your responses to hundreds of
thousands. For example, $1,200,000. Please specify how the funds should be used in each box where you have
allocated funds.
Developing parks and trails
Eradicating Emerald Ash Borer
Maintaining/redesigning Local Environmental Action Fund (LEAF)
Preserving Hidden Valley
Other
6. Please comment on why each option to which you allocated funds is important for you and the city of
Kitchener.
7. Please comment on why each option to which you DID NOT allocate funds is less important for you and the
city of Kitchener.
ïð ó ïè
APPENDIX 2
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
INTRODUCTION
Power point review of purpose of the consultation, who we are, and brief summary of
the options on the table
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS
6 – 8 to table (encourage mixing with people you do not know/did not come with)
1. Around the table, each person 3 minutes: First name. What are the
environmental issues that concern you the most and that you think the City of
Kitchener should take a lead role in?
2. If you already know how you think the $3million LEAF funds should be used,
explain why that allocating funds that way is important to you. (again, limit time
to 2 or 3 minutes each) (probe if individual is member of a group related to any
of the options).
3. If you have not yet made up your mind on how the LEAF funds should be
allocated, what do you need to know? Can anyone at the table answer others’
questions (if not find someone in the room who can).
4. Please complete the allocation chart.
5. Share, if you wish to, how you allocated the funds and why
6. Give people time to change their allocations if they want to and ensure that
everyone has handed in their allocation sheet before they leave. Thank them
for their participation. Note that anyone who did not complete the chart could do
the survey on line after they have had more time to think about it or research
other information.
ïð ó ïç
APPENDIX 3
CITY OF KITCHENER
POSTAL CODE MAP
ïð ó îð
APPENDIX 4
CITY OF KITCHENER
NATURAL AREA LOCATIONS
ïð ó îï