20
THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Appendix B: 2011 State of Heritage Conservation & Recommended Next Steps December 21, 2011
THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Appendix B: 2011 State of Heritage Conservation &
Recommended Next Steps
December 21, 2011
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
PAST ENGAGEMENT EXPERIENCE CONTEXT 3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 4
1 – SUMMARY OF THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 6
1.1 PHASE 1: PLAN & PREPARE 6 KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 6 ONLINE SURVEY 6 1.2 PHASE 2: ENGAGE 6 COMMUNITY HERITAGE WORKSHOP: 6 1.3 PHASE 3: REPORTING & EVALUATION 7 WHAT WAS SAID REPORTS 7 REPONSE TO PARTICIPANT QUESTIONS 7 ISSUES ANALYSIS & NEXT STEPS RECOMMENDATIONS 8 EVALUATION 8
2 – KEY ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS CONCERNING HERITAGE CONSERVATION 9
2.1. LISTING PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION 9 2.2 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND VALUES 10 2.3 ALTERATIONS, DEMOLITION AND RESTRICTIONS 10 2.4 INCENTIVES AND SUPPORT 11 2.5 LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY 11 2.6 DECISION MAKING PROCESSES 11
3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS 12
3.1 EMERGING AREAS OF CONVERSATION 12 CONVERATION 1: DETERMINE VALUES, FOCUS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION 13 CONVERSATION 2: BALANCING NEEDS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY VS. PROPERTY OWNERS 13 CONVERSATION 3: DEVELOP MEANINGFUL CRITERIA FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES 14 3.2 SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES 14 ENHANCE METHODS OF COMMUNICATION, INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 14 ONGOING INVOLVEMENT, INTERACTION AND INPUT ON HERITAGE CONSERVATION 15 3.3 – ONGOING ENGAGEMENT 15 GUIDANCE FOR SUCCESSFUL SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT 16 3.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM 16 DETERMINE LEVEL AND COMMITMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 16 CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE, ACKNOWLEDGE AND EMBRACE EXISTING AND FUTURE CONCERNS AND ISSUES 17 MAINTAIN A HEALTHY BALANCE BETWEEN FACTS AND VALUES 18 3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT ENGAGEMENT STEPS 18 STEP 1: MODIFICATIONS TO HERITAGE BURLINGTON 18 STEP 2: CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES 19 STEP 3: DEVELOP HERITAGE CONSERVATION ENGAGEMENT PLAN 19
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Heritage conservation is a topic of significant discussion and interest in the City of Burlington as it affects many people in many ways. It impacts people’s properties, their concept of culture and vision for the City, and their livelihoods. The best approach to conserving heritage which balances potential negative impacts on property owners and residents with legislative requirements has yet to be determined. Interested stakeholders and residents have expressed a distinct willingness to work with the City on this complex topic. Burlington City Council has requested staff to communicate with and engage the public on the issues of heritage conservation through the following direction to staff: “That the Director of Planning and Building, with the assistance of the Community Relations Section of the Clerks Department to facilitate a two part workshop on Heritage. Part One – Council orientation on the history, legislation and Provincial Interest in Heritage protection, including a review of the current practice of heritage protection in the City of Burlington. A review of alternative approaches to heritage protection along a continuum of minimal program of voluntary heritage designation to heritage protection. Part Two – Engagement workshop with the public on heritage policy and practice. This workshop will use an external facilitator and seek to achieve:
• An understanding of participants’ points of view
• Identification of common ground • into policy options for council consideration”
Previous to 2011 staff direction, Council had directed staff to hold a workshop to provide information to stakeholders and to obtain feedback on the process to address requests for removal from the existing Municipal Register. This workshop was held on April 14, 2010. The results of this workshop pointed to a number of other issues and concerns raised by stakeholders regarding heritage conservation within the City, and as a result, City Council asked staff to conduct a two-‐part heritage workshop and corresponding engagement process. Part One of the workshop was held on August 29, 2011 at the Committee of the Whole as a Council as an education exercise. This report covers the execution, participation and results from Part Two of the Workshop and corresponding engagement activities.
Past Engagement Experience Context People have been engaged with the City on heritage conservation issues in a variety of ways and for various reasons including; conversations with City staff, as a Councillor, discussions on heritage district designation, conversations with Heritage Burlington (formerly LACAC), participation in the April 2010 Workshop, among others. Over time heritage conservation issues have become fairly contentious and in order to move forward in a positive and productive manner, a new approach to engagment was implemented. Dialogue Partners was retained by the City of Burlington to develop a process that focused on understanding participant viewpoints, identifying common ground and gathering input to inform future engagement and decision-‐making. Residents, stakeholders and other community groups were asked to come together and experience a different kind of conversation. The aim of this process was to set the foundation for a path forward that considers that needs and interests of all including decision-‐makers, where stakeholders and residents are engageed in constructive conversations that provides meaningful input, builds relationships, establishes trust and acknowledges and addresses issues of importance.
4
The objectives of both the pre-‐engagement activities and the November 19th, 2011 Heritage Workshop were to understand the concerns and identify opportunities to improve on what the City is doing, in order to make positive changes to heritage policies, procedures and processes. Using the direction and guidance received from City Council, the development of the pre-‐engagement activities and Heritage Workshop were aimed at:
• Gathering input on the variety of perspectives; (for more information see the What Was Said Reports and Section 2 of this report)
• Reporting on the shared understanding or common ground on the issues (for more information see Section 2 of this report) ; and
• Using received feedback and input to inform future decisions on heritage policy and procedures. (For more information see Section 3 of this report)
Summary of Results This report provides a summary of the engagement activities leading up to and including the November Workshop, an analysis of what we heard from stakeholders and residents, as well as our recommendations for next steps in engagement on the heritage conservation topic. The engagement activities included key stakeholder interviews, an online survey and a one-‐day community workshop. We interviewed 26 stakeholders and received 90 submissions responding to the online survey. 190 people registered for the workshop, with 143 interested participants attending the start and 50 remaining after the lunch break. “What Was Said” reports were produced for each engagement activity and have been made public on the City’s website. City administration and staff can review these documents to get an overview of the variety of perspectives surrounding each issue. Additionally an issues analysis report was prepared for the results of the interviews and surveys. Finally, a summary of the evaluation rating and comments is available in Section 1.3 of this report. Section 2 outlines the key issues and solutions as identified by the participants. Their conversation and dialogue focused on six key issues; 1) the listing process and criteria for designation, 2) property rights and values, 3) alterations, demolitions and restorations, 4) incentives and support, 5) legislative responsibility and 6) decision-‐making processes. This section builds on the variety of perspectives but also reports on the shared understandings and common ground as seen by stakeholders. The analysis of the results of the engagement process is compiled in Section 3 and also includes our recommendations for next steps related to stakeholder and resident conversations to inform the development of new heritage conservation policies, procedures and processes. In addition to holding these conversations with interested and affected participants we outline two supporting activities we propose to be undertaken by City staff in order to see successful results from these conversations. The final section of the report provides our suggestions and recommendations for what is required to develop and maintain a successful sustained engagement program. Some changes and modifications to existing engagement techniques are outlined as well as a three step process for how the City could consider embarking on this engagement process. We want to thank everyone who took the time to participate in the process and we are very grateful for your thoughts and input. City Council and staff should also be acknowledged for identifying the need for a
5
different approach and listening to understand what really matters to stakeholders and residents. We appreciate all participants’ efforts in this important and evolving conversation.
This report reflects a summary of the themes and highlights of participation from the City of Burlington heritage survey and interviews conducted between October 17th to November 17th, 2011 and the Heritage Conservation Workshop held on November 19, 2011. It is based on contributions made by participants, but the analysis of the
input in this summary lies solely with the Dialogue Partners team.
Abiding by the Code of Ethics of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the International Association of Facilitators (IAF), the Dialogue Partners team have tried to reflect the themes and summary of participant input from the
conversation in a way that captures the essence of what was shared. Any mistakes or errors in this summary are based solely on our interpretation and analysis of that
input.
Stephani Roy McCallum, Certified Professional Facilitator
Dialogue Partners Inc.
6
1 – SUMMARY OF THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS The engagement process was segemented into three short phases, with specific objectives and activities in each phase.
1.1 Phase 1: Plan & Prepare In this phase Dialogue Partners worked with the City to develop an engagement process that would meet the needs of participants, City staff and decision makers. The key objectives were to acknowledge and communicate engagement opportunities and to develop and design a process that supported all stakeholders. In order to gather the appropriate information from participants, a series of key stakeholder interviews were conducted to gather feedback that would support the remaining phases and inform the process design for the workshop hosted in Phase 2. In addition to the interviews an online survey was made available to interested stakeholders and residents with the same questions as those asked in the interviews.
Key Stakeholder Interviews Targeted stakeholders from different perspectives were chosen and requested to participate in a telephone interview. Dialogue Partners made the selection of interviewees, and the selection process ensured that a diversity of background, experience and values were represented. The interview questions gathered input on interviewee concerns, previous experience and suggestions for moving forward. The questions highlighted four major areas including:
• demographic information; • heritage conservation issues; • past engagement experience; and • expecations and recommendations for future engagement.
Twenty-‐six interviews were conducted by the Dialogue Partners team.
Online Survey The same questions were made available through the City of Burlington’s heritage webpage and the survey was open to the general public as well as those targeted stakeholders who were not able to participate in a telephone interview. In total, ninety (90) survey submissions were received. Reports summarizing the input from the interviews and the surveys were prepared and posted on the City’s heritageworkshop webpages.
1.2 Phase 2: Engage
Community Heritage Workshop: On November 19, 2011 a workshop was hosted at Mainway Arena Auditorium. The purpose of the community Heritage Workshop was to engage Burlington residents in a productive, two-‐way discussion that focused on achieving:
• An understanding of participants points of view; • Identification of common ground; and • Input into policy options for Council consideration.
The workshop aimed to inspire and cultivate open and meaningful conversation about heritage that would lead to informed decision-‐making that positively influences future heritage policies and procedures in Burlington.
7
Over 140 participants attended the workshop. The results of the interviews and surveys informed the development of the workshop agenda. Participants expressed an interest for a format that didn’t include presentations but rather created the space for people to talk to each other about their issues and be heard by others. To accommodate these requests, a large group, and diversity of discussion and dialogue, an “open space” technique was used as the workshop structure. It is a group engagement process where a diverse group of people come together to address a complex, multifaceted issue in a productive way. This technique was used for the City of Burlington’s heritage discussion as it allowed participants to identify the issues they wanted to talk about, rather than using a pre-‐determined agenda developed by the City and/or session facilitators. When all participants had the opportunity to identify the issues around hertiage conservation that needed to be addressed, they were categorized into similar themes. Identifing these common themes created the agenda for the day. Discussion groups were held for each theme and participants were able to move around, share their ideas, issues and concerns and engage in conversations on one or all topics identified as they were interested. In reference to a particular theme participants were asked:
• How do we celebrate and enhance the cultural and heritage resources of Burlington while respecting and considering individual and community needs and rights?
Additionally participants were asked to consider 1) what’s important to them; 2) what’s important to others; and 3) what needs to be considered. The second half of the Workshop had participants working in small groups to consider what they had heard so far from other participants, and identify critical solutions or options for moving forward with heritage policies and procedures. The key question here was:
• Building on everything discussed so far, and understanding the variety of views and perspectives on cultural heritage resources, what do you see as three critical solutions or options for moving forward with heritage policies and procedures?
1.3 Phase 3: Reporting & Evaluation This phase focused on reporting results and outcomes of all engagement activities in a transparent and accountable way.
What Was Said Reports Interview & Survey Responses: Dialogue Partners produced a report that was shared with participants that provides anonymity as well as a summary of their concerns, perspectives, ideas for consideration and questions. This document entitled “Understanding the Issues of Heritage Conversation” was made publicly available on the website November 11, 2011. Workshop: Similar to the interview and survey responses a report was produced documenting all the comments and discussion received over the course of the workshop. This will be made publicly available with release of this report.
Reponse to Participant Questions The City made a commitment at the workshop to provide participants with responses to the numerous questions raised over the course of the discussions. These questions are information-‐specific and refer to
8
questions about the existing policies, procedures and processes. The City of Burlington posted the first series of answers to the website on December 5, 2011 and is continuing to respond to the remaining questions over time as answers are completed. Dialogue Partners was responsible for categorizing the questions and reviewing the answers prepared by staff.
Issues Analysis & Next Steps Recommendations This current report provides an analysis of all the input gathered through the interviews, online survey and at the workshop. It provides an overall summary of engagement results as well as Dialogue Partners recommendations for next steps in engagement. This report will be presented to City Council and to the City’s Planning and Building Department, and will be made publicly available on the Heritage Workshop webpages.
Evaluation Participants were encouraged at the end of the November 19 Heritage Workshop to complete an evaluation of the session and provide their comments. In addition, the evaluation survey was made available online for those who may have left early, did not have an opportunity to complete, or had additional thoughts they wanted to share. A total of 44 evaluations were received, with 38 people completing the survey at the end of the workshop and six submitting online for a total response rate of 30% of participants. Here is a summary of the results:
• 78% of people felt their expectations were met for discussion, sharing of issues and concerns and identifying possible solutions;
• 72% felt they better understood some of the issues, perspectives and views of other participants; • 61% felt they better understood what needs to be considered in order to move forward on heritage
conservation planning and procedures; • 77% of people felt they had the opportunity to talk about what was important to them; and • 81% of people indicated that the facilitators encouraged everyone to participate and contribute at
the workshop. Several participants expressed the value of hearing from others, both to share their viewpoints and to hear the views of those who are different. They felt they learned something different from the conversations; that the sharing of experiences and stories was a unique and valuable opportunity. Many indicated, however, that they still need more knowledge and information about heritage definitions, implications, procedures and policies. They had come with an expectation of having their questions answered and presentations made and were disappointed this did not happen at the workshop. Suggestions were given to be clearer about what people could expect at this and future events.
“I feel participants were able to learn from one another due to the open discussion format and walk away with something different to think about.”
“Excellent discussions and ability to raise all my questions.”
“Helped me to consider things I had not thought of.”
“Because there was no presentation which explained the terms, e.g. registry, inventory,
designation, and the processes involved, the participants did not share a common platform.“
“I would've liked some of the group's questions answered today. I think many people thought that would happen. For future, I suggest that people be made aware of format
for workshop to avoid disappointment.”
9
2 – Key Issues and Solutions Concerning Heritage Conservation Over the course of the interviews, responses to online surveys and Community Heritage Workshop a number of key issues and potential solutions emerged concerning heritage conservation in the City of Burlington. These were the primary focus of conversation as identified by the participants. They include:
The following sections provide a brief summary of the content discussed for each one of these key issues.
2.1. Listing Process and Criteria for Designation The issue evoking the most conversation, questions and dialogue was the listing process and criteria for heritage designation. In addition to significant diversity in levels of understanding of the existing process and criteria, there was an equally significant spread of priorities and preferences in what these items “should” include and responses from the interviews and surveys captured this diversity and the workshop results strongly support these initial findings. Overall, there is confusion around the different categories and lists related to assignment of heritage properties, including the definition of these lists and why properties are identified on them. Because of this lack of clarity, property owners are uncertain of the impacts heritage listings and designation has on them and what their property rights are. (For more information on the property rights issues please see Section 2.2). Primarily workshop participants noted:
• They want more information to be provided to them about what it means to be on the different lists.
• They would like to understand further both the positive and the negative impacts of owning a heritage property under the current processes.
• Information about these topics should be easily accessible. Stakeholders and residents are confused about the criteria for heritage listing that places them on a specific list or in a specific category.
Listing Process and Criteria for Designation
Property Rights and Values
Alterations, Demolition, Restrictions
Incentives and Support
Legislative Responsibility
Decision-‐Making Processes
“Voluntary process #1 issue”
“Need to obtain clarity about the process.”
“Who makes decisions to add properties to the register? What are the
criteria?”
“Not transparent on the City of Burlington
website: what are the definitions of each
category?”
“How do we make it fair to all concerned?”
10
Moreover, they question whether the existing criteria are meaningful to them and their vision and understanding of heritage conservation in Burlington. Participants are interested in jointly determining explicit, meaningful and appropriate criteria to be established for the City to use when placing homes on lists and registers and in designating properties. This new criteria would reflect what the stakeholders and residents of Burlington value most about heritage, align with the vision for Burlington’s heritage conservation and meet the needs of City administration and Council. Further to this participants want to see:
• An emphasis during the discussion placed on whether heritage designation should be voluntary, as previous designation decisions have felt arbitrary and forced upon property owners.
• Using newly established criteria, conduct a review of all properties on the existing lists to determine whether they meet the criteria and should stay, or do not and should be removed.
• A clear understanding and process of removal of the heritage designation of a property. • A better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Heritage Burlington committee and
specifically in how members are selected and what criteria is used.
2.2 Property Rights and Values Residents have varying perspectives on the interaction between personal property values and heritage designation as they experience both positive and negative impacts. This issue is closely linked to the listing process and heritage designation as those processes directly affect property owners’ rights. Many property owners feel that the City should not be able to tell them what to do with their property, that there are too many restrictions and that it should be voluntary, and they should be given the option of choosing a heritage designation. Others feel that if there are going to be such restrictions and limitations that there be support provided to property owners to meet these. This key issue presents an overall question regarding where and with whom the final authority on heritage designation and conservation should lie and specifically what the City should and should not have control and say over.
Participants also noted, and are interested in, better understanding of the benefits and consequences of designating a property as heritage. They expressed a need to establish clear methods of disclosing heritage status of properties as it may impact individuals’ real estate decisions (to purchase, sell, renovate, rent, etc). There is significant concern of the impact that the City’s heritage conservation policies will have on them, their properties, their responsibilities, and the financial impacts of maintaining and selling their properties. There is also concern over the current ability for the public to view heritage properties on line, as it is felt by some that this is an invasion of privacy.
2.3 Alterations, Demolition and Restrictions Primarily this discucssion focused on a number of questions regarding appropriate or approved methods, tools, techniques, materials that can be used when completing modifications and repairs to heritage properties. Additionally, participants were curious about the consistency and enforcement of the rules and guidelines around alterations, demolitions and restrictions. Finally, participants questioned at what point or level do changes to a property nullify its heritage status.
“Should be homeowners choice as it is their
property.”
“No designation without further agreement from
property owners.”
“Do we have property rights? What are they?”
11
2.4 Incentives and Support Owning a heritage property requires financial capital to continue its maintenance and preservation; these costs are potentially higher than for non-‐heritage properties. Overall there is a sense in Burlington that these properties are beneficial to the individual property owner, the community and the City overall. Because of this, there are varying perspectives of who should be responsible for the cost or portion of the cost. This issue is closely tied to the heritage designation issue and whether the process and status of a property is voluntary. Many participants felt that if heritage conservation is a priority and if the City is expecting property owners to take part in this program, that there be some support available for them. What this support looks like ranged from financial compensation (for example funds, grants, tax incentives) to City acquisition of properties, to incentives or non-‐financial based programs (for example identification of quality heritage renovators). People expressed a desire to have a conversation about where the responsibility lies when it comes to the financial responsibility of conserving heritage properties.
2.5 Legislative Responsibility In our first Issues Anlaysis report with the results of 90 surveys and 26 interviews we indicated the following as it relates to Legislative Responsibility: “It is felt that the City’s heritage policies do not reflect the level of power and authority that is given to the City through the Ontario Heritage Act. Some suggested that the City has misinterpreted the Act and that it is being misused to keep tighter controls over heritage conservation than is intended. Alternatively, some people feel that the City needs to have tighter policies and stricter controls to be able to save more properties and protect buildings and heritage districts. Others expressed the need for greater flexibility, efficient and effective policies, and a range of solutions for conserving heritage. There is a sense that designation is being used to control to limit new development in areas and people felt a need for a strong vision of what heritage looks like in the City and that this be reflected throughout the City’s planning and development decisions.” The discussions at the Heritage workshop on Novemebr 19th served to confirm and validate these issues and concerns, and our initial analysis of them has not changed.
2.6 Decision Making Processes Most comments relating to decision-‐making, transparency and accountability are echoed in the specific issues related to heritage conservation. People want to see an open, transparent and inclusive process to deal with these issues, which involve property owners, community members and the City’s planning
“I love heritage buildings, but who pays?”
“We value heritage as a community. So why put the financial burden on individual property owners versus the entire tax
base?”
“Benefits for homeowners - Rebate on my taxes.”
“Is there or will there be a compensation system in place?”
12
department. They would like the City to make a decision about the level of commitment, and therefore priority, they are willing to make to heritage conservation.
3 Recommendations For Next Steps The recommendations for next steps include three sections:
1. The first relates to the areas of conversation and discussion which the City should undertake with stakeholders and residents in order to address the six issues defined earlier;
2. The second outlines two key supporting activities to ensure the success of the conversations with stakeholders and residents; and
3. Finally we outline a set of recommendations related to the way in which the City should go about engaging with people.
Though these three sections are separate in this report for the purpose of describing the details, they are by no means mutually exclusive and need to be considered together, as illustrated below.
3.1 Emerging Areas of Conversation Section 2 outlined the key issues surrounding heritage conservation in Burlington as seen in the eyes of stakeholders and residents. We have found three themes of conversation overarching all the issues and recommend that they serve as the basis for future development of the new heritage conservation policies and procedures. By focusing administrations’ efforts on these areas, the City has the opportunity to experience significant progress on a number of key issues simultaneously. The end goal of this series of conversations is to have gathered adequate input, understanding and context to support the successful development of a new heritage conversation policy that will govern subsequent procedures and processes. It should be noted that the order in which these conversations are held is critical as there are numerous linkages between each and subsequent issues need to be informed by prior discussions.
Sustained Engagement
Determine Values, Focus &
Considerations for Heritage
Balancing Needs, Roles,
Responsibilities of City vs Property
Owners
Develop Meaningful Critera for Heritage Policies, Procedures
& Processes Ongoing Involvement,
Interaction & Input on Heritage Activities
Enhance Methods of Communication, Information & Education
13
It is these three areas of conversation that stakeholders and residents want to be part of long-‐term, through sustained engagement, working successfully together with the City to find mutually agreeable and viable solutions to the key issues.
Conversation 1: Determine Values, Focus and Considerations for Heritage Conservation The results of the engagement process suggest there is confusion and mixed perspectives on what defines heritage conservation in Burlington. There is a keen interest in continuing discussions and developing a clear understanding of resident’s values, needs, and considerations critical to heritage conservation. We’ve heard residents want to maintain cultural heritage to conserve, protect, value and celebrate culture, history, properties and its diversity for today and for future generations. But what exactly does this mean? What is the City’s vision of heritage conservation compared to that of the stakeholders and residents? The input suggests the City needs to work with stakeholders to better understand:
• What heritage means for the residents of Burlington? How is this represented and defined?
• What is or should be the cultural significance supporting the designation of existing and future heritage properties? Discuss the “why” behind heritage conservation.
• How do we best celebrate and showcase Burlington’s heritage? • How do we develop a variety of opportunities and options for preserving heritage and culture in the
city? This conversation needs to include opportunities for stakeholders, residents and city administration to research, explore, share stories of Burlington citizen’s history and experiences as this helps to define why something is culturally significant and may require designation for heritage conservation.
Conversation 2: Balancing Needs, Roles and Responsibilities of City vs. Property Owners After establishing a better understanding of the values, focus and considerations that define heritage conservation, there is a need to discuss the balance between heritage conservation as led by the City and the individual rights, roles and responsibilities of property owners. While there is a general consensus that the value of heritage conservation extends beyond just the value of a property itself, to the benefit of the larger community, there are differing expectations in the balance between protecting heritage for the public good and protecting individual rights. Perspectives on this range from:
Property Owner's
Responsibility A Shared
Responsibility The City's
Responsibility
“Define what is essential to Burlington’s heritage”
“Understand the goals, why is heritage
important?”
“Inclusion in strategic plan. Commitment to presentation. Promotion
of culture”
14
The City needs to work in partnership with stakeholders to answer the question: How do we conserve heritage properties, celebrate their cultural significance while respecting personal property rights?
Conversation 3: Develop Meaningful Criteria for Heritage Conservation Policies, Procedures and Processes The information, perspectives and input gathered from the first two conversations will set the foundation and structure for this third conversation. The first two discussions provided the “why” and then the foundation for heritage conservation in Burlington. This conversation will focus on the “how” or the implementation of combined stakeholder, resident and City feedback. For example, after more clearly determining how heritage conservation is defined, understood and celebrated and a managable balance has been established in rights and responsibilities then specific policies, procedures and processes can be developed on issues such as the listing process and heritage designation criteria. Some of the key questions to be explored include:
• How should heritage properties be designated? Voluntary, enforced? • Who participates in this decision making process? • What are the criteria for heritage determination? What already exists and how might this be
modified to better reflect the needs and wishes of residents and stakeholders and still maintain a heritage conservation process that can be successfully managed by the City?
• How does the listing process function? What works now? What doesn’t?
3.2 Supporting Activities In addition to stakeholders and residents requesting further discussion on the areas noted above there were
two other similar themes reported in all of the key issues. These themes focused on 1) the need for the City to enhance it’s current methods of communication, information and education and 2) maintain ongoing involvement, interaction and input on heritage conversation issues.
Enhance Methods of Communication, Information and Education There is incredible complexity of the facts and issues related to heritage conservation and a number of areas where participants expressed confusion, requested clarity or wanted additional communication information and education in key heritage conservation issues. Outlined below are three areas where residents see the most pressing need:
• Residents: Repeated responses suggested a lack of understanding or awareness of what the City’s policies and roles are. From a variety of perspectives people feel that there is misinformation and misinterpretation of information, from a variety of sources. There is a feeling that there is a lack of complete, balanced and unbiased information available to all parties.
“Communicate; what does this mean to
me?”
“Awareness, be proactive. People
need to find answers. Website, libraries,
speaking engagements.”
“Education, a series of facts to every homeowner…who to
talk to to understand the process”
“I am in favour of the City identifying and managing heritage properties - such properties contribute to a great community. The rules and processes need to be clarified, managed in a transparent way, and if currently inappropriate then
revised.”
15
• Council: As Council changes every four years, the struggle to maintain continuity and understanding of the current issues of heritage conservation is a long-‐term effort. There is a need to educate incoming council members regarding the existing and outstanding issues as well as the history of heritage conservation issues.
• City Planning Department Because of this history, there is a lot of mistrust among participants towards the City’s Planning Department as well as their relationship and communication with the City. While some individual staff members are trusted, the perception of the Department as a whole lacks some credibility.
From the input gathered we recommend a number of items to improve the City’s current methods of communication, dispensing of information and providing of education needs review and enhancement. Stakeholders and residents want materials and information that is in plain language and easily accessible in the form of “guidelines”, “manuals” or “handbooks”. Such information and materials needs to be available online, and residents and stakeholders are looking for this to include contact information for City representatives for further questions and information. Providing such information will help build understanding of the issues and information and increase capacity to participate in meaningful conversations; a barrier that was identified in past participation experiences.
Ongoing Involvement, Interaction and Input on Heritage Conservation Because of the significant impact residents and stakeholders experience from decisions made about heritage conservation they want to ensure their voices are heard and considered prior to City decisions being deliberated and determined. Participants see more satisfactory results and progression on key issues if involvement with City staff is regular and on-‐going, and their input is considered and understood by decision-‐makers. Our suggestions and recommendations for how this ongoing involvement and interaction should occur are discussed more thoroughly in Section 3.3.
3.3 – Ongoing Engagement Overwhelmingly we heard of the need for sustained engagement on heritage conservation with the stakeholders and residents of Burlington. Overall, participants suggested a lack of meaningful, timely, thoughtful and appropriate consultation and involvement with those people affected and impacted on the decisions made by the City. People expressed that the current policies, processes and procedures do not
“Ongoing dialogue with property owners. There has to be give and take, no unilaterial decisions by the City.”
“City should have a town hall after today’s report to discuss with us what they
are planning to do. Don’t just tell us what they’re going to do.”
“We need to be involved every step of the way. They are our homes and if they need to be protected then an individual plan with the homeowner needs to
be in place.”
“Better ongoing dialogue. No unilateral decisions.”
16
fully reflect their needs and desires. We encourage and recommend a sustained engagement process that involves interested residents on key issues of Burlington’s heritage conservation over time. The intent of this process will be to create greater cooperation between the City and residents and result in greater understanding, consideration and ownership by all stakeholders – including residents, community, property owners, heritage committee members, City staff and decision-‐makers. A continuing engagement process will also assist in acknowledging the impacts and needs, and provide a positive structure to gather effective input and feedback. There is a great desire for the City of Burlington to listen, consider and care about the input of the public and hope that the City and Council will make decisions in the interests of the community and that reflect the input that will be received. With the process leading up to the November 19th workshop, City Council and City staff have expressed a great desire to engage the public in a meaningful way, and to understand and consider their views in moving forward.
Guidance for Successful Sustained Engagement Dialogue Partners suggests a need to develop guiding principles that will inform and frame the creation, development and ultimately decision-‐making of future and existing policies, procedures and processes. This criteria will provide a lens from which all decision-‐making will be viewed to ensure consistency and transparent and accoutable engagement processes. These should be informed by best practices, previous experiences and most importantly reviewed and endorsed by stakeholders and could include:
• Representation of a variety of perspectives and inclusion of those who want to have a voice • Focus on relationships, trust and credibility • Conduct activities in an open and transparent manner • Evaluate and measure success based on resident experience
These overaching guiding principles would then assist to inform goals and measures of success for specific engagment projects. Below we have provided a sample listing of engagement goals that might be used to guide a process on developing heritage policies and procedures: • Engage stakeholders to define the criteria, measures and outcomes for a meaningful engagement
process; • Provide clear, easily understandable and informative materials and education opportunities to raise
awareness and understanding of complex issues, that is responsive to the needs and interests of citizens;
• Create ongoing methods and activities to gather input specifically to be used and considered in development of recommendations and decision-‐making;
• Share all information in a transparent and open way; and • Focus on building long-‐term relationships, credibility, trust and community connections.
3.3 Considerations for a Sustained Engagement Program
Determine Level and Commitment of Public Participation It will be critical for the success of any subsequent engagement program or activity that the City determines internally, prior to working with stakeholders or residents, both the level and commitment to the public’s participation and involvement. This will assist in ensuring that both City reperesentatives, leaders and stakeholders have clear expectations regarding what will result out of an engagement process or activity and
17
to what level their input will influence or determine the resulting decision or recommendation. Informing stakeholders in advance of the extent their participation and input will impact and influence decisions helps set up discussion or dialogue for success. This approach allows for everyone to have a shared understanding for “what’s on the table” and “what’s not” as well as when and where their input will be used, and how, when and whom will be making decisions We recommend the City use the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum provided below to help in determining the level of influence and involvement and the promise that can be made and kept to the public for every engagement activity undertaken.
Continue to recognize, acknowledge and embrace existing and future concerns and issues Some stakeholders have been struggeling with these heritage conservation issues for years, while others are just finding out about them and how they potentially impact their properties. Because of this, stakeholders and residents experience varying levels of frustration, anger, and discontent over existing processes, procedures and policies governing heritage conservation in Burlington. In some cases, this has led to a lack of trust in both the City and City Council and has created negativity. It has been demonstrated that Council, staff and participants care deeply about this subject. The City of Burlington has an opportunity to harness this energy and move discussions away from polarizing positions towards discussions that focus on common ground to achieve positive outcomes for both residents and the City. Our experience, and the results from this engagement process, tell us that the stakeholders’ will and interest to work together is genuine, BUT it requires the City in its planning process to continue to recognize and acknowledge that these are very
18
important issues, and to continue to embrace and make space to understand the impacts and causes behind what people are saying PRIOR to providing input and feedback.
Maintain a healthy balance between facts and values One of the major themes that arose in all of the key issues was the need for enhanced communication, information materials and education opportunities. Stakeholders and residents had hundreds of “information-‐specific” questions and currently the City is working towards answering these questions. A word of caution in our recommendations is to clearly articulate what our experience tells us about these types of requests. By focusing only on answering these questions or providing only more information on the existing policies, procedures and processes, the City will not achieve its intended goals. Rather this may overwhlem participants and leave them feeling like they are still not being heard or are valued. We recognize
the critical importance of providing information and raising awareness and understanding of the multiple issues related to heritage conservation; and stakeholders and residents have requested this information. However, we also know from our extensive experience, and from the expressed desire of participants, that a meaningful process on a complex issues will require a balance of facts and values. Information alone does not offer an opportunity to talk about values in order to get below the surface and find out what’s really important to
people. Understanding the values, preferences and priorities of stakeholders and residents will establish common ground and work to generate sustainable options. In addition to creating enhanced methods of communication, information materials and education opportunities, the City should continue holding values-‐based discussions that make room for residents’ needs and interests, and explores their stories, experiences and wisdom in order to have robust, comprehensive input and feedback. As this process moves forward, the City and participants can together focus on increasing knowledge and providing necessary information in a way that supports deliberation on key issues.
3.4 Recommendations for Next Engagement Steps *For specific suggestions gathered from participants at the workshop please refer to the City of Burlington Heritage Workshop What Was Said Report.
Step 1: Modifications to Heritage Burlington We suggest some revisions to the mandate, membership and focus of the Heritage Burlington Committee. This committee group provides advisory support and feedback to Council on all heritage conservation issues and meets on a regular basis. We suggest that membership of the Committee have an inclusive mandate that would invite both those who support AND oppose current initiatives, policies and processes. Building on this group’s mandate of celebrating heritage, they could work with City staff and the public to develop education and information materials that meet the needs of all residents. Using this type of methodology allows for greater diversity of participants and ensures both the City and the engagement process remains open, transparent and builds credibility in the eyes of ALL stakeholders and residents. It also means that participants can share the common value of heritage conservation while working alongside the City to improve its processes.
“In addition to the request for more information, participants
expressed the need for continued involvement from this point forward and engagement in resolving the issues raised.”
19
Step 2: Criteria Development for Heritage Conservation Policies, Procedures and Processes As set out in Section 3.3 there is a need to develop criteria or guiding principles that will inform and frame the creation, development and ultimately decision-‐making of future and existing policies, procedures and processes. This criteria will provide a lens from which all decision-‐making on policies, procedures and processes will be viewed through to ensure consistency and assist in managing expectations. We suggest this process be completed in the following steps:
A. Initial drafting of content should be completed internally within the appropriate City departments in partnership with Heritage Burlington citizen advisory committee. This will require a thorough review and understanding of the results from the interviews, surveys and workshop in order to establish appropriate baseline information by City staff. Council should also have access to both this document and “Understanding the Issues of Heritage Conservation”.
B. Upon completion of the initial draft document we advise sharing the draft with all interested stakeholders and residents for their comment and input. Participants will need a sufficient period of time for review and comment (no less than 3-‐4 weeks) and multiple opportunities and avenues to share their feedback. This could include online discussion forums, a series of presentations and corresponding discussion forums and/or vetting through the Heritage Burlington.
C. The input and feedback gathered during these activities will need to be compiled and reviewed for
incorporation into the existing document. The results and summary of all the input received should be made available to participants and the public.
D. Prior to publishing, a final version of the document should be made available again to residents and
stakeholders for review and final comment.
Step 3: Develop Heritage Conservation Engagement Plan We would strongly encourage the City to undertake the development of a comprehensive engagement plan and supporting communications plan which clearly identifies the opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement in the three areas of conversation. These plans will identify and link the:
• decisions the City needs to make; • opportunity for stakeholders and the public to influence the decisions; • commitment the City is willing to make to take into consideration of the input received in making its
decisions; • acknowledgement of stakeholder and public concerns and emotion; • use of the Heritage Burlington Committee; • appropriate techniques to engage the Heritage Burlington Committee, stakeholders and the public;
and • definitions of successful engagement and evaluation measures.
This process will be a long-‐term approach which aims to build trust and credibilty with the citizens of Burlington and improves the decisions that are made about heritage conservation and how it is communicated.
20
“Thank you for the chance to be involved in a long overdue process (and workshop)!”
“I sincerely hope the dollars spent here are well spent. City council needs to understand something is seriously broken and needs to be repaired quickly.”
“It is now up to the City to listen to the people.”
