City council has some homework to do to improve public openness and transparency, according to a Kingston citizens group.

The Coalition of Kingston Communities (CKC) is giving council mixed grades in its annual report card. Overall, the coalition gave city councillors a ‘C minus’ for their performance in 2017.

The grade is based on three key areas; planning process, public engagement and transparency, and cultural and natural heritage protection. The coalition says its grades in each category range from an ‘A’ to ‘F’.

When it comes to the planning process, the coalition noted that while there are more opportunities for public input some statutory public meetings are still not held at the appropriate times.

“The City is taking a step in the right direction, but there is more distance to go,” said CKC, formed in 2015 to act as a single voice for a range of community groups.

The authors applauded the new municipal policy that allows for public comment on major zoning and Official Plan amendments, along with staff recommendations, when they go to the planning committee for a final decision. In the past, public meetings were usually only held at the outset of the applications months or even years before a decision was made.

However, the group says development planning applications are no longer available in hard copy and that people seeking additional information are referred to the city’s online DASH system. This process does not help people without access to a computer while DASH is “difficult” to navigate, CKC noted.

The coalition gave the city an outright ‘F’ for making important decisions behind closed doors. The group referred to council decisions surrounding the municipal purchase and future uses of the former St. Joseph’s and St. Mary’s school at 671 Brock Street.

“Excluding the Kingston Frontenac Housing Board and the public from the process resulted in community conflicts, wasted time and money, and led to a complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman who agreed that council had acted illegally in its in camera meetings.”

The group issued another ‘F’ when it comes to council upholding and defending the Official Plan with two major high-rise projects planned for the downtown – Homestead Land Holdings’ two apartment towers on lower Queen Street, and IN8 Developments’ 15 storey condo over the former Capitol movie theatre at 221 Princess Street.

Homestead’s two proposed high rise residential buildings on lower Queen Street

“City council has not taken a public position on two (Homestead) development applications that are being heard by the Ontario Municipal Board and is not defending council’s ‘no’ vote on the proposed Capitol development, leaving it to members of the public to defend the city’s Official Plan and zoning bylaw.”

Another ‘F’ was issued over council’s failure to request input from its own advisory groups, including not waiting for a report from the Belle Park Working Group before voting to phase out golfing at Belle Park Fairways, the city-run nine-hole golf course, and not asking for input from the Kingston Environmental Advisory Forum on the third bridge crossing project.

When it comes to cultural and natural heritage, the coalition applauded the city for adding more designated properties to its heritage protection register but also scolded officials for removing most of them from the oversight of the Heritage Kingston committee. The committee can only give input on major heritage building alterations, while approval permits for minor repairs such as painting and roofing work are delegated to staff.

“The result is that Kingston’s protection of heritage buildings is now among the weakest in Ontario.”

Despite the sharp criticism, the coalition handed out ‘A’ grades for the city’s new public engagement policy, which includes a community benefits policy that ensures up-front consultation when negotiating with developers for extra height vs. community benefits trade-offs.

The coalition says the overall ‘C minus’ grade is something council and staff need to work on, calling it “a flawed organizational culture that is not ‘walking the walk’ and of a staff and council that would prefer to carry on city business without having to account for citizen concerns.”

-30-