Escribe Meeting link (no timestamps): LINK

Burlington City Council's February 17 meeting opened in procedural disarray and closed with nearly the entire agenda deferred to March 2, after councillors raised serious concerns about a late agenda release, missed delegation opportunities, and a last-minute mayoral direction that forced city staff to work over the Family Day long weekend. The central flash point was a staff-reported $16 to $42 million exposure connected to a proposed two-year elimination of development charges (DCs) — fees paid by developers to fund growth-related infrastructure.

Four councillors voted to defer substantive business, arguing residents were denied a meaningful chance to participate; three opposed the deferral, preferring to proceed on select items. Delegates from the building industry urged immediate action, warning that housing construction in Burlington has nearly collapsed. Resident delegates fired back, calling the proposal a taxpayer-funded bailout for developers. The meeting also surfaced concerns about 80% of the city's policies being overdue for review, a heritage designation process that notified homeowners after the relevant committee deadline, and recurring structural problems with the city's meeting calendar.

Key issues covered in this article:

Why It Matters:

Burlington property taxpayers were on the cusp of a decision that council itself acknowledged lacked complete financial analysis and adequate public notice. The deferral buys time, but the core question remains unresolved: should Burlington waive development charges for two years, potentially drawing on tens of millions from city reserves, in hopes the province or federal government will reimburse the loss?

The answer to that question is now coming March 2.

Burlington City Council convened at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at City Hall for its regular meeting — but it spent the first hour and a half in recesses and procedural debate before a single item of business was voted on.

The agenda had been released late Friday afternoon, after the noon deadline for residents to register as delegates. Because Monday was Family Day — a statutory holiday — residents had no business day between the agenda release and the meeting to register.

Three delegates ultimately spoke after council voted unanimously to waive its own procedure bylaw and allow late registrations. The dysfunction set a tense tone for a meeting where some of Burlington's most financially significant decisions of the term were on the table.

City Clerk Mike Durand confirmed to council that the agenda was released later than desired on Friday, partly because staff were still compiling responses to requests from committee and partly because of a Strong Mayor direction issued by Mayor Meed Ward on Thursday. Under Burlington's procedure bylaw, delegation requests must be submitted by noon the business day before a meeting. With Monday a holiday, the deadline technically reverted to Friday noon — but the agenda came out after that.

Commissioner of Legal Services Blake Hurley confirmed that council's ability to proceed was not impaired under the Municipal Act. But several councillors were visibly uncomfortable.

Councillor Nissan said he was not sure council should even be proceeding. Councillor Kearns noted that the late registration problem was not limited to the development charges item — she had received email from property owners affected by a heritage designation matter who were notified after the relevant committee deadline had already passed.

After three recesses and extended debate, council unanimously approved allowing three late delegates to speak:

A fourth delegate, Jim Thompson, was pre-registered and also spoke.

Vote — Allowing Late Delegates to Speak
Result: 7–0 (Carried)

Moved by Councillor Stolte and seconded by Councillor Nisan, a motion was put forward to defer all substantive business — excluding ceremonial items, the Governor General teaching award recognition, and confidential agenda items — to the March 2 Council meeting.

Councillor Nisan specifically flagged a scheduling concern: he has FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) board obligations over the next two weeks, and argued that allowing a special council meeting without him would risk decisions being made with only four members present.

Councillors Galbraith, Sharman, and Bentivegna opposed the deferral, preferring to proceed on some items. Councillors Stolte, Kearns, and Nisan argued the entire substantive agenda should wait. Mayor Meed Ward sided with the deferral, stating that given the nature of the items and the community's desire to participate, taking extra time was the right course.

Vote — Motion to Defer Substantive Business to March 2
Result: 4–3 (Carried)
In Favour: Councillors Kearns, Nisan, Stolte, Mayor Meed Ward
Opposed: Councillors Galbraith, Sharman, Bentivegna

At the centre of the meeting was report DGM-03-26 — options for the temporary elimination of development charges (DCs). Development charges are fees collected from developers when building permits are issued, intended to fund the infrastructure needed to service new growth, such as roads, parks, and facilities. Burlington currently collects these under a DC bylaw.

The proposal that emerged from the previous committee meeting would eliminate DCs for two years across Burlington, with the goal of stimulating housing construction during what the building industry described as a severe market collapse. Staff's original estimate placed the potential revenue loss at $16 million to $42 million over the two-year period. Following a Strong Mayor direction issued by Mayor Meed Ward, staff produced a supplementary report over the long weekend — the document that triggered much of the meeting's controversy.

That supplementary report included a realistic 2026 DC revenue projection of approximately $4.66 million, based on roughly 320 units staff actually expected to proceed. The $16–$42 million range cited in the original staff report assumed construction volumes far higher than what staff's own updated table projected as likely.

Councillor Kearns, who had been absent at committee due to illness, said she was "shocked" when she reviewed the supplementary material. She noted the motion had evolved from a conditional, targeted reduction — originally tied to being "made whole" by the province — into what staff described as an across-the-board, immediately effective elimination applying to all projects including market-rate and luxury units.

Staff confirmed Burlington's tax stabilization reserve sits at approximately 6.3% of revenues as of September 2025 — well below the city's own target range of 10–15%. The city also carries a 2% infrastructure renewal levy added to property taxes in 2026.

Councillor Bentivegna and Councillor Sharman both expressed support for the development charges reduction in principle, but concurred that the matter warranted deferral given the procedural circumstances. Councillor Sharman noted the mayor's questions — however delayed — had surfaced important information that should have been provided earlier in the six-month deliberation process.

Under Ontario's strong mayor framework, Burlington's mayor can issue binding directions to staff that bypass the normal council process. Mayor Meed Ward used this power Thursday, February 12 — two business days before the council meeting — to direct staff to compile additional financial analysis on the development charge file.

The direction resulted in a multi-page supplementary report that noted three times the staff team "did not have enough time" to provide fully complete answers. The city's Chief Financial Officer confirmed during the meeting that he stands by the $16–$42 million revenue range, though the range reflects significant uncertainty in construction forecasting.

Councillor Nisan argued the direction was not an act of transparency, but rather a last-minute change with disproportionate consequences:

Mayor Meed Ward said the intent was to ensure council had the information it needed before voting. She noted the direction emerged from unanswered questions at committee and was developed in consultation with staff regarding scope. She expressed no regret about using the power, but said she would consider pre-circulating future directions to fellow councillors.

Mike Collins Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association (WHBA), made the case for immediate action. He said WHBA members sold four condominium units across the entire city of Burlington in 2025, and that industry employment is collapsing. He told council that DC revenues are already declining regardless of any decision — and that acting would signal leadership to provincial and federal governments.

He also confirmed that 100% of any DC reduction would be passed through to consumers in reduced purchase prices, due to the nature of bank construction financing requirements. He expressed support for a price cap to exclude high-end luxury product from the program, suggesting the $1.75–$1.8 million average Burlington home price cited in a recent CMHC presentation as a reasonable ceiling.

Resident delegates offered a sharply different view.

Jim Thompson said Burlington should not be using taxpayer reserves to prop up commercial developers, and suggested the province and federal government — not the municipality — are the appropriate orders of government to provide industry relief. He noted that Burlington property taxes had increased 45% over four years, and that current homeowners are themselves facing an affordability crisis.

David Barker called the proposal a direct transfer from the property tax base to developers, and proposed a deferral model instead — with DCs payable when a certificate of occupancy is issued and 75% of units are sold or occupied. He was informed by the mayor that DC deferral to occupancy is already existing provincial policy.

Lynn Crosby said she only found out about the issue through a media article on Friday before the long weekend — and that the timing of the agenda release "is the oldest trick in the book." She called the use of strong mayor powers disrespectful to staff and said the item should have gone through a full public engagement process.

Shannon Gillies, co-owner of 1419 Ontario Street, delegated against the city's plan to study her home for potential heritage designation under the Heritage Response to Bill 23 report. Her property was ranked number two on a shortlist of ten properties for study. She said she received notice of the study on Friday, February 13 — after the committee meeting where the item was heard had already occurred on February 6.

Gillies said she and her husband chose to buy the 1907 home because they loved it — not because it was designated heritage — and that they've invested heavily in maintenance over 25 years. Her concern was that a formal designation would restrict modifications and create unfair disadvantages relative to neighbouring properties that are not designated.

She asked council either to remove her home from the list, or to direct staff to study a property more at risk of demolition — such as homes on Brant Street within actual high-density zones. Councillor Kearns suggested expanding the heritage character area designation to include properties on her side of Ontario Street as a potentially more equitable solution. Gillies indicated openness to that approach.

With the full agenda deferred, no vote was taken on the heritage item. It will come to the March 2 Council meeting. Several councillors indicated they would prefer it be referred back to committee rather than decided directly at council.

Pre-registered delegate Jim Thompson also presented a second delegation on the Council Code of Good Governance and staff relations policy. He told council he reviewed all 79 policies listed on the city's website and found that 63 — 80% — have not been reviewed in accordance with their stated timelines. Two policies related to the council-staff relationship aren't listed on the public website at all.

Thompson specifically cited the Enterprise Risk and Governance Management policy, last reviewed in 2020 and due every two years, and the IT Security policy — also last reviewed in 2020 — noting that given the cyber attack on the City of Hamilton, this should have been a priority.

Councillor Kearns noted that a previous committee response from the acting CAO indicated quarterly reporting on staff directions would resume, but that no timeline for a full policy review was provided. Thompson said piecemeal amendments without a complete review were insufficient. No formal direction was issued on this matter during the meeting.

Council paused procedural business to recognize Heather Howell, a teacher at M.M. Robinson High School in Ward 3, who received the Governor General's History Award for Excellence in Teaching. Howell led students in cultivating a heritage garden using methods from Burlington families of the late 19th century. The Museums of Burlington collaborated on the project, and the garden's harvest was donated to the Burlington Food Bank. Mayor Meed Ward presented Howell with a certificate from the City of Burlington.

Council resolved into closed session on a 4–3 vote to address confidential items — including time-sensitive matters identified by the city solicitor. Councillors Galbraith, Sharman, and Nisan voted against going into closed session.

Upon returning to open session, council confirmed the confidential Committee of the Whole closed meeting minutes of February 9, 2026. Councillor Galbraith declared a pecuniary interest in one confidential real estate item and did not vote on that portion.

Vote — Resolve Into Closed Session
Result: 4–3 (Carried)
In Favour: Councillors Kearns, Stolte, Bentivegna, Mayor Meed Ward
Opposed: Councillors Galbraith, Sharman, Nisan

Upcoming Key Dates

March 2, 2026 — Burlington City Council meeting. All deferred substantive business from February 17 will be considered, including development charge elimination options, heritage designation shortlist, and zoning bylaw matters.

March 2026 — Committee of the Whole (date to be confirmed). Councillor Nisan proposed that items deferred from February 17 council be routed through the March committee cycle for full deliberation before council considers them.

Forthcoming — Notice of Motion from Councillor Stolte. A motion to amend Burlington's meeting calendar to restore a buffer week between Committee and Council meetings is expected to be formally filed.

Forthcoming — Procedure Bylaw Review. Multiple councillors and delegates called for a full review of Burlington's procedure bylaw rather than continued piecemeal amendments. No formal motion or timeline was established at this meeting.

Source:

This analysis is based on the February 17, 2026 Regular Burlington City Council Meeting and supporting documents. All quotes, timestamps, and figures are drawn directly from official meeting transcripts.