I would start by restoring consistent funding for neighbourhood traffic calming and pairing it with a ward-level review of sidewalk gaps, unsafe crossings, and speeding concerns. Peterborough already has a traffic-calming policy, but the program was not funded in the 2026 budget, which effectively paused work on both new and existing applications.
For Otonabee Ward, I would want the City to rank projects using evidence such as vehicle speeds and volumes, collision history, pedestrian routes, school and transit access, accessibility concerns, and resident reports. That gives us a defensible list of priorities instead of deciding which street gets attention based on who complains the loudest.
I would also measure whether the improvements actually worked. If we install a crossing, traffic-calming measure, or new sidewalk connection, we should compare before-and-after speed data, collisions, pedestrian use, and resident feedback. If the problem remains, we should adjust rather than assume the project was successful because the work was completed.
My broader goal is to create continuous, safe routes through neighbourhoods instead of isolated improvements that stop halfway down the street.
I would focus on putting more of our employment land to productive use, making it easier for existing employers to expand, and attracting businesses that add long-term non-residential assessment to the tax base.
Otonabee Ward has a particularly important opportunity in the Major Bennett Industrial Park. The City says the park is nearing full build-out, but one of Peterborough’s last large industrial parcels still needs work before it can be developed. The 2026 budget includes funding to prepare that land for sale. I would make completing that work and getting the remaining serviced employment land into productive use a priority.
Retention matters just as much as attraction. I would want regular, structured conversations with existing manufacturers and other major employers about what is getting in the way of expansion - whether that is approvals, servicing, transportation, workforce needs, or something else - and then track whether the City actually resolves those problems. Peterborough’s Official Plan already recognizes employment land as important to the City’s long-term economic and fiscal sustainability.
I would measure success through growth in non-residential assessment, jobs created or retained, private investment, employment land brought into productive use, and the time required to get viable projects through City approvals. A stronger industrial and commercial tax base gives us another way to fund services without placing the entire burden of growth on residential property taxpayers.
I would tie budgeting more directly to service levels and long-term cost. For major City services, residents should be able to see what the service costs, what level of service the City is promising, and whether it actually met that standard.
Peterborough’s OpenBook budget tool is a useful start: it lets residents drill from departments down to divisions, sections and services. I would take that further by making more detailed spending information available, including line-item detail where practical, and pairing those costs with clear performance measures and comparisons with similar municipalities.
That would help Council distinguish between a service that genuinely needs more resources and one where the same or better result could be delivered more efficiently. The City’s recent independent Effectiveness and Efficiency Review identified an estimated $20.6 million to $30.2 million in potential cumulative savings or cost avoidance over four years. Those are opportunities rather than guaranteed savings, so I would work through them publicly, implement the recommendations that make sense, and report whether the expected savings and service improvements actually materialize.
I also want to reduce our reliance on one-time fixes that make the current budget look better by creating a problem for the next one. In 2026, Council used an additional $3 million from Legacy Fund income to reduce the tax requirement by 1.32%. Preliminary 2027 budget information then identified that same $3 million as a new base-budget pressure because the measure was temporary.
The same long-term thinking should apply to capital spending. I would look at lifecycle costs and maintenance requirements before approving projects, because maintaining an asset at the right time is often considerably cheaper than allowing it to deteriorate and replacing it later.
One example is my work helping to build Volunteer Peterborough. As a founding board member and the contractor responsible for much of the website and digital infrastructure, I helped turn the original concept into a functioning platform connecting local residents with volunteer opportunities.
It was a complicated project because we were trying to serve volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and community partners while working with very limited resources. I had to make decisions about user experience, accessibility, technical architecture, data management, and which features were important enough to prioritize for the initial launch and which could wait for later phases.
At my normal rates, the initial build would have cost about $18,400. I discounted that to about $10,750, and later provided ongoing maintenance at 30% below my normal rate, while also regularly contributing additional unpaid hours. That allowed more of the available funding to remain focused on staffing and organizational growth.
During that period, the platform grew from roughly 200 registered users to around 1,800-1,850. It has since continued to grow to about 2,500 users.
The lesson I took from that project is that good management is about making trade-offs openly, protecting limited resources, and then checking whether the thing you built actually produced the result you intended.
I would not proceed with the proposed Multi-Use Sport and Event Centre in its current form.
The project is currently estimated at about $170 million. Council has committed to a municipal share of approximately $57 million and directed staff to develop a financing plan that includes changes to the City’s debt limit, while seeking the remaining funding from other governments and outside partners.
I understand the case being made for a new facility. Supporters argue that it could attract major events, increase tourism, and contribute to downtown economic development. But a project of this scale also commits a substantial amount of the City’s borrowing capacity, and that limits what future councils can finance when other priorities arise.
The Memorial Centre does need significant work. The City currently estimates about $22.4 million in necessary repairs and maintenance over the 15 years beginning in 2027, in addition to $1.5 million identified in the 2026 capital budget. I would rather invest what is necessary to keep and modernize the existing facility while preserving more of our borrowing capacity for affordable and supportive housing, water and sewer infrastructure, sidewalks, roads, and other core needs.
For me, this is ultimately a question of opportunity cost. A new event centre may have benefits, but I do not think those benefits justify tying up this much of the City’s financial capacity when we have more urgent long-term needs.