I don’t think Council should choose an arbitrary tax cap before knowing what it costs to maintain essential services and infrastructure. My goal would be to keep increases as close to inflation as reasonably possible, because increases substantially above inflation are particularly difficult for seniors, people with disabilities, and others living on fixed or limited incomes who have little room in their budgets to absorb them. If Council is asking residents to pay substantially more than inflation, it should be able to clearly explain why, what residents are getting for it, and what was done first to control the increase.
As a practical normal-year guideline, if inflation were 2%, I would generally want to keep the annual increase to 3% or less, and I would not consider 4% reasonable in an ordinary year. I think of inflation plus roughly one percentage point as a useful normal-year upper limit, although I would not make that an absolute cap in an emergency.
I would focus on service-delivery efficiency, preventative maintenance, growing the commercial and industrial tax base, and avoiding one-time budget fixes that simply push costs into the following year. The City’s recent independent efficiency review identified an estimated $20.6 million to $30.2 million in potential savings or cost avoidance over four years; I would work through those recommendations carefully and track whether the projected savings actually materialize.
Yes, but I would distinguish genuine efficiency from simply reducing a service and calling the difference a saving. The City’s recent Effectiveness and Efficiency Review identified some areas I think are worth pursuing, particularly better procurement and contract management, streamlining routine purchasing, and carefully reviewing management structures as vacancies and retirements occur. The review estimates procurement changes alone could produce roughly $2 million to $6.65 million in savings or cost avoidance over four years.
I would evaluate the other recommendations individually. For example, I would not support simply downloading residential sidewalk snow clearing onto homeowners; accessible sidewalks are a municipal service I think is worth providing. I also see Riverview Park and Zoo as an unusually valuable community asset, so I would be very cautious about changes that make it less accessible.
I would also be willing to delay lower-priority capital projects when doing so protects housing, essential infrastructure or preventative maintenance.
I would start by defining the service level we expect, measuring what it actually costs to provide, and asking whether there is a less expensive way to achieve the same result. Cutting maintenance or weakening a service simply to lower one year’s tax increase can become much more expensive later, so I would look at long-term cost rather than the next budget alone.
Yes. I would review whether Peterborough’s subsidized transit pass should be available based more broadly on income rather than primarily on whether someone receives Ontario Works or ODSP. The current subsidized monthly pass is $49, and there are low-income residents outside those programs who can still struggle to afford regular transit.
I would also review development-related charges so that verified affordable housing and efficient infill are not unnecessarily discouraged, while development that requires substantial new roads, sewers and other infrastructure contributes fairly toward those costs. Peterborough already varies its development charges by housing type and imposes additional area-specific charges in some growth areas, so there is already some recognition that different forms of development create different costs.
On the other side, I would look at new cost-recovery fees where a specific user repeatedly creates an avoidable municipal expense. The recent efficiency review, for example, suggested charging for repeated false fire alarms.
My general principle is that fees should reflect both the cost created and the public value of the service, rather than simply being increased across the board whenever the City needs more revenue.
I want residents to be able to see not only where their money went, but what it accomplished. That means more detailed budget data, clearer reporting on service performance, and public dashboards showing whether major projects were completed on time and on budget.
I would also like to explore something similar to a municipal “tax receipt.” A resident could enter their approximate municipal tax bill and see, for example, roughly how much supports policing, roads, transit, housing, parks and other services, with links showing what those dollars delivered that year. It would be an estimate rather than pretending individual tax dollars are literally earmarked, but it would make the connection between taxes and results much easier to understand.
If taxes increase, residents should be able to see what improved as a result.
My first priorities would be housing and homelessness, maintaining the infrastructure we already own, and reliable core services.
On housing, that means supporting community, supportive and deeply affordable housing and making strategic use of municipal land and incentives. On infrastructure, I would prioritize water and wastewater systems, stormwater, roads, sidewalks and public facilities where preventative work can avoid much larger future costs. I would also protect investments in transit, traffic calming, safer crossings and closing important gaps in walking and cycling networks.
Where economic-development spending can unlock serviced employment land or help expand the commercial and industrial tax base, I would consider that an investment as well, provided the expected return is clearly demonstrated.
The clearest example is the proposed Multi-Use Sport and Event Centre. The current project is estimated at approximately $170 million, with Council having committed to an approximately $57-million municipal share while seeking the remainder from other governments and partners.
I would take a different approach: invest in maintaining and modernizing the existing Memorial Centre while preserving more of the City’s borrowing capacity for housing and essential infrastructure. The Memorial Centre does need substantial work - the City estimates $22.4 million in repairs and maintenance over the 15 years beginning in 2027, in addition to $1.5 million identified in the 2026 capital budget - but that is still a very different financial commitment from replacing it outright.
I understand the economic-development argument for a new facility. My concern is the opportunity cost of committing that much municipal financial capacity when we have significant housing and infrastructure needs.
I would expand the amount of detail available through OpenBook and make major capital projects much easier to track. For significant projects, residents should be able to see the original approved budget, current forecast cost, funding sources, major scope changes, use of debt or reserves, expected completion date and the reason for significant overruns or delays.
I would also make budget information easier to search and understand without requiring residents to work through hundreds of pages of PDF documents. Transparency should allow someone to follow a dollar or a project from Council approval through to completion.
Before increasing funding for a service, Council should know what result it expects the additional money to produce. I would want major services to have a small set of understandable measures - such as cost per unit of service, response time, reliability, usage, resident satisfaction and whether established service standards were actually met.
I would track those measures over time and compare them with similar municipalities where the comparison is meaningful. A program being under budget does not necessarily mean it is efficient if residents are receiving poor service, and a program costing more is not necessarily wasteful if it is producing substantially better outcomes.
I think Peterborough should accommodate much more of its growth through intensification and compact development within the existing urban area. When more people can live near infrastructure, transit, shops and services that already exist, the City can serve them more efficiently than continually extending roads, pipes and other infrastructure farther outward.
That does not mean there will never be new neighbourhoods. It means we should prefer apartments, townhomes, duplexes, missing-middle housing and redevelopment of underused sites where existing infrastructure can support it before defaulting to outward expansion.
That approach is also consistent with Peterborough’s Official Plan, which calls for compact development and densities that make efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services.
I support the principle that the more new infrastructure a development requires, the more of that cost the development should contribute. A large new subdivision requiring new roads, sewers, stormwater infrastructure and other services creates a very different municipal cost than adding apartments or townhomes where much of that infrastructure already exists.
I therefore favour a development-charge structure that reflects those differences rather than treating every new home as though it imposes the same long-term cost. Peterborough already uses different charges by housing type and also has area-specific charges for infrastructure in some growth areas; affordable and non-profit housing can qualify for exemptions
I would want affordable housing and efficient infill to remain financially viable, while new greenfield development contributes fairly toward the infrastructure it requires.
We urgently need more housing, but where and how we build it matters financially. I support apartments, townhomes, duplexes and other forms of infill that make better use of existing neighbourhoods and infrastructure, alongside community, supportive and deeply affordable housing.
My first priority is maintaining essential assets we already depend on: water and wastewater systems, stormwater infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, crossings and public facilities. I would also prioritize projects that support new housing and close important gaps in walking, cycling and transit connections.
I would use asset-condition data and lifecycle costs to prioritize work before deterioration turns a manageable repair into a major reconstruction. Peterborough’s asset-management framework already emphasizes lifecycle planning and preventative maintenance; Council needs to consistently fund that approach, coordinate projects so we are not repeatedly reopening the same streets, and aggressively pursue senior-government infrastructure funding.
I think there are opportunities to simplify administrative processes and make routine City services easier to access online while preserving phone and in-person options for people who need them. I would also use the recent efficiency review to test alternative service-delivery approaches, but any change should be measured against both cost and service quality rather than assuming that cheaper automatically means better.
Housing affordability and homelessness are at the top of my list, followed by the broader cost of living - including property taxes - and whether people are getting reliable public services for what they pay. I also hear a great deal about basic neighbourhood infrastructure: roads, sidewalks, crossings, transit and whether problems actually get addressed when residents report them.
I would want to see more housing actually completed, particularly affordable and community housing; a clearer ward-level system for prioritizing infrastructure and safety improvements; and much better public reporting on municipal spending and service performance. I would also want Peterborough to grow its commercial and industrial tax base so future service costs are not borne increasingly by residential taxpayers alone.
I would put more emphasis on long-term costs, measurable results and following up after decisions are made. I also want to be more systematic about listening to residents: acknowledging concerns, explaining what I am doing about them, and being transparent when the answer is that I cannot or will not pursue a request.
Too often, residents provide feedback and then have no idea whether it went anywhere. I would maintain regular ward conversations and a transparent way of reporting recurring issues and follow-up, while protecting residents’ personal information.
I would also be reluctant to use temporary funding to make an annual budget appear more sustainable than it is. For example, the additional $3 million of Legacy Fund income used to reduce the 2026 tax requirement subsequently appeared as a $3-million preliminary base-budget pressure for 2027 because it was a one-time measure.
Consultation should happen while there are still genuine options to choose between, not after the important decisions have effectively been made. I would use ward meetings, online participation and accessible public information, then report back on what residents said, what changed as a result, and why Council ultimately chose the option it did.
First, even a one-percentage-point change in Peterborough’s all-inclusive tax rate represents a substantial amount of money. In the 2026 budget, one percentage point was approximately $2.3 million in tax-supported expenditures, so calls to reduce a tax increase need to be accompanied by an explanation of what $2.3 million would actually be removed, deferred or funded another way.
Second, the City already has a significant infrastructure challenge. Peterborough’s 2025 Asset Management Plan projected an average annual capital shortfall of about $26 million over ten years to deliver established service levels and accommodate planned growth; when the existing renewal backlog is included, the estimated annual gap is much larger.
That is why I do not think responsible budgeting is simply a contest to produce the lowest possible tax increase. We also have to ask what happens to the roads, pipes, buildings and other assets when necessary work is postponed.
I would keep my campaign commitments publicly available and report on their status during the term rather than allowing the platform to disappear after election day. I also intend to explain major votes in plain language, maintain regular opportunities to speak with residents in Otonabee Ward, and be candid when circumstances change or when I decide that an original proposal no longer makes sense.