I think the City needs to approach accessibility as something that shapes how services, infrastructure and public participation are designed, not as a separate consideration added near the end.
That means looking consistently at the barriers people encounter across the whole municipal experience: sidewalks and crossings, transit, parks and recreation, public meetings, digital services, documents and communication, affordable programming, and interactions with City staff.
Peterborough already has some of the framework for this. The City's 2024-2028 Accessibility Plan calls for an accessibility lens and an inclusion lens to be applied across City business, specifically so barriers can be identified and prevented earlier in the process. I would want Council to make sure those tools are actually reflected in planning, budgeting and project decisions rather than existing primarily as policy language.
I also think disabled residents need meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions that affect them. That includes formal consultation, but also representation in recreation, employment, advisory bodies and broader community planning. The point is to involve people while options are still open, not ask for feedback after the major decisions have already been made.
Finally, I'd like the City to get better at closing the loop when barriers are identified. Peterborough already has a centralized system for reporting accessibility concerns. Council should be able to see patterns in those reports, what is being done to address them, and where recurring barriers suggest a larger systemic problem.
For me, the goal is fairly practical: disabled people should be able to participate in Peterborough's civic, social and economic life without having to constantly work around barriers the City could reasonably have prevented.
I would focus on the practical barriers people encounter in everyday life.
In public spaces, that means continuous accessible sidewalks, safe crossings, curb cuts, parking, washrooms, seating, entrances, playgrounds and paths. An accessible feature is not much use if someone cannot reliably get to it or use the route around it.
Government services also need to work whether someone accesses them online, by phone or in person. Forms and documents should be compatible with assistive technology, important information should be available in accessible formats, and people who cannot easily use an online process should have a clear alternative.
I would also build accessibility more directly into the City's normal asset-management and capital-planning processes. If a sidewalk, park, facility or service is already being renewed, that is the time to identify and remove accessibility barriers rather than waiting for a separate project years later.
And when residents report a barrier, there should be visible follow-up. The City should make it clear what has been reported, what action is being taken, and what the expected timeline is. Reporting an accessibility problem shouldn’t feel like dropping it into a bureaucratic black hole.
The cheapest time to make something accessible is usually before we build it.
I would make accessibility review a standard early step in major City projects, policies, and service changes, while there is still time to shape the outcome. Physical access, communication, transportation, sensory and cognitive accessibility, and the different ways people may need to use a service should all be considered while there is still time to shape the design.
Peterborough already has some of this framework in place. The City's Corporate Accessibility Policy and Accessibility Plan call for accessibility and inclusion to be considered across City business. I want those principles built more consistently into how projects are planned, approved, and evaluated.
For significant projects, Council reports should clearly explain how accessibility was considered, who was consulted, what changes resulted from that consultation, and whether any known barriers remain.
That creates accountability. It is much better to identify a barrier while a project can still be changed than to discover years later that something, while technically compliant, still does not work well for many disabled residents.
Yes. Disabled people bring knowledge that cannot always be captured through design standards, technical reviews, or policy documents. Consultation needs to happen early enough that it can genuinely shape the outcome, rather than after the major decisions have already been made.
Peterborough already has an Accessibility Advisory Committee that advises the City on projects, programs, services and facilities, and that expertise should continue to be part of the decision-making process. But consultation should not begin and end with one committee. Different disabilities can create very different experiences of the same service or public space. Depending on the issue, the City should also hear directly from people with mobility, sensory, intellectual, developmental, mental-health and other disabilities, along with organizations that work closely with those communities.
I would also support compensating community members for substantial advisory work where appropriate. If we are asking people to contribute lived expertise to complex projects, we should recognize that as expertise. It should not automatically be treated as less valuable simply because it comes from personal experience.
Municipal government cannot set ODSP rates - that is a provincial responsibility - but the City does control some of the costs that determine whether people can participate fully in community life. Ontario currently sets and annually adjusts ODSP rates, while Peterborough already offers ODSP recipients a $49 monthly transit pass and eligibility for recreation subsidies.
I would protect those supports, make them easier to access, and look at where we can go further. Other cities offer useful examples: London, England, for instance, provides eligible disabled residents with free public transit and subsidized taxi travel when conventional transit is difficult to use. I would like Peterborough to review which City-run fees or services create the biggest barriers and whether additional subsidies - or a simpler, single application for several programs - would make sense here.
Housing is still the largest part of the affordability problem. Expanding deeply affordable, supportive, and community housing would make a far greater difference than expecting someone living on a disability income to compete in Peterborough’s regular rental market.
Council should also advocate directly to the Province when ODSP rates or rules leave residents unable to meet basic needs. The City may not control those rates, but it deals with many of the consequences when income, housing and support systems fall short.
I think we need to be more precise about what we mean by “affordable.” In Peterborough, housing can meet an official affordability definition because its rent is at or below average market rent. That doesn’t mean the rent is tied to what the person living there actually earns. A unit can therefore be called affordable and still be completely out of reach for someone living on disability supports.
Where the City is contributing land, funding, or incentives, I would want us to ask a fairly simple question: affordable for whom? We should distinguish more clearly between below-market housing, deeply affordable housing, and Rent-Geared-to-Income housing, and use municipal support to pursue deeper affordability where the need is greatest. Peterborough’s current housing incentive framework already gives greater priority to projects that provide deeper affordability.
Affordability and accessibility also need to be planned together. For City-owned, funded or supported housing, I would push for accessible and adaptable units to be incorporated from the beginning, and for better tracking of how many appropriate units exist, what features they offer, how many people need them, and where the gaps are.
And location matters. An accessible apartment is considerably less useful if the surrounding sidewalks, transit, groceries, or health services are difficult to access. Housing policy needs to consider the neighbourhood around the unit as well as the unit itself.
The City can influence this in three ways: as an employer, through the way it spends public money, and as a partner in the local economy.
As an employer, Peterborough should remove unnecessary barriers from recruitment, interviews, and workplaces, and make accommodation straightforward to request. The City's Accessibility Plan already identifies accessible recruitment, work experience for students with disabilities, partnerships with disability-employment networks, and reducing barriers in interviews as priorities. I would want those commitments implemented and measured so we can see whether they are actually leading to more disabled people finding and keeping meaningful work with the City.
The City can also use its purchasing power. Peterborough's social-procurement program already considers diversity, employment opportunities, and businesses owned by people with disabilities. Its procurement questionnaire can also recognize paid work experience and employment initiatives aimed at people with disabilities. I would look at how those tools can more deliberately support businesses and social enterprises creating good, appropriately supported employment.
Finally, the City should keep working with employment agencies, educational institutions, and disability organizations to connect employers with people who want to work. Local employment services already include job coaching, employer education, workplace accommodations, and retention support.
The goal shouldn't simply be to get someone onto a payroll. It should be sustainable work where people are properly paid, supported, respected and given opportunities to contribute and grow.
Smaller employers may want to be accessible but not know what accommodations are possible, what funding is available, or where to start. The City can help make that easier.
Peterborough’s employment services already include employer education, workplace accommodations, accessibility support, job coaching, and retention services. The City also provides accessibility resources for businesses and employers.
I would make those resources easier to find and navigate, ideally through a clear point of contact rather than expecting a small-business owner to figure out which level of government or agency runs which program.
I would also look at whether accessibility improvements can be incorporated more deliberately into existing business, façade, renovation, or economic-development incentive programs where the City has an appropriate role. Peterborough already offers several grant and incentive programs for business and property improvements, so there may be opportunities to make accessibility a stronger part of that framework.
Accommodations also go well beyond physical renovations. Flexible scheduling, adapted equipment, accessible software, different communication methods, and changes to how work is organized can all make a meaningful difference.
The City should lead by example in its own employment practices, then help local employers access the information and resources they need to do the same.
Yes. Meaningful employment shouldn’t be defined by whether someone can work 40 hours a week in a conventional nine-to-five job.
This isn’t abstract for me. I have people close to me for whom a full-time schedule simply isn’t sustainable without serious consequences for their mental health. I’ve seen how hard it can be to find employers who genuinely respect those limits, especially when scheduling gets tight and extra hours start to become the expectation.
Part-time work, flexible scheduling, job sharing, remote work, or supported employment can allow people to contribute their skills while managing disability, medical appointments, energy levels, or support needs. I would want the City to reflect that flexibility in its own employment practices wherever the requirements of the job allow it, and to support partnerships that provide job coaching, workplace accommodations, and supported placements.
Flexibility also cannot become an excuse to steer disabled people into precarious or poorly paid work. It should expand someone’s options while preserving fair pay, respect, stability, and opportunities to advance.
Accessible transit needs to work across the whole trip. That includes whether someone can safely reach the stop, whether sidewalks and shelters are accessible and cleared in winter, whether connections are reliable, and whether changes or delays are communicated in a way people can actually use.
Communication is a particular concern for me. Riders should not have to depend on a mobile app to know whether a bus is delayed, rerouted or cancelled. I’ve heard from disabled residents who cannot easily use those apps, and I’ve also heard about situations where information affecting conventional transit did not seem to reach Accessible Van riders or drivers with the same consistency.
That kind of disconnect can leave someone waiting without knowing what has happened or when their ride will arrive. I would want service disruptions coordinated across conventional and accessible transit, with updates available through multiple accessible channels such as web, email, text, and telephone.
For the Accessible Van Service itself, I would also want regular reporting on demand, unavailable trip requests, wait times, cancellations and whether capacity is keeping up with need. If people are routinely struggling to get to work, medical appointments, or community activities because appropriate transportation is unavailable, Council should know that.
I would also consult riders directly about booking, reliability, communication, and service hours. The people who depend on these services every day are usually the first to know where the system is breaking down.