Residents First Insights
One of the most rewarding parts of this campaign has been the conversations I've had with residents across Pickering. Whether it's at the door, at community events, or over a coffee, people have shared thoughtful questions and important concerns about the future of our city.
Many of those conversations have revealed that municipal issues are often more complex than they first appear, and that there is a lot of information residents simply aren't given.
I've created this page to help change that.
Here you'll find straightforward, easy-to-understand information on some of the issues that matter most to our community. My goal is to explain how these issues affect Pickering, what authority Council actually has, and where I stand.
This is a living resource that will continue to grow throughout the campaign as I meet more residents and hear more ideas. I encourage you to check back regularly over the coming months as new topics are added.
Because good decisions start with good information.
| |
Affordability is one of the biggest concerns I hear from residents.
People are paying more for groceries, utilities, insurance, housing and almost everything else. Property taxes are another expense that households have to find room for, year after year.
And one number in Pickering’s latest financial reporting caught my attention.
Pickering began 2025 with approximately $27.6 million in taxes outstanding / still owing to the City. By the end of the year, that number had increased to approximately $38.5 million.
That is an increase of almost 40% in one year.
That does not necessarily mean more residents are unable to pay their property taxes. There may be several factors behind these numbers, and we need to understand exactly what they are. But at a time when affordability is already such a concern, I believe it is something Council should be paying close attention to.
I don’t think it is responsible for anyone running for Council to promise that property taxes will never increase again. Municipal costs rise, infrastructure needs to be maintained and Pickering is continuing to grow.
But there is a big difference between accepting that some costs will increase and simply accepting that taxpayers should always be asked to cover them.
Over the next four years, I believe affordability needs to become a much bigger part of how Pickering makes decisions.
There is no single decision that will solve property tax affordability. But there are a number of practical things the next Council can do to reduce pressure on taxpayers and keep increases as low as responsibly possible.
Here is where I would start.
1. Control Our Largest Expense Without Cutting the Services Residents Depend On
Let’s start where the biggest dollars are.
Pickering’s 2025 Financial Information Return reports approximately $67.1 million in salaries and wages and another $19.1 million in employee benefits.
Combined, that is approximately $86.17 million.
With total expenses of approximately $142.3 million, salaries, wages and benefits account for about 60.5% of Pickering’s total expenses.
That makes staffing costs impossible to ignore in any serious discussion about affordability.
There is also a longer-term trend worth examining. In 2015, salaries and benefits were approximately $49.5 million. By 2025, they had increased by roughly 74%. Over that same period, Pickering’s reported population increased from 95,593 to 109,659, or about 15%.
That does not prove there is waste.
Inflation needs to be considered. Collective agreements are important. Pickering has grown. Fire protection has expanded. New facilities and services have been added.
But it does mean Council should be asking whether the growth in staffing costs is producing a comparable improvement in the services residents receive.
When someone retires or leaves the City, we should not automatically assume the position needs to be replaced exactly as it exists today.
Before filling a vacancy, we should ask whether the work can be redistributed, whether the job has changed, whether technology can eliminate repetitive administrative work, whether functions can be combined, and whether those resources could be redirected toward a service residents need more.
Some positions obviously need to be filled immediately. Firefighters, frontline service positions and legally required functions are not going to disappear because someone leaves.
But not every vacancy should be replaced on autopilot.
The potential savings are important.
A 1% efficiency on $86 million in payroll-related costs is approximately $860,000 per year.
2% is approximately $1.7 million per year.
I am not suggesting we arbitrarily cut 1% or 2% from staffing. The point is that when an expenditure is this large, relatively small efficiencies can have a meaningful impact.
Technology should be part of that conversation as well.
Pickering is already investing in digital systems and reviewing its IT capabilities. I believe we should continue looking for opportunities where technology can make services easier for residents while also allowing the City to operate more efficiently.
As a member of Pickering’s Accessibility Advisory Committee, I have already had the opportunity to provide input on a number of technological and digital initiatives. That experience has reinforced for me that good technology can accomplish two things at once: make City services more accessible and easier for residents to use, while also improving how efficiently those services are delivered.
We should be looking for more opportunities to do both.
Most importantly, when Council is asked to approve additional staffing, residents should be able to understand what additional or improved service they are receiving in return.
The goal should not be fewer employees simply for the sake of having fewer employees.
The goal should be better service at the lowest reasonable cost.
2. Keep Pickering’s Casino Money in Pickering
This is one I have already written about extensively, so I won’t repeat the entire argument here.
But the numbers are significant.
Pickering received approximately $16.43 million in casino revenue in 2025.
According to the City’s own financial reporting, between 2023 and 2025 Pickering transferred $11.17 million of its casino revenue to Durham Region.
The existing agreement expires on December 31, 2026, and there is no automatic renewal provision.
Durham Region’s 2026 budget anticipates receiving another $3.7 million from Pickering’s casino revenues this year.
If that projection is realized, Pickering will have transferred approximately $14.9 million to Durham Region over the four-year agreement.
My position remains the same.
I do not believe the next Council should simply renew that agreement.
Pickering is the host community.
Our residents experience the impacts associated with hosting the casino, and we have significant infrastructure, debt and affordability pressures of our own.
Those millions could remain here and help pay for roads, parks, facilities and other infrastructure that would otherwise require property taxes, reserves or additional debt.
Casino revenue can fluctuate, so I do not believe it should be used to permanently inflate operating expenses.
But used strategically for infrastructure, debt avoidance and other one-time investments, it can reduce pressure on property taxpayers.
Read my full article on Pickering’s casino revenue sharing here.
3. Grow the Commercial and Industrial Tax Base
There are two sides to keeping property taxes under control.
We need to manage what we spend.
But we also need to broaden who is helping pay for it.
That is why commercial and industrial growth should be viewed as an affordability strategy, not simply an economic development strategy.
The 2025 BMA Municipal Study shows that residential properties make up approximately 81.7% of Pickering’s weighted tax base, compared with a municipal average of about 75%.
That means homeowners are carrying a very large share of the municipal tax burden.
I believe we should work to gradually bring that number down.
For example, if Pickering could reduce the residential share from approximately 81.7% toward 78% by attracting additional commercial and industrial assessment, it could meaningfully reduce the pressure on residential taxpayers.
Based on the current tax structure, a shift of that size could potentially reduce the City portion of the residential tax burden by roughly 4% to 5% compared with what it otherwise would have been.
Because the City portion represents only part of the total property tax bill, the impact on the entire bill would be smaller, roughly 1% to 1.5% overall.
That may not sound enormous at first.
But on an $8,000 annual property tax bill, that could represent roughly $80 to $120 per year in avoided tax pressure, depending on future budgets and tax rates.
More importantly, that benefit continues year after year.
And Pickering already has an opportunity to work toward that goal.
There are hundreds of acres of land in Pickering’s Innovation Corridor that are already designated specifically for employment uses.
Some of that land has attracted major employers such as Kubota and FGF Brands, but significant opportunities remain.
Rather than relying primarily on more residential development, we should be aggressively pursuing businesses and employers for lands that are already planned and designated for employment.
Every successful commercial or industrial investment adds jobs and recurring assessment to our tax base, helping spread the cost of City services across more than just homeowners.
Residential development will always be part of Pickering’s future.
But residential growth also creates additional demand for roads, parks, fire protection, recreation and other municipal services.
Commercial and industrial growth helps pay for those services.
That is why I believe the next Council should establish a clear objective:
Reduce Pickering’s reliance on residential property taxes by growing our commercial and industrial tax base.
If we can gradually move the residential share of our weighted tax base from approximately 81.7% toward 78%, that would be measurable progress residents could actually see.
It would mean more jobs. More investment. More recurring non-residential tax revenue.
And less pressure on homeowners to carry so much of the cost of running the City.
4. Make Sure Pickering Nuclear Is Paying Its Fair Share
Ontario Power Generation has been part of Pickering for more than 50 years, and I wholeheartedly support the refurbishment of Pickering Nuclear.
When I moved to Pickering as a kid in the mid-1970s, the first four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station had only recently opened, and the second half of the station was just beginning to be built. I essentially grew up alongside the expansion of the nuclear station.
This is also an industry that is familiar to me.
Through my work, I have had the opportunity to represent nuclear scientists, nuclear physicists, nuclear engineers, design specialists and clerical support staff working in the nuclear sector.
I have seen firsthand the level of expertise these jobs require and the quality of employment this industry can provide.
The refurbishment represents an enormous opportunity for Pickering.
City reporting estimates the project could support approximately 30,000 jobs during the refurbishment phase and sustain approximately 6,700 jobs throughout the station’s future operation.
These are skilled, good-paying jobs that can support families and create economic opportunities throughout our community.
And Pickering is part of something even bigger.
Durham Region is recognized as the Clean Energy Capital of Canada and produces approximately 30% of Ontario’s electricity, largely through the Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations.
Pickering should be proud to be a major part of that story.
But supporting OPG and strongly supporting the refurbishment does not mean we stop protecting the interests of Pickering taxpayers.
Council has authorized the City to enter into a Municipal Infrastructure and Servicing Agreement with OPG. City staff identified a 2026 property tax payment of approximately $2.71 million as the base amount used in the agreement, with payments protected and indexed during the early refurbishment period.
More important to me is how that number is verified.
As part of this process, OPG and the City committed to conducting a thorough inventory of the nuclear site to ensure that every building and structure is properly reflected in MPAC’s assessment records.
I want to see that work completed and clearly reported.
The issue is not arbitrarily deciding that OPG should pay more.
It is making absolutely certain that one of the largest industrial properties in our community is being fully and accurately assessed and paying what it should under Ontario’s property tax rules.
OPG has also made significant infrastructure commitments connected to the refurbishment, including up to $10 million toward Fire Hall #5, approximately $16 million toward work on Sandy Beach Road and Montgomery Park Road, and a potential contribution of up to $10 million connected to 591 Liverpool Road.
That is the kind of relationship I want Pickering to have with OPG.
Welcome the investment. Support the refurbishment. Champion the skilled, good-paying jobs it brings to our community. Work collaboratively with one of Pickering’s largest employers.
And make sure Pickering taxpayers receive their fair share.
5. For the Next Four Years, Needs Before Nice-to-Haves
This may be the simplest principle of all.
Pickering does not have unlimited money.
And our existing infrastructure already requires substantial investment.
The City’s 2025 Asset Management Plan identified an estimated $61.7 million annual lifecycle infrastructure requirement, compared with approximately $28.9 million in sustainable annual funding.
That leaves an estimated $32.8 million annual infrastructure funding gap.
That should tell us something about our priorities.
For the next four years, I believe significant new spending should be looked at through three simple categories:
- Must do: Spending required for safety, accessibility, legal obligations, core services and protecting the infrastructure and assets residents already paid for.
- Should do: Investments that address a demonstrated community need, materially improve services or save taxpayers money over the longer term.
- Nice to do: Projects or enhancements that may be worthwhile, but can reasonably be delayed without compromising safety, accessibility, core services or costing taxpayers more later.
Maintaining existing roads, sidewalks, bridges, parks and City facilities residents already use is a must do.
Public safety and core municipal services are must do.
And while residents are struggling with affordability, nice-to-have spending should face a much higher threshold.
That does not mean Pickering stops investing in itself.
It means we recognize something families already understand: You can’t do everything at once.
Sometimes responsible leadership means saying yes.
Sometimes it means saying, not yet.
6. Growth Cannot Come at the Expense of the People Already Paying the Bills
This is another area where I believe we need a much bigger conversation.
Pickering’s 2025 Development Charges Study identified approximately $1 billion in growth-related capital costs through 2039.
Only about $505 million is expected to be recoverable through development charges.
Approximately $498 million must come from other funding sources.
The City’s Finance Department summarized it very clearly: for every dollar of growth-related capital cost, the City must find approximately 49.7 cents from non-development-charge sources.
That does not mean 49.7 cents automatically appears on today’s property tax bill.
Those other sources can include reserves, debt, grants and other municipal revenues.
But those are still City resources, and using them for growth means they are not available for something else.
That is why I continue to believe that growth should pay for growth as much as legally and reasonably possible.
In fact, Pickering’s own Treasurer describes development charges and other growth-funding tools as important specifically so that existing property owners are not unduly burdened by the cost of new growth.
I agree.
We should welcome new residents. We should build complete communities. And we should invest in the infrastructure required to support them.
But current residents cannot become an afterthought.
If people who already live here continue paying higher property taxes, they should also see improvements in the communities they already call home.
That means:
- Maintaining existing roads and sidewalks.
- Updating neighbourhood parks.
- Keeping recreation facilities in good condition.
- Maintaining City buildings.
- Providing responsive municipal services.
- And addressing the everyday issues residents actually notice.
Building the Pickering of tomorrow cannot come at the expense of maintaining the Pickering we live in today.
A Four-Year Affordability Plan
I am not going to promise residents that municipal costs will somehow stop increasing.
I don’t think that is credible.
But I do believe the next Council can change how we respond to those pressures.
And there is a reason this matters.
From 2020 through 2026, Pickering's combined residential property tax rate — including the City, Durham Region and education portions — increased by approximately 26%.
For many households, those increases have happened at the same time that groceries, utilities, insurance, housing and virtually everything else have become more expensive.
That is why affordability has to become part of every major budget decision.
- Control recurring operating costs.
- Use vacancies as an opportunity to review how work is delivered.
- Use technology to improve accessibility and productivity.
- Keep Pickering’s casino revenues in Pickering.
- Aggressively expand our commercial and industrial tax base.
- Make sure major organizations operating in our community are contributing their fair share.
- Make growth pay for growth wherever reasonably and legally possible.
- Prioritize existing infrastructure and the services residents already rely on.
- And put nice-to-have spending behind affordability until we have our financial pressures under better control.
Pickering’s finances are not in crisis.
But that doesn’t mean we should wait until they are.
Over the next four years, I want to change the conversation.
Instead of asking:
“How much more do we need from taxpayers this year?”
Council should start by asking:
“What can we do differently so we don’t have to ask?”
That is the approach I would bring to the budget table.
- Protect the services residents rely on.
- Maintain the community we already have.
- Grow the revenues that don’t come from homeowners.
- Control recurring costs.
- And keep future property tax increases as low as responsibly possible.
| |
“You deserve a councillor who listens AND acts.”
One of the things I continue to hear from residents is that they want to feel more connected to the decisions being made at City Hall.
They want to know their concerns are being heard. They want opportunities to speak. And they want to know that when they take the time to participate, someone is actually listening.
To me, accessible leadership means more than answering emails or knocking on doors during an election campaign.
It means being visible in the community, responding to residents, explaining decisions and following through.
But I also believe we need to look at how accessible City Hall itself is to the people it serves.
Over the past few years, several changes have affected how residents can participate in Council meetings.
- Individual delegation time was reduced from 10 minutes to 5 minutes.
- Residents generally can no longer register to speak to Council about an issue unless that issue is already on the meeting agenda.
- And the timing of Council agendas and delegation deadlines can make participation difficult.
For a regular Monday Council meeting, the Council agenda is not required to be posted until the end of the day Thursday, while the deadline to register electronically to speak is normally noon Friday. That can leave residents with only a matter of hours to review a potentially complicated issue, understand what is being proposed and decide whether they want to appear before Council.
And if an item is added or materially changed after the normal delegation deadline, residents should not have to depend on Council suspending its own rules just to have an opportunity to speak about information they could not have reviewed beforehand.
I think we can do better.
I strongly support the return of in-person Council meetings this September, while continuing to provide livestreaming and virtual participation wherever practical.
I also believe we should review the way residents participate in Council meetings. That includes creating a reasonable opportunity for residents to bring forward municipal concerns that are not already on the agenda.
I am not suggesting an unlimited open microphone that adds hours to every Council meeting.
There has to be a balance.
A structured Community Comment Period, with advance registration and reasonable time limits, could give residents an opportunity to raise important local issues while allowing Council meetings to continue functioning effectively.
I would also support:
- Restoring a more reasonable amount of time for residents addressing complex issues before Council.
- Reviewing the relationship between agenda publication and delegation deadlines so residents have meaningful time to understand what Council is considering.
- Automatically reopening delegation registration when a significant new item is added or materially changed after the normal deadline.
- Maintaining both in-person and virtual ways for residents to participate wherever possible.
- And ensuring residents have a clear opportunity to bring issues forward rather than waiting for City Hall to decide when those issues deserve to appear on an agenda.
My commitment as your councillor is straightforward.
- I will be visible, accessible and responsive in the community.
- I will bring a solutions-focused approach to Council.
- I will work collaboratively with residents, staff and other members of Council.
- I will make decisions based on public input, evidence and the long-term interests of our community.
- And I will explain not only how I voted, but why.
Because accountability should not happen once every four years.
Residents deserve a councillor they can reach.
They deserve a Council they can speak to.
And they deserve a City Hall that makes participation easier, not harder.
Residents First.
| |
When the Pickering Casino Resort opened in July 2021, it created a significant new source of non-tax revenue for our City.
Since then, Pickering has received nearly $76 million from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) for being the host municipality. That money has helped fund parks, recreation facilities, community grants, infrastructure projects, debt reduction and other City priorities.
But since 2023, Pickering has also voluntarily shared a portion of that revenue with Durham Region.
With the current agreement set to expire at the end of 2026, I think residents deserve a closer look at how much we have contributed, what was originally sought through the negotiations, and whether renewing the agreement is still the best use of these funds.
1. What is the issue?
Under the current agreement, Pickering keeps the first $10 million of casino revenue each year. Any revenue above that amount is split equally between Pickering and Durham Region, with the Region's share capped at $6 million annually. The agreement expires on December 31, 2026, unless both governments agree in writing to extend it.
This isn't a payment required by OLG. The casino host payment is made to the City of Pickering, and Pickering subsequently chose to enter into a separate revenue-sharing agreement with Durham. In fact, when the agreement was announced, Pickering was identified as the first and only casino-host municipality in Ontario voluntarily sharing its gaming revenues with another municipality or regional government.
The amount involved is significant.
According to Pickering's 2026 budget:
- $4.23 million from 2023 casino revenues was paid to Durham in 2024;
- $3.73 million from 2024 revenues was paid in 2025; and
- approximately $3.24 million from 2025 revenues was estimated to be paid in 2026.
That represents approximately $11.2 million through the 2025 revenue year. Durham's 2026 budget projects receiving another $3.7 million from Pickering this year. If that projection is realized, Pickering will have transferred approximately $14.9 million (nearly $15 million) over the four-year agreement.
That is enough money that I believe we need to ask whether continuing the arrangement still makes sense.
What was Pickering originally hoping to achieve?
This is an important part of the discussion.
In 2020, before revenue sharing was finalized, Pickering Council established a series of negotiating objectives. Leaving aside a separate direction concerning when revenue sharing could begin, there were six substantive financial objectives:
- Protect Pickering's first $10 million annually, with Durham's share capped at $6 million.
- Have Durham establish property-tax relief for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities for the Regional portion of their property taxes.
- Have Durham review the way the police services budget is allocated, based on achieving greater property-tax fairness.
- Have Durham reimburse Pickering for the Regional share of property taxes on OPG-leased parkland.
- Have Durham participate as a funding partner for the Notion Road/Highway 401 project.
- Have the City's legal, consulting and professional costs related to Ajax's casino-related appeals reimbursed from casino revenues before revenue was shared with Durham.
After reviewing the subsequent agreements, budgets and public records, only one of those six objectives can be clearly confirmed as having carried through into the final arrangement: Pickering retained the first $10 million and Durham's annual share was capped at $6 million.
I have not found public documentation demonstrating that the other five objectives were secured as benefits to Pickering through the final revenue-sharing agreement.
That doesn't mean nothing positive came from the agreement. It does mean that before entering into another one, we should understand why so many of Pickering's original negotiating priorities do not appear to have been realized.
2. Why should residents care?
First, I don't fault Durham Region for how it has chosen to use the money.
Durham has directed Pickering's casino contribution toward housing and homelessness programs. Those are real challenges, they are legitimate Regional responsibilities, and Pickering residents benefit from Regional housing and social services too. In 2025, Durham confirmed that Pickering's casino revenues were being treated as flow-through funding for housing and homelessness initiatives through the Regional budget.
The question isn't whether housing and homelessness deserve funding.
They do.
The question is whether Pickering should continue making an additional voluntary contribution of several million dollars per year toward Regional responsibilities when Pickering residents already pay their full share of Regional property taxes.
And we need to consider what we are giving up locally when we transfer that money.
Pickering's own 2025 Asset Management Plan identified an approximately $85.9-million infrastructure backlog and an annual funding gap of approximately $32.8 million between what we should be investing in our existing infrastructure and the sustainable funding currently available.
That means an average casino transfer of roughly $3.7 million per year could cover more than 11 per cent of that annual infrastructure funding gap.
Over four years, approximately $15 million would represent about 17 per cent of the City's entire identified infrastructure backlog.
And there are more tangible ways to understand the size of that number.
Pickering's 2026 road rehabilitation program is approximately $5.25 million. The amount being transferred to Durham over this agreement is roughly equivalent to almost three years of road rehabilitation at that level.
The replacement of Fire Station #5 (1616 Bayly St.) involves more than $12 million of borrowing supported by property taxes. The four-year casino transfer is greater than the amount being borrowed for that entire project.
Pickering has also experienced millions of dollars in lost development-charge revenue resulting from provincial legislative changes. The City itself has already recognized casino revenue as a way of helping offset those losses rather than shifting the cost of growth onto existing taxpayers.
Then there are smaller affordability programs that could make a direct difference.
Pickering's low-income seniors and persons-with-disabilities property-tax grant is currently $620 per year. Approximately 308 residents participated in the program in 2025. Strengthening a program like that would require only a small fraction of the money currently being transferred to Durham.
None of this means we should simply spend $15 million all at once.
Casino revenue fluctuates from year to year. In fact, Pickering's Treasurer has appropriately cautioned against relying on it to permanently fund ongoing operating expenses. The better use of unpredictable revenue is generally for capital projects, infrastructure and reducing debt — expenditures that can lower future pressure on property taxes without creating a permanent operating commitment.
And Pickering is already doing exactly that with the casino revenue it keeps.
The question is whether we should be doing more of it.
3. What can Council actually do?
Council does not have to renew the existing agreement.
It expires on December 31, 2026, and any extension requires the agreement of both Pickering and Durham.
That presents the next Council with an opportunity to reassess the arrangement based on what we now know.
I believe there should be a high threshold for renewal.
Before another agreement is signed, Council should require a public report answering some basic questions:
How much did Pickering contribute?
We are on track for approximately $15 million under the current agreement.
Where did that money go?
Durham should clearly account for the programs and investments supported by Pickering's contribution.
What measurable benefit did Pickering residents receive?
Regional services benefit all Durham residents, but if Pickering is making an additional voluntary contribution, we should understand what additional value that contribution created.
What happened to Pickering's original negotiating priorities?
If five of the six substantive objectives cannot be demonstrated as having been achieved, we should understand why before negotiating another agreement.
What could the same money accomplish if it remained in Pickering?
And finally:
What would Durham offer Pickering in a new agreement that would justify continuing to share the revenue?
There are several options.
- Council could end revenue sharing and retain all future host-community revenues.
- It could negotiate a smaller contribution.
- It could require that any future contribution produce measurable investments specifically benefiting Pickering.
- Or it could dedicate the money we currently transfer to a local infrastructure and debt-reduction reserve, helping repair aging roads, sidewalks, parks and facilities while reducing how much future capital work has to be financed through property taxes and debt.
Those choices should be evaluated publicly before another multi-year commitment is made.
4. Where do I stand?
I understand why the agreement was originally considered.
Pickering is part of Durham Region. We share services and challenges with our neighbours, and housing and homelessness don't stop at municipal boundaries. I don't criticize Durham for investing these funds in those priorities, and I don't think it is useful to blame today's Council for a decision made with the information and circumstances available at the time.
But municipal finances have changed.
Pickering is growing rapidly. We have an infrastructure backlog, a significant annual infrastructure funding gap, major capital projects ahead of us and increasing pressure on municipal debt.
We also know much more today about what this agreement has actually produced.
Nearly $15 million over four years is not a symbolic contribution. It is a significant amount of public money.
My view is that the agreement should not simply be renewed because it already exists.
The next Council should start from the position that Pickering's casino host revenues remain in Pickering unless there is a compelling, measurable and transparent reason for continuing to share them.
I am increasingly of the view that these dollars could provide greater value by being invested here, particularly in maintaining the infrastructure we already have, reducing future borrowing and property-tax pressure, and providing targeted assistance to residents who need it most.
That doesn't mean Pickering stops being a partner in Durham Region.
It means recognizing that Pickering residents already contribute substantially to Regional services through their property taxes, while the casino host revenue gives our City a rare opportunity to invest in our own long-term financial sustainability.
Growth is placing new demands on our community while much of our existing infrastructure also needs attention.
Before we voluntarily commit another $15 million outside the City, I think Pickering residents deserve a very clear answer to one question:
Would that money do more for our residents if we kept it here?
Based on what I have seen so far, I believe the answer may very well be yes.
| |
Traffic congestion is one of the main concerns I hear about regularly from residents. People are sitting through multiple lights at busy intersections, dealing with backups on major roads and watching drivers cut through residential neighbourhoods looking for another way around.
In my previous article, I looked at traffic calming - speeding, stop signs, cut-through traffic and the different tools municipalities can use to make neighbourhood streets safer.
Congestion is related, but it is a much larger issue.
A speed hump might slow vehicles on a residential street. It will not solve a bottleneck on Brock Road, Kingston Road or Bayly Street.
Congestion is about growth, development, roads, intersections, transit, construction and, most importantly, whether our transportation infrastructure is keeping pace with the number of people we are asking it to serve.
1. What is the issue?
There is rarely one single cause of congestion.
Sometimes an intersection simply has more vehicles trying to move through it than it can efficiently handle during peak periods. Construction, signal timing, turning movements, collisions and missing road connections can all contribute.
But in Pickering, we also have to talk about growth.
The City is planning for significant population growth and intensification, particularly in the City Centre and along major transportation corridors. Pickering's current City Centre Transportation Master Plan is looking at transportation requirements over 10- and 20-year development horizons, including roads, transit, cycling and pedestrian movement. The study area extends generally from Whites Road to Brock Road and Kingston Road to Bayly Street and is specifically intended to account for new and planned development throughout the area.
That broader view is important because traffic does not stop at the property line of one development.
One development may add an amount of traffic that can technically be accommodated. The next development may do the same.
But residents experience the combined effect of all of those developments using the same roads and intersections.
That is where I believe our attention increasingly needs to be focused.
Transportation studies should not simply tell us whether one proposed development can fit into today's road network. We need to understand what happens when all of the approved and planned development in an area is built.
2. Why should residents care?
The obvious answer is time. Nobody wants to spend more of their day sitting in traffic.
But congestion affects more than commute times. It can make trips less predictable, slow transit, make it more difficult to enter and leave neighbourhoods or local businesses, and push drivers onto residential streets looking for shortcuts.
It also affects how residents view growth.
People understand that Pickering is growing. What becomes much harder to accept is growth when the infrastructure residents already rely on appears to be falling further behind.
There is also a financial issue. Roads, intersections, bridges, transit infrastructure and other transportation improvements can cost millions of dollars. If we identify those needs only after development is built, taxpayers may eventually be asked to help fund expensive solutions that should have been anticipated much earlier.
That doesn't mean every congestion problem should be solved by widening a road.
There is only so much space available, particularly in established parts of the city. The solution may instead involve intersection improvements, better road connections, signal coordination, transit or providing realistic alternatives for some trips.
The bigger question should be:
As Pickering adds more people, how are we planning to move them?
3. What can Council actually do?
Council cannot promise to eliminate congestion.
Pickering also does not control every road or traffic signal within the city.
But Council has an important role in determining how growth and transportation planning come together.
Council can scrutinize the transportation impacts of development, look at cumulative growth rather than individual applications in isolation, plan and fund City infrastructure, advocate for improvements from Durham Region and the Province, and make sure the infrastructure required by growth is identified early enough to actually be delivered.
One of the biggest complications is jurisdiction.
Many of Pickering's busiest roads are Regional roads, while Highway 401 and Highway 407 involve the Province. That means Pickering Council cannot simply decide on its own to widen a Regional road or change a signal.
But that doesn't mean Council should shrug its shoulders and say it belongs to somebody else.
Part of the job is identifying what is needed, working with the government responsible and advocating for our residents.
But there is another question we need to ask: did the transportation planning happen early enough?
This is where I have concerns.
Pickering has been planning significant intensification in the City Centre for well over a decade.
In 2014, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 26, creating a framework for redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. In 2017, Council approved a new comprehensive City Centre zoning by-law and then approved another Official Plan amendment removing the City Centre density cap, creating greater opportunity for intensification. By September 2019, Council was approving further zoning changes that increased permitted building heights on City Centre lands.
Major redevelopment plans continued to advance after that.
To be fair, this does not mean transportation was completely ignored during those years. The City had broader transportation planning in place and individual developments were required to address transportation impacts. For example, during review of the Pickering Town Centre master plan, City staff specifically required a transportation study looking at the existing network, other development within the City Centre and road infrastructure that might be required.
But that is different from having a comprehensive, area-wide transportation plan looking at the cumulative impact of all the growth planned across the City Centre.
The City issued the request for proposals for the current City Centre Transportation Master Plan on October 26, 2021, and the study was approved as a 2022 project. In April 2022, staff recommended retaining Paradigm Transportation Solutions to undertake it. The City's own report described the purpose as assessing the impacts of future growth across the City Centre and identifying the transportation infrastructure required over the 2031 and 2041 horizons.
That raises a question I think residents are entitled to ask:
Shouldn't that comprehensive work have been done before so much intensification was already being planned and approved?
In my view, yes.
The fact that the City is doing the study is positive.
My concern is the timing.
We should not plan major intensification first and then years later complete the comprehensive transportation study that tells us what infrastructure all of that growth is going to require.
The order should be the other way around, or, at minimum, the two should happen together.
And we are still waiting for the final study
There is another concern.
The consultant was selected in 2022.
The City held a public information session on April 23, 2025, where residents were shown findings to date and proposed directions for the City Centre transportation network.
Yet the City's 2026 strategic progress report still lists completion of the City Centre Transportation Master Plan as an outstanding action needed to understand future infrastructure requirements.
As of August 2026, the City's public project page does not provide a final completion date. It continues to present the April 2025 consultation materials and describes the study as work being undertaken by the City.
After years of major growth planning, I think residents deserve some clear answers:
- When will the study be finished?
- What transportation improvements are required?
- How much will they cost?
- Who is responsible for each one?
- Which improvements are funded?
- And perhaps most importantly: Will they be built before, during or after the development creating the additional demand?
A transportation plan is only useful if it leads to action.
What about development applications while the study remains unfinished?
I think this is an important question, but I want to be careful not to make a promise Council may not legally be able to keep.
Ontario municipalities operate under statutory timelines for planning applications. If a municipality simply refuses to make a decision within the prescribed period, an applicant can in certain circumstances appeal the non-decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
So I would not advocate for simply refusing to deal with every development application until the study is completed.
There is also an important difference between development that is already permitted under existing zoning and an applicant asking Council to approve additional height or density beyond what is currently permitted.
That distinction matters to me.
Where an applicant is asking Council for a significant new increase in density within the City Centre study area, I believe Council should be extremely cautious about approving that increase before we understand the conclusions of the Transportation Master Plan.
Where legally and procedurally possible, I would support deferring major discretionary increases in density that could materially affect the transportation network until Council has the information necessary to understand the cumulative impact and the infrastructure required.
At the very least, before voting to approve additional density, Council should be able to answer a basic question:
Can our transportation network support what we are being asked to approve, and what needs to be built to make it work?
I don't think that is an unreasonable standard.
4. Where do I stand?
I am not opposed to growth.
Pickering will grow, and responsible growth can bring new residents, businesses, housing, services and investment to our community.
But supporting growth does not mean approving development first and figuring out the infrastructure afterwards.
My position is straightforward:
If we approve the growth, we also have a responsibility to plan for how people are going to move around.
Transportation planning needs to happen before or alongside development, not years behind it.
That means looking at cumulative growth rather than treating every application as though nothing else is being built around it.
It means asking harder questions about transportation studies instead of simply being satisfied that one has been submitted.
It means identifying the roads, intersections, transit improvements and connections that will be required, determining who is responsible for them and establishing when they will actually be delivered.
And it means being prepared to say not yet when someone is asking Council for a significant increase in density and we do not have enough information to understand the infrastructure consequences.
That is not the same as saying no to growth.
It is saying that growth needs to be responsible.
I also believe residents deserve far greater transparency.
For major growth areas like the City Centre, we should be able to show residents a clear infrastructure plan:
- What needs to be built?
- When is it needed?
- Who is responsible?
- What will it cost?
- Where is the funding coming from?
- And is the project actually on schedule?
If an improvement depends on Durham Region or the Province, Council should say that clearly and continue advocating for it.
If an infrastructure project is delayed, residents should know why.
And if the City believes the existing transportation network can support thousands of additional residents before certain improvements are completed, residents deserve to see the evidence supporting that conclusion.
There will never be a Pickering with no traffic.
That isn't a realistic promise.
But there is a significant difference between congestion that comes naturally with a growing city and congestion that results because infrastructure planning was allowed to fall behind development.
We have an opportunity to do this better going forward.
Before approving the next major increase in density, we should understand what infrastructure that growth requires, how it will be paid for and when it will be delivered.
Because once the buildings are built and the residents have moved in, it is too late to go back and ask the questions we should have asked before approving them.
| |
Traffic safety is something I hear about regularly from residents.
People talk about cars speeding through residential neighbourhoods, drivers rolling through stop signs, vehicles cutting down side streets, and concerns about walking safely near schools, parks and busy intersections.
I understand why these issues are frustrating. When it is happening on the street where you live, it doesn't feel like a small problem.
The challenge is that there isn't one solution that works everywhere.
A speed hump may make sense on one street. A raised crossing, curb extension or better signage might make more sense somewhere else. Sometimes the issue is enforcement. Sometimes the way the road itself was designed is part of the problem.
That is why I think traffic calming has to start by asking a simple question: What problem are we actually trying to solve?
1. What is the issue?
When residents raise traffic concerns, they are often describing several different things.
One is speeding. Another is cut-through traffic, where drivers use residential streets to avoid busier roads. There are also concerns about drivers rolling through or ignoring stop signs, particularly around schools and neighbourhood intersections.
And then there is congestion.
Congestion can contribute to neighbourhood traffic because drivers looking to avoid a backup may cut through residential streets. But congestion itself is a much larger transportation planning issue involving road capacity, intersections, growth, transit and the Regional and provincial road networks.
I will deal with congestion in more depth in a separate article. For this discussion, I want to focus on traffic calming and neighbourhood safety.
One misconception worth addressing is the idea that adding a stop sign will necessarily slow traffic.
Pickering's own traffic information explains that stop signs are intended to establish who has the right of way at an intersection, not to serve as speed control devices. The City says factors such as traffic volumes, restricted sightlines and collision history are considered when deciding whether a stop sign is warranted. It also warns that improperly placed all-way stops can lead to poorer compliance and even higher speeds between intersections.
That doesn't mean additional stop signs are never appropriate. It means we should make sure the solution matches the problem.
2. Why should residents care?
Traffic calming isn't about making driving difficult. It's about making neighbourhood streets safer for everyone who uses them.
A residential road is not just a route for vehicles. It may also be where children walk to school, someone crosses the street with a walker, a family rides bicycles to the park, or a person using a wheelchair or mobility device needs enough time and visibility to cross safely.
Speed changes the way people experience their neighbourhood.
There is a big difference between a street where vehicles are travelling at a reasonable speed and one where residents are nervous backing out of their driveway or letting their children cross the road.
The design of a road matters too.
A wide, straight road can sometimes encourage drivers to travel faster, even when a lower speed limit is posted. That is why traffic calming often involves more than putting up another sign. The physical design of the street can play an important role in influencing driver behaviour.
There is also a quality-of-life issue.
When a residential street becomes a shortcut for large volumes of traffic, residents may experience more noise, greater difficulty getting in and out of their driveways and more concern for pedestrians.
These aren't concerns we should simply dismiss as part of living in a growing city.
3. What can Council actually do?
There is no single traffic-calming solution that works on every street. The City has a range of tools available, and the right choice depends on the problem, the road and the surrounding neighbourhood.
| Option | What it does | Possible drawback |
| Speed humps / cushions | Physically slow vehicles | Can affect emergency response and snow clearing |
| Raised crossings / speed tables | Slow traffic and improve pedestrian visibility | Higher cost and maintenance considerations |
| Curb extensions / road narrowing | Make streets feel narrower and reduce speeds | Can affect parking and larger vehicles |
| Chicanes | Force drivers to slow and change direction | Need enough roadway space |
| Traffic circles | Slow vehicles at intersections | Not suitable for every location |
| Radar signs / pavement markings | Remind drivers to slow down | May have limited effect on persistent speeding |
| Turn restrictions | Reduce cut-through traffic | Can move traffic onto another street |
Lower speed limits can also help, but changing a sign alone does not always change driver behaviour.
Stop signs are different. They are meant to control right-of-way at intersections, not simply to slow traffic.
And some problems are ultimately enforcement issues. Speeding and failing to stop are offences, and enforcement is the responsibility of Durham Regional Police.
The important part is choosing the measure that actually matches the problem.
How does the City decide what should be installed?
This is where I think residents deserve a better understanding of the process.
Traffic calming shouldn't depend on which neighbourhood can generate the most complaints.
Municipalities typically look at a combination of factors. They can include vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, the amount of cut-through traffic, collision history, road width, sightlines, sidewalks, nearby schools and parks, pedestrian activity, cycling routes, transit, emergency access and whether a proposed measure might simply move the problem somewhere else.
One commonly used measurement is called the 85th percentile speed.
In simple terms, it is the speed at or below which 85 per cent of vehicles are travelling.
For example, Mississauga's traffic-calming policy uses 85th percentile speed, traffic infiltration and traffic volume as part of its screening criteria. Ottawa also uses 85th percentile speed as a common measure of how traffic is actually operating on a road.
That kind of information is important because it tells us what is actually happening rather than relying only on perception.
But I don't think traffic data should be the entire story.
A street beside a school, playground, seniors' residence or heavily used pedestrian route may have safety considerations that aren't captured by traffic volume alone.
Good policy should combine data with the actual surroundings and the experience of the people who use the street.
Pickering is developing new traffic-calming guidelines
This discussion is particularly timely because Pickering is currently developing its first formal Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures Guidelines.
In January 2026, Council approved hiring CIMA+ to undertake the work. The City's report was fairly direct about why the study is needed.
Engineering staff receive many traffic-safety concerns from residents each year, but Pickering does not currently have an established set of traffic-calming guidelines, consistent procedures or a formal set of tools for dealing with these requests. Staff have instead been relying on best practices used by neighbouring municipalities.
The new guidelines are intended to create a consistent process for initiating, assessing, developing, implementing and monitoring traffic-calming projects on local roads, collector roads and certain arterial roads that fall under the City's jurisdiction.
The study is also intended to look at both urban and rural Pickering.
That matters because the same approach will not necessarily work everywhere. A traffic-calming measure that makes sense on an urban residential street may not make sense on a rural road used by agricultural equipment.
The project is also supposed to include an online public survey, an in-person open house and consultation with technical stakeholders.
One part of the work that I think is particularly important is the development of a checklist for proactive traffic calming in new developments.
That makes sense to me.
Instead of building a neighbourhood, discovering years later that the street design encourages speeding, and then spending taxpayers' money to retrofit it, we should be looking at these issues when the neighbourhood is being designed.
The City's own report says the new guidelines are intended to help Pickering move beyond simply reacting to problems as they arise and manage neighbourhood traffic more proactively as the city grows.
I agree with that direction.
I will be particularly interested in seeing what criteria the final guidelines recommend, how residents will be able to request a traffic-calming review and how the City will prioritize locations when there are more requests than available funding.
Whose road is it?
There is another important limitation residents should understand.
Not every road running through Pickering belongs to the City of Pickering.
Some roads are municipal roads, some belong to Durham Region and highways fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Pickering is responsible for traffic control operations and maintenance on City roads. That means City Council has much more direct authority over a local residential street than it does over a major Regional road.
Residents shouldn't have to figure all of that out before they raise a concern.
If someone contacts their councillor about a traffic-safety issue, part of the job should be determining who has responsibility and making sure the concern gets to the right place.
4. Where do I stand?
I don't think the answer is putting speed humps on every residential street or adding stop signs at every intersection.
I do think residents deserve a clear and consistent process when they raise a legitimate traffic-safety concern.
We should listen to residents, collect the traffic data, look at the design and use of the road and then determine what measure makes the most sense.
I also support using temporary or pilot measures where they make sense. Sometimes flexible bollards, temporary curb extensions or other lower-cost measures can be tested before the City spends significant money making a permanent change.
Then we should measure the results.
- Did speeds actually come down?
- Did traffic volumes change?
- Did residents feel safer?
- Did the problem simply move to another street?
If we are going to spend public money on traffic calming, we should know whether it worked.
I also don't believe residents should have to wait for a serious collision before a safety concern is taken seriously. Collision history should absolutely be considered, but it shouldn't be the only thing we look at. Schools, parks, pedestrian activity, accessibility, road design and measured vehicle speeds all matter too.
And as Pickering continues to grow, we should be thinking ahead. Traffic calming shouldn't always be something we add after a problem has already been created. Where possible, safer street design should be built into new communities from the beginning.
For me, the approach to neighbourhood traffic calming is fairly straightforward.
Residents should be heard. Decisions should be based on evidence. And we should use the right solution for the right street.
The goal isn't to make it harder to drive.
It's to make our neighbourhoods safer for everyone who uses them.
| |
On Wednesday, July 29, I had the opportunity to attend Lakeridge Health’s All-Candidates Durham Region Health Update at Oshawa Hospital.
There was a lot of information packed into the session, but one issue kept coming back to me throughout the presentation: growth.
Durham is already one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada, and our population is expected to reach roughly 1.3 million by 2051. Here in Pickering, we are projected to have one of the highest growth rates in Durham, with our population expected to grow to more than 250,000.
With that kind of growth, there is no doubt we need to be thinking about what it means for access to healthcare. More residents means greater demand for family doctors, emergency departments, hospital beds, rehabilitation, mental health services and everything else our healthcare system provides.
That is probably why two parts of the presentation resonated with me so much. Both are trying to address a very real concern around our growth and access to care.
The first was what is being planned right here in Pickering.
A new stand-alone post-acute care and rehabilitation facility is planned for our city. We were told that moving this project forward is important because a completely new hospital, like the one planned for Whitby, can take roughly 10 years to build.
Post-acute care may not get the same attention as an emergency department, but it is an important part of creating more capacity in our hospitals. Patients who no longer need an acute-care bed, but still need rehabilitation or medical support before going home, can receive that care in the proper setting. That frees up hospital beds for patients who need acute care.
The second thing that really caught my attention was the approach being taken to our shortage of family doctors.
The Queen’s-Lakeridge Health MD Family Medicine Program is training future family doctors right here in Durham. Students learn in our hospitals, work alongside family physicians in our communities and build relationships here throughout their training.
The thinking is pretty straightforward: if we educate doctors here, train them here and connect them to the community, we have a much better chance of keeping them here.
That really made sense to me, especially when you think about how quickly Durham is growing.
There were also some encouraging updates, including shorter emergency department wait times and ambulance offload times, less reliance on agency nurses, and continued expansion of mental health, pediatric, surgical and community-based care.
Healthcare is primarily a provincial responsibility, but municipalities still have an important role to play through partnerships, physician recruitment, planning for growth and making sure our communities are ready to support the healthcare services and professionals we need.
If our population is going to grow this quickly, our healthcare capacity has to grow with it. We can’t build communities first and then spend years trying to catch up with the services residents need.
Thank you to Lakeridge Health for inviting candidates in and for a very informative discussion about where healthcare in Durham is headed.
| |
1. What is the issue?
Growth is one of the most important issues facing Pickering, and residents rightly expect their elected officials to have a strong voice in how our community develops.
One of the most common misconceptions is that Council can simply approve or reject any development proposal based on public opinion. In reality, planning decisions in Ontario must follow the Planning Act, provincial planning policies, municipal Official Plans, zoning by-laws, and other legislation. Council has an important role, but it must exercise its authority within this legal framework.
Every planning decision requires Council to consider:
- Provincial legislation and planning policy
- The City's Official Plan
- Existing zoning by-laws
- Technical studies
- Public input
- The long-term interests of the community
Understanding those rules helps explain why some applications are approved, modified, refused, or appealed.
2. Why should residents care?
Development decisions shape our community for decades.
They influence:
- neighbourhood character
- traffic
- parks
- schools
- recreation facilities
- infrastructure
- local businesses
- property values
- quality of life
Residents deserve meaningful opportunities to participate before decisions are made. Community input helps identify local issues that technical reports may not fully capture and can influence how projects are designed and refined.
The earlier residents become involved, the greater the opportunity they have to shape the outcome.
3. What authority does Council actually have?
Council has significant responsibilities in shaping how Pickering grows, but it also operates within rules established by the Province.
Council can
- Adopt and update the City's Official Plan.
- Pass and amend zoning by-laws.
- Review and decide many planning applications.
- Require technical studies.
- Negotiate conditions and community benefits where permitted.
- Listen to residents before making decisions.
Council cannot
- Ignore Ontario law.
- Refuse an application simply because it is unpopular.
- Make decisions that conflict with provincial planning legislation.
- Ignore planning evidence.
Council should
- Be transparent throughout the planning process.
- Ensure residents are informed early.
- Carefully weigh community feedback.
- Ask tough questions of developers and staff.
- Always consider the long-term interests of Pickering.
That doesn't mean Council is powerless.
It means Council's decisions need to be well-reasoned, evidence-based, and legally defensible.
4. Where do I stand?
I support growth that strengthens our community rather than simply adding more buildings.
That means:
- Planning infrastructure alongside growth, not years behind it.
- Meaningful consultation before key decisions are made.
- Transparent explanations of how and why decisions are reached.
- Respecting existing neighbourhoods while planning for future generations.
- Using every tool available to Council to achieve the best possible outcome for residents.
Good planning isn't about saying yes to everything or no to everything.
It's about making informed, balanced decisions that leave Pickering stronger for the people who live here today and for those who will call it home tomorrow.
| |
1. What is the issue?
As Pickering continues to grow, new homes, apartments, businesses, and employment lands require additional infrastructure and municipal services. That includes roads, parks, recreation facilities, libraries, stormwater systems, water and wastewater infrastructure, fire protection, and other public investments that allow our community to function.
To help pay for this growth, municipalities collect Development Charges (DCs) from developers. Development charges are authorized under Ontario's Development Charges Act and are intended to recover a portion of the capital costs associated with growth. Before a municipality can collect them, it must complete a detailed Development Charges Background Study and pass a Development Charges By-law.
Development charges are one of the most important financial tools municipalities have, but they are not designed to pay for every cost associated with growth.
2. Why should residents care?
Growth affects everyone.
When growth is well planned and appropriately funded, it can bring new housing, new jobs, new businesses, and improved community amenities.
However, the financial reality is more complex than many people realize.
Pickering's 2025 Development Charges Background Study estimates approximately $1 billion in growth-related capital costs over the planning period. Under Ontario's current legislative framework, approximately $505 million can be recovered through development charges, while approximately $498 million must be funded through other sources. In other words, for every $1.00 of growth-related capital costs, the City must fund approximately 49.7 cents through other means (
Report to Council).
Those other funding sources can include:
- Long-term debt
- Reserve funds
- Grants from other levels of government
- Other municipal funding sources
This does not automatically mean higher property taxes. However, it does mean that growth creates long-term financial obligations that Council must carefully manage.
There's another important factor that often gets overlooked.
Infrastructure isn't always built at the same time growth occurs. Sometimes roads, water systems, or recreation facilities need to be built years before new residents arrive. Other times, growth happens in different areas than originally expected, creating new demands on existing infrastructure.
That's why planning matters just as much as growth itself.
This isn't really a debate about whether Pickering should grow. It's about making sure growth is planned responsibly and paid for as fairly as possible.
3. What authority does Council actually have?
This is where many people are surprised.
Council does not decide what Ontario law allows municipalities to recover through development charges. Those rules are established by the Province through the Development Charges Act and related regulations.
Council does, however, make several important decisions that directly affect how growth is managed.
Council is responsible for:
- Approving and updating the City's Development Charges By-law.
- Approving the required Development Charges Background Study.
- Determining which growth-related capital projects are included in the City's long-term infrastructure plans.
- Deciding when infrastructure projects proceed and how they are financed through development charges, reserves, debt, grants, and other funding sources.
- Managing the timing and phasing of growth to reduce financial risk wherever possible.
- Advocating to the Province when municipalities need additional funding tools or legislative changes.
Perhaps most importantly, Council has a responsibility to communicate openly and honestly with residents about the long-term financial implications of growth.
4. Where do I stand?
I support growth that is responsible, financially sustainable, and planned with residents in mind.
That means:
- Growth should contribute as much as possible toward the cost of the infrastructure it requires, wherever provincial legislation allows.
- Infrastructure investments should be carefully planned so that construction is aligned with actual growth whenever practical.
- Residents deserve clear, transparent information about the long-term costs, funding sources, and financial risks associated with major growth-related projects.
- Council should continually review whether growth is occurring where it was planned, and whether infrastructure investments are keeping pace in the most financially responsible way.
- Where provincial legislation limits a municipality's ability to recover growth-related costs, I will advocate for fair funding tools that better protect municipal taxpayers while continuing to support responsible housing and economic development.
Growth is essential to Pickering's future. But growth should also be financially responsible.
Before approving major growth-related infrastructure, Council should be able to answer three simple questions:
How will we build it? How will we operate it? And how will we maintain it over its entire life?
Residents deserve those answers before the decisions are made.
Growth should strengthen our community, not quietly shift today's costs onto tomorrow's taxpayers.