Questions

Yes, I support proceeding with the feasibility study. That's exactly what a feasibility study is for to determine whether there is a need, what that need looks like, what partnerships are available, what it would cost and whether it makes sense to proceed.

I believe New Tecumseth would benefit from having greater access to post-secondary education and skilled-trades training closer to home. That could make a significant difference for a single parent who needs in-class instruction but can't easily travel to Barrie, a young person who isn't ready or financially able to move away for school, someone changing careers later in life, or an apprentice who is already working and needs access to additional training.

And I don't think we should base a long-term workforce strategy around one employer or one proposed investment. Part of attracting new employers is demonstrating that we have the workforce, training opportunities and infrastructure they will need.

I also don't see this as an either/or decision when it comes to regional partnerships. If there is an opportunity for New Tecumseth to participate in an existing regional technology or training initiative, I absolutely think we should pursue it. In fact, partnerships with Simcoe County, post-secondary institutions and industry are already part of the model being explored.

What I would not support is deciding today that the Town should build and operate a stand-alone college campus regardless of cost or demand. Let the feasibility study answer those questions.

If the study shows that the better solution is a smaller training centre, shared programming, satellite classrooms, partnerships with existing colleges, or participation in a broader regional initiative, then that's the direction we should consider.

The goal shouldn't be to build a building. The goal should be to bring education, training and opportunity closer to the people who live here and to build the skilled workforce New Tecumseth will need in the future.

1. Ontario colleges have cut approximately 600 programs amid $1.8B in losses since the 2024 international student visa cap.

Ontario colleges have cut a number of programs, not just skilled trades programs.

1. New Tecumseth is within Georgian College’s catchment area. Georgian closed its Orillia and Muskoka campuses in August 2026, consolidating programming in Barrie, and has reduced its full-time workforce by approximately 22% with projected losses of 45M and 15-25M next fiscal.

The campuses closed offered a varied curriculum, not one solely based on skilled trades.

1. Honda’s $15B Alliston EV expansion is permanently suspended, removing a major source of projected local skilled-trades demand.

Permanent suspension is not permanently cancelled. It was a business decision, and if trade issues are solved, and with newer battery technology, Honda may consider reestablishment of an EV facility if a business model can be made.

1. Meanwhile, The Province’s Regional Technology Development Site for Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia is already funded and includes Georgian College, Lakehead University and Honda. New Tecumseth is not currently part of that initiative.

For each candidate:

1. Do you support proceeding with this feasibility study? Why or why not?

Considering the curriculum which was offered at the closed campuses, we have to ask if there is growth in the skilled trades sector, and if there is, a feasibility study to address accessible education options for New Tecumseth students should be considered. Prior to requesting a study, we can survey employers and existing education facilities. If employers indicate a need for more skilled trades employees, and if the education facilities have a healthy enrolment, we will be ab le to reasonably come to a conclusion, an then determine if a more comprehensive study id required.

1. Why pursue a separate facility rather than seek a role in the regional initiative already underway? As home to the region’s anchor automotive employer, should New Tecumseth be pursuing a seat in the existing RTDS network instead, and would you support that approach?

Perhaps, but we also have to look at the ability of our students to travel to training facilities out of our area. In many cases, that is not an option for many students who are attempting to seek continuing education on severely restricted budgets.

Pecuniary Intrest Disclosure: I have been a student at Georgian College and others.

In my unqualified opinion the plan is flawed unless the institution also evolves. The training delivery was geared more towards the easy money from international students. If we're to make any meaningful progress then what we teach has to be relevant to the jobs and skills needed tomorrow. Any existing trades should already be taught in high school.

Our automotive sector is the anchor today, but the leaders are trying to keep it afloat until they can retire. It is a similar reality with some of the senior lecturers in college.

As someone in Industrial Automation it is clear to me that we need urgent innovation. The POWER OF DREAMS has to be restored. New ideas are imperative.

I support the skilled trades and I think our young people would benefit from a local place to train for local jobs, instead of travelling to Barrie or Hamilton. I support the study because that's what it's for — to show the demand, the costs, and whether we should build something here or join the regional program that's already running with Georgian, Lakehead, and Honda. I'd look at both. But I won't commit tax dollars to a town-built facility no matter the cost. The study has to prove the need first.

I would like to see post secondary education as an opportunity in our community. In whatever form, preferably cost effective of course. I'm aware of many students going to Mohawk in Hamilton and coming to Honda for placement. Having a site nearby would be fantastic. I've asked EcDev to look at this for the past four years, they haven't reported back to me.

With respect to the environment, we should do whatever we can whenever we can, within our means. The solutions should always be results based and financially responsible. I would like to see town facilities transitioning older town buildings with energy-efficient lighting, and smart energy management systems to cut carbon emissions. Another idea I would like to see gather momentum is the town moving to take steps to preserve more of our precious farmland and protect the local rivers and streams from commercial and urban runoff. Lastly, I would also advocate for the town to partner with the county to expand the public organic/recycling methodology as well as planting more trees.

I'm particularly interested in local food production. I've previously suggested exploring incentives or small grants to help residents establish backyard greenhouses and grow more of their own food (in a previous post, not at the council table for Greys for Green). I'd like to expand on that idea, along with increasing our support for community gardens and food forests, and supporting more farmers' markets throughout New Tecumseth. Buying and growing food locally supports our farmers, reduces transportation and strengthens food security at the same time and who doesn't want farm fresh eggs!

I also want to see meaningful progress toward the Town's goal of increasing our urban tree canopy and protecting our mature trees wherever reasonably possible.

Carbon neutrality is a difficult topic in that we have to balance that against job losses, etc. Industries have to comply with carbon regulations and any new industry will have to do the same.

Can we add more chargers to public spaces? That may help, but not if EV are out of reach of many would be buyers.

From a vehicle perspective, more affordable EV will have a positive impact. Expansion of transit between our communities may also help reduce the number of gas vehicles.

I am not certain I have specific measures and prefer not to throw a wide net over ambiguous solutions.

An easy way to lower our carbon footprint is to make it safer to walk or ride a bicycle. Having useful public transportation will go a long way to cutting emissions.

Protecting waterways and establishing more outdoor recreation opportunities can contribute to long-term well-being and environmental respect.

Over the next four years I'd push for practical steps: keep development gentle instead of tall towers, protect our water and power supply by saying no to projects we can't support like data centres, and make traffic lights respond to actual traffic so cars aren't sitting idle at empty intersections. I'd also push for a real transit system connecting our towns — fewer cars on the road means less traffic and cleaner air, and it helps people get to work without needing a car.

First, New Tecunseth can target heating emissions by enacting stricter Green Building Standards for new developments and retrofitting existing structures. Also implementing a Clean Energy Improvement plan allows property owners to fund energy-efficiency upgrades such as high-efficiency heat pumps and solar panels through low-interest loans tied directly to their property tax bills.

Second, New Tecumseth should transition its corporate and transit fleets away from fossil fuels. Electrifying municipal vehicles, while installing a network of public EV charging stations.

Third, reducing landfill waste is critical to stopping methane emissions. Expanding green bin organic collection and upgrading local landfills with methane gas capture systems can turn harmful emissions into usable green energy.

Finally, New Tecumseth must protect and expand their natural infrastructure. By leveraging funding from sources like the FCM Green Municipal Fund, we can expand our urban tree canopies which we have successfully started to do after being successful in getting a FCM grant. We should pass zoning laws that permanently safeguard wetlands and forests.

By combining green building regulations, fleet electrification, waste diversion, and natural asset management, I believe New Tecumseth can successfully pave a realistic, self-sustaining path to net zero emissions.

Thank you for your question.

I would love to see more solar panels on our buildings for one. I'd also love to see a recycling program that works and lets go a step further and put into our town permits that you must use recyclable materials in your events. Also continue the rain barrel program and investigate other similar opportunities.

For me, environmental sustainability is about practical choices that make sense for our community and our taxpayers.

Over the next four years, I’d like to see more trees planted, our mature trees and green spaces protected, and new neighbourhoods designed with better walking and cycling connections.

I’d also like the Town to continue looking for ways to reduce energy use and waste in our buildings, vehicles and day-to-day operations. I’m a big believer in supporting local, recycling, reusing and refurbishing whenever we can.

We can keep moving toward our environmental goals without making life more expensive for residents. I think there are many common-sense changes that are good for both the environment and the taxpayer.

We have to take a practical approach towards being carbon neutral. I don’t believe we should be spending tax payers money just to reach a target.

If there are environmental initiatives to help the tax payers save money, then I will support it. But I am not going to support expensive projects simply because it checks a box.

As I am not a Tottenham Councillor I will refrain from answering fully, other than to say as the Vice Chair of the Traffic Advisory Committee and a strong advocate for traffic safety initiatives in all of New Tecumseth, I support our Engineering Dept. and their ongoing efforts to increase road safety, as well as any members of Council who put forward a members' motion looking for support on specific ideas related to road hazard improvements.

There is nothing that I can claim to have done for Tottenham. What kind of solutions are you looking for? How would you like me to help?

I'll be straight with you — I'm not on council, so I haven't voted on anything for Tottenham. But the concern behind the question is real: new builds put more cars on the town lines, and winter makes it worse. If elected, I'd push for development to pay for the road upgrades it creates — growth should pay for growth. That means proper winter maintenance on the town lines, traffic measures where the new traffic actually goes, and no more approving builds without the road work to handle them.

As with every part of New Tecumseth I make every attempt to reach out to the ward councillor for any additional clarification needed on projects in their area. There have been several down in Tottenham these past 4 years. The paving of the main street is a giant improvement in my opinion. The upgrading of the infrastructure surrounding Tottenham Public is also a great addition. I believe that there is a bypass being planned for Tottenham in one of the upcoming developments. I would hope this would alleviate some of our traffic concerns.

I'm not sure why I have been linked to this question. I'm not an incumbent.

What I will say is I too have concerns about our roads and the winter maintenance and when setting my priorities should I be selected I will work together get answers and support the necessities and safety of our roads.

I understand the frustration around how long this project has taken. Our community needs a new high school, and I have supported moving the project forward.

In December 2024, I voted yes to advance the Banting Homestead site. I had also supported the July 2024 decision to approve the relocation to the Homestead lands in principle.

With respect to the 2023 closed-session decision, I have to be careful about discussing matters that were considered in closed session. Those confidentiality requirements don't disappear because an election is underway. What I can say is that Council had legitimate responsibilities as the owner and steward of the Banting Homestead lands, and I believe it was appropriate to understand the implications of transferring a significant portion of that property before making a final decision.

I also don't think it's accurate to suggest that nothing changed during that time. The agreement that ultimately emerged is a land exchange: about 25 acres of the Banting Homestead for the existing Banting Memorial High School property and G.A. Wright Athletic Field, with no money changing hands. That gives the Town ownership of two significant properties in established areas of Alliston while providing the School Board with the land it needs for the replacement school.

Could the process have moved faster? Yes. I think everyone involved would have preferred that. But once the information was there for me to support moving forward, I did. At this point, however, I am much less interested in revisiting the debate than I am in getting the school built.

The land agreement has been reached and the project is moving into design and municipal approvals. I want the Town to treat those approvals as a priority, maintain regular communication with the School Board, identify and resolve issues as early as possible, and make sure municipal requirements don't create unnecessary delays.

I also supported having Council involved in reviewing the site plan as it moves through the process to ensure issues such as traffic, pedestrian safety, access, trees and the relationship between the school and the Homestead are addressed while there is still an opportunity to address them.

I was not on council.

The delay increases costs. Delays may be beneficial if needed to mitigate a plan which does not meet growth expectations, environmental concerns, financial issues, but if so, alteration must be done to the plan to efficiently lessen the negative financial impacts, and impact to the community through non-decision.

I would like to re-examine the plan, questioning why 25 acres is needed for a high school and associated support features (fields, parking, etc.).

Additionally, the main historic component that should be protected is the Banting home, outbuildings and associated structures, along with a reasonable parcel of land.

Traffic will always be an issue, regardless of where the school is built due to the expected increase in the general population. Removing the high school from the core will increase vehicular traffic. Much of this can be mitigated with the implementation of walking/cycling corridors to the school area.

If the current structure cannot be reimagined/renewed, and all of this during the off season, which is essentially impossible, a new construction is the only reasonable consideration. Further delays will increase costs.

Banting High School deserves better. Our children deserve better.

The record of how the votes were cast doesn't give me enough context to judge the choices made by the councilors.

The two year delay mentioned is being rather generous. Planning and growth projections make me think we are much further behind.

What is the vision for 10 years or 20 years from now? All the elementary schools are over capacity with portable classrooms becoming part of the landscape.

The new Tottenham Elementary School will have a capacity of 426 students. The leading is lagging the reality.

I wasn't on council when these decisions were made, but I would have voted to start building the school at the Banting site. The funding has been available since 2021 while construction costs keep climbing, and I don't see what the community gained from the delay — our kids are still waiting. If elected, I'll vote to push this project forward and use every tool council has to get it moving: prioritize the town's approvals, keep the pressure on the school board, and make sure nothing on our side holds it back. We've waited far too long.

The school board delayed the project, not council. They came to council with one option for a site to build the school and wouldn't share why no other spot in the entire municipality was an appropriate spot to put a school. They already knew that the Banting Homestead was not the preferred site for some of council as it was gifted to the town as a memorial to Banting. The school board was not co-operative or transparent in their process. That being said, a deal was struck months ago and yet nothing has been done on the site. The responsibility for moving the project forward at this point sits squarely in the lap of the school board and does not rest with council.

Sorry, I cannot participate in this question. I'm an employee of the school board.

I am cautious about data centres as I do not fully understand the impact they can have on a community. I would need to see the details of any proposal before supporting one in New Tecumseth.

We need to attract new investment and diversify our employment base, and data centres could potentially be part of that. But I don't believe we should give up valuable employment lands or water capacity simply because a development represents a large investment.

I would want to understand how many permanent local jobs would actually be created, what the economic benefit to New Tecumseth would be, and what demands the facility would place on electricity, water and wastewater infrastructure. Noise, heat, environmental impacts, location and compatibility with surrounding properties would also need to be considered.

If a data centre brings meaningful investment, jobs and assessment growth without placing an unreasonable burden on our infrastructure, environment or residents, then I would consider it. If the costs and impacts outweigh the local benefits, I would not support it.

Data centers are becoming an area of contention for many communities. We have a number of issues to consider. We also have to differentiate between "large A.I. computational data centers and stand alone data centers used to amalgamate information. Each will use large volumes of electricity, but they use water differently. Here is a good link: https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-consumption

Many jurisdictions, rightly or wrongly, consider the creation of Data centers as "near existential importance", citing that loosing ground to China, which is quickly building out their data center infrastructure, may weaken the ability to counteract A.I. supported interests (industry, technology, military). This is more of an American-centric idea as it seems to be difficult to find information which is Canadian-centric. Unfortunately, the bandwagon will fill up quickly if other jurisdictions adapt such concerns. There is still much opacity regarding how A.I works.

In the Ohio model, municipal laws were essentially rewritten to favor data center construction. In the Ohio model, laws were written to encourage "public-private" partnerships, essentially allowing Data Centre corporations (the owners) to use public pension dollars to fund construction. The question: "If the data center looses money, will those public funds be returned to the pension fund?" has not been answered. I am not suggesting that a Canadian center would try to use similar financing models as American centers, but the move towards using public fund as "an investment pool" in data centers which will be controlled by a handful of corporations is concerning.

This is an excerpt "Public concern spiked globally and locally following statements from financial executives (including BlackRock's CEO) indicating that ordinary citizens' long-term retirement accounts and public pensions would serve as the foundational capital to build out the massive power infrastructure required for AI data centers. [1] (Citation-Yahoo finance)

The centers also use a considerable amount of water, raising concerns about rising water supply costs for the public, available, pollution. However, most systems are closed-loop so the concern over water usage is still questionable. Over the last decade (or more), there have been increasing concerns over the privatization of water supplies, with interested parties citing the "need to protect and conserve water supplies". The concern is that once water supplies are privatized and managed, public rights to water will deteriorate, as a corporation lawful obligation is to the shareholder. THIS IS AN OPINION, but you can research "Ohio data centers", "privatization of water supplies".

If the water usage is a critical issue, to mitigate water needs, it would be economical for data center interests to consider building water desalinization plants on each of the coasts (U.S. in this example). Much of the Middle east draws its water from desalinization plants. This is unlikely as corporate interests will always feed off of the closest and easiest to reach food source.

In short, no. I would consider a data center mostly beneficial due to the employment it will bring, but if we are already struggling with infrastructure costs and water supply, how would it even be possible?

I do love progress, but value the environment more. Until the environmental challenges related to water use and other effects, It is difficult to support the idea at the moment.

The supply restrictions of the necessary hardware make it very unlikely that we need to worry about one anytime soon. However that presents us with an opportunity to pivot into a growth industry. Can we find talent to go high tech?

I agree — we don't have the water or electrical grid resources to support data centres in New Tecumseth.

They are a bad idea as they use lots of water (which we don't have) and give very little back to the community.

I really don't think this is a possibility here due to our water situation. If the water situation was solved then we would also need to create an energy source here for them rather than pull off the grid. Solar farms (do we have the space?), wind mills (do we have the space?).

Although I am hesitant about everyday, law abiding citizens being filmed, I do see some merit to public video cameras if used appropriately. I support the use of technology that can help police and improve community safety, but there needs to be very clear limits on how that technology is used.

Automatic licence plate readers are already used by the OPP. If New Tecumseth were considering additional fixed cameras I would want to understand exactly what information is being collected, how long it is retained, where it is stored, who can access it (and under what circumstances) and how it can be searched or shared.

For me, public safety and personal privacy both matter.

No flock cameras or automatic readers should be allowed unless for very specific circumstances and uses.

When addressing this question, many will consider some of the responses as "fear mongering". So, keep this in mind when discussing motivations behind flock cameras.

But they will come. Governments usually cite "public safety, inclusiveness, improved traffic control" as the reasons.

The positives:

Better control of traffic flows (if your vehicle can be redirected to another artery...consider this in the future with self driving cars)

Immediate identification of criminals, expired plates, stolen plates, delinquent payments of your fines, speeding (the time required to register a plate between 2 flock cameras along a road with a maximum speed).

The negatives:

With digital currency, having a penalty removed from your account if caught speeding (look at the previous example) can be instant, with the penalty of proving innocence placed on your shoulders, compared to physically challenging a ticket in court. Parking can be handled similarly.

Does the government have the right to monitor your every move?

Flock cameras and license plate readers can be used to control traffic flow in that authorities can more easily control individual movement. The response will be "are you a criminal? Then why worry?". However, if you are a conscientious objector to any government policy, these controls can easily be applied to restrict or monitor movement.

In the Chinese model, traffic cameras and facial recognition are used to monitor and regulate an individuals travel rights. But we are in Canada, not China.

Speed cameras in school districts are reasonable. Flock cameras or plate readers, if used to monitor flow or deduct subscription fees or calculate usage (like the 407) are reasonable. There should be no other links allowed to your financial services.

My privacy is valuable to me. Living in a police state is not what I want for my children.

Cybersecurity is a constant issue and I don't have confidence in anything online being impenetrable. As such I do not consent to mass surveillance.

Law enforcement have other options and tools to help them. If needed I would prefer to direct the resources to creating a social environment where we the people can look out for each other's interests and support the police by choice.

I'm not a fan of flock cameras or automatic license plate readers.

Simple, if I had a 6yr old go missing I'd want this available.

You're right, accessibility is an issue that will become increasingly important as New Tecumseth grows, and it isn't only an issue for seniors.

One of our challenges is that LINX Transit is operated by the County of Simcoe, not the Town, and its current routes don't provide equal access across New Tecumseth, especially in Tottenham.

The Town does have a Taxi Subsidy Program for eligible residents with disabilities, which helps offset the cost of accessible transportation. I support continuing that program, but I don't think we should consider that the complete solution.

In the short term, I would like to see the Town continue advocating to the County for better accessible transportation and improved connections throughout New Tecumseth, while also reviewing whether our existing subsidy program is meeting residents' needs and where the gaps remain.

Longer term, I believe public transit will have to become part of New Tecumseth's growth conversation. Operating our own transit system comes with a significant cost, and today we may not have the population or tax base to support the level of service residents would expect but as we grow, that equation will change.

We should be planning for that now rather than waiting until our population has doubled and trying to build a system after the fact.

During a previous administration, before the LYNX service was introduced to our town, I appeared via deputation in front of council. I proposed an inter-community bus service test-run, utilizing a rented bus and driver, between our major centers. The one day cost would have been +/- $950, which I would have covered (I would have searched for sponsorships to cover much of the cost), as long as the town would handle any special permits, temporary stops and insurance needs.

I had based the test on research I had conducted of community transit in: Bradford, Clearwater area, Quinte West. The Quinte West system proved to be the most promising due to the demographic mix at that time. The Quinte West system (Brighton and area) had an operating budget of approximately $96,000. The operating funds came from fares, sponsorships, a portion of grant dollars from the greater Municipality.

The current Lynx system has an operating budget of $6 million (you can look that up). That is the operating budget for the entire system, not New Tecumseth. The system, which also uses smaller people-mover busses for those with disability issues, services approximately 28,500 rides (uses). Oddly, LYNX does not keep figures relating to the new Tecumseth route (ridership or a=proportional operating costs)

The current system used in Quinte West, which is also comprised of multiple service options, but I will only deal with the primary one here, has an operating budget of $1.252 million and services 86,000 fares/rides. Funds come from: Municipal sources ($619,000), Gas tax rebates (326,000), Fares (306,000) All numbers are rounded.

Tottenham will not be receiving services via Lynx as there is no budget available.

I will push to revisit the current service, suggesting we consider requesting the New Tecumseth portion of the operating costs and applying those to a more localized service.

However, consider that some riders do use the Lynx service to travel to the Bradford Go station. We have to consider all of these points.

Pecuniary Interest Disclosure: I have used the Linx bus on numerous occasions and also hold a Class F license for 24 passenger busses like the Linx Bus.

It is correct that Tottenham is inaccessible by bus, and any feelings of being disadvantaged are completely understandable.

As someone who has tried to use the bus on numerous occasions, I feel it doesn't serve as well as it should. And this is my opinion where I know that I probably have some of the best access to it in the whole town.

The one report mentioned that to include Tottenham would add 10 minutes to the total time, and so a third bus would be needed. I do intend to investigate this thoroughly and find a better way.

Amongst other things this is why I choose to run as the Mayor, so I can directly address the ineffective transit. I have already received some input on options and would appreciate additional thoughts on what success could look like for you and any improvements you might suggest.

We do need a better way to connect New Tecumseth so everyone can get to and from work. Honda could be part of the answer — they need workers, so they have a stake in making sure people can get there.

I am fully committed to exploring alternative, flexible and accessible transit models. On demand transit, targeted community shuttles, or regional rideshare partnerships are all available and proven alternatives. My goal isn't to run empty, expensive buses, but to find a smart, sustainable option that works for residents. We can have better transit; it just takes the will and leadership to bring who and what are needed to the table.

I agree that we need to be way more accessible. I was not aware of the bus situation and will gladly look into that in the upcoming term (if I'm fortunate to be elected).

This issue is very personal to me.

My dad became a quadriplegic when I was 15, so accessibility was part of my family’s life long before it became the conversation it is today. More than 20 years ago, my dad actually served on our local accessibility committee. He eventually became frustrated because many good ideas ran into red tape, jurisdictional issues and political hurdles. Too often, what should have been a practical solution became complicated enough that nothing changed.

More than 20 years later, residents are still raising some of the same concerns. That tells me we need to move beyond simply identifying barriers.

Accessibility is not just about whether a building meets a standard. It is about whether someone can actually live independently in their community. Can a person using a wheelchair or mobility device leave home, get to transportation, travel between Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham, access recreation, shopping, medical appointments and community services, and get home again?

If they can’t, then we haven’t achieved accessibility.

There will always be different jurisdictions, budgets and regulations involved, but those cannot become reasons to accept the status quo. I would want us to identify the specific barriers residents are facing, determine who has the authority to fix each one, establish priorities and then follow through.

And the people who live with these barriers need to have a meaningful voice in those decisions, not simply be consulted after plans have already been made.

I watched my dad fight for his independence and for better accessibility in this community. That experience has stayed with me.

Twenty years later, I don’t want to have the same conversations. I want to see measurable progress.

Connecting New Tecumseth means making sure everyone can be part of it.

Even before the LINX system was put in place, I was requesting that Tottenham be included in the system. We recently heard back that the additional 10 minutes having the bus go to Tottenham is too much time. I have heard from many people that they would like some type of transit system connecting the town. We should be looking at how we can start with a small system and scale it up when ridership increases.

Initially I was in favor of the idea. I would personally love to see chickens take care of my garden pests. However looking at the bigger picture of biosecurity the risk is very high. Any sort of avian risk could have a catastrophic impact on our food security and stability. This is an area where we would have to carefully examine the risks with experts beforehand.

I'm not opposed to backyard chickens. Food isn't getting any cheaper, and we need to think of ways to help residents reduce their costs.

Every term of Council Ive sat on backyard chickens has come in front of us. Ive supported it every time and think it can work here in New Tec. Id probably suggest a pilot project first to give us the opportunity to work out any issues that may arise but overall I absolutely support this idea!

I believe when this came to a vote this term the concern of poultry farms and avian flu were brought up. I'd gladly look at this again and explore other regions and how they've dealt with it.

I think we've all experienced the frustration of sitting at a red light too long. That said, I wouldn't support simply replacing every traffic signal in New Tecumseth with new technology without first understanding the cost and whether the benefit would justify that investment.

Responsibility for traffic signals also depends on the road. Some intersections are under the Town's jurisdiction, while others involve the County or Province, so this isn't something the Town can address independently at every intersection.

Where we have signals that are consistently causing unnecessary delays, I would support having traffic data collected and reviewing the timing, detection equipment and traffic patterns at those specific locations. In some cases, adjusting signal timing or upgrading detection technology may provide a relatively simple solution without replacing the entire system.

Sounds like a good idea. Most traffic lights are timed to coincide with changes in traffic, which explains those rubber tubes you sometimes drive over (traffic counter).

From 2-4 am, lights can be switched to double yellow and double red flashing (red stops, yellow proceeds with caution) but just a small percentage of inattentive drivers, or carless ones can cause a disaster.

An active traffic light system, one that monitors the number of cars at a light and changes the order and length of red/green may work, and the combination of Flock cameras and programming will allow this, but Flock cameras bring up other issues.

My profession is Industrial Automation, so I view it as an easy fix. As your new Mayor I will be examining the technical details that staff propose and using the Five Why's to resolve some of the easy wins.

The cost and value for money well within the scope of my strengths, but I don't intend to micromanage the team. I will challenge them and enable them to get the job done in a fiscally responsible way. Doing it right the first time.

That makes sense to me — traffic lights should respond to actual traffic instead of keeping drivers waiting at empty intersections.

It is certainly frustrating to be sitting at a set of lights only to see that you are the only car waiting. Our light systems are often set up as safety measures rather than traffic control considering the speed and design of our rural roads. The lights in town are programmed to keep the flow of traffic moving. As our town grows though, traffic patterns change. As Mayor I will ensure that our public works department monitor and report on the state of traffic so that we can adjust based on real time data. One of the goals of that is to decrease those long lonely red lights.

I have no issue with this. It will come down to cost and effectiveness I'm sure. Last week I was on Tottenham Road lights, waiting to turn west on the Industrial Bypass. I waited 7 minutes for the lights to turn green. Two cars actually gave up waiting and went through the red. I contacted Engineering to find out if this was a thing (around Honda time). I was told that the front car hadn't trigger the light. Engineering followed up with the County (their road) and they are going to have a look to see if there is something they can do.

I support making our traffic signals more responsive to actual traffic conditions.

We’ve all experienced sitting at a red light when there is little or no traffic coming in the other direction. As our community grows and traffic patterns change, our signal timing and technology need to keep pace.

I would support reviewing our signalized intersections to identify where updated vehicle detection, better signal timing or traffic-responsive technology could improve traffic flow. We also need to work with the County or Province where intersections fall under their jurisdiction.

Sometimes relatively small improvements can make a noticeable difference. Before looking at expensive road expansions, we should make sure we are getting the most out of the infrastructure we already have.

I understand why this idea is appealing, particularly as our community grows and more residents live in homes with smaller yards or in apartments. However, I don't support opening our sports fields for seasonal off-leash use.

Our sports fields are significant public assets, and there are practical concerns around damage to the turf, parking, liability and maintenance. There is also the issue of pet waste. Unfortunately, we already have challenges with people not picking up after their dogs, and these are fields that children and adults return to for sports once the season begins.

I do think we need to plan for more off-leash spaces as New Tecumseth grows, but location matters. Dog parks can be controversial, particularly for the residents whose properties back/face directly onto them because of noise, parking and increased activity.

Rather than trying to fit dog parks into established residential neighbourhoods or repurpose sports fields, I would like to see appropriate locations identified through the planning process as new areas develop. Commercial or mixed-use areas, or other Town owned lands with appropriate buffers from homes, parking and safe access, may offer better opportunities.

If we're planning communities for thousands of new residents, amenities for their pets should be part of that planning too.

Not a bad idea, if the residents commit to cleaning up the refuse. I have seen many parks littered with dog feces (not the one in Beeton but I am not a user of that facility). When the field reverts to sports use, I don't think users want to run through that stuff.

This seems like a practical idea. My family is not blessed with a dog so I don't have any experience with the off leash parks. One observation is that not all people are responsible and clean up thier business. The results are evident way too often, especially in the spring.

More objective information about this would help me form an opinion.

I agree — using off-season sports fields as off-leash dog areas makes sense. Dog parks in the middle of town create a lot of noise for nearby residents, so putting them on fields away from homes is the better approach.

The Town can and should consider dual use of our sports facilities and green areas. My approach has always been an attentive and collaborative one. Considerations like this are exactly why I seek residents’ input on every file.

I'd have to think this one through with staff. Right now, for example, my wife and I walk our dogs at Geoff Gaston every once and awhile. We use long leashes. While at the park we see people golfing, personal training and practising soccer, as well as walking dogs. If this park became a off season off leash I think it would still impact some others users. Something to think about though. Currently looking forward to the off leash park in Tree Tops to open up.

Yes, I think this is an idea worth exploring.

As our neighbourhoods grow and lots become smaller, residents need appropriate places to exercise their dogs. Rather than assuming the only solution is purchasing land and building new dedicated dog parks, I would support having Town staff identify existing public spaces that could safely serve more than one purpose at different times of the year.

That could include seasonal or temporary off-leash areas where the location is suitable, provided we consider things like fencing, nearby homes and playgrounds, field conditions, cleanup, liability and the needs of sports organizations that use the space.

I like solutions that make better use of facilities and land we already own. A pilot project at one or two appropriate locations could be a sensible way to determine whether this would work in New Tecumseth before considering anything permanent.

I’m not opposed to it, however most parks are not completely fenced and the Town uses the off season time to conduct maintenance. I do feel that each ward should have a designated dog park which ward 2 does not currently have.