Infrastructure

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?).

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.

It's is common practice in all the municipalities I have lived in to see road improvements at election time. Sometimes it works to show effort.

The quality of the work surprises me still to this day. With all the equipment available the progress leaves me with a lot of questions about the value we are getting.

This is not I subject that I can comment on with any authority, so I will have to investigate it a lot deeper. If I receive the mandate to lead the council of NewTecumseth then I will be able to get better answers for us all.