Taxes & Budget

A difficult topis as many homeowners, seniors or not, are having trouble with municipal taxes (and expenses in general). By freezing taxes for one segment, we increase the overall debt on another. This needs more discussion. In the meantime you can refer to the Provincial Land Tax deferral program. Use this link for my website, click on button #3. There is also a Municipal Tax review link for instances when your property use has shifted to a lower tax tier or if the assessment can be lowered due to needed repairs, etc. Please refer to button 9.

peterforward7.ca

I would support other ways in assisting our residents.

Helping seniors stay in their homes matters to me, and keeping taxes low is one of my main promises. I have to be straight with you, though — council sets the tax rate every year, so no bylaw can lock in a freeze for five years, and I won't promise something I can't deliver. What I will do is fight to keep taxes as low as possible for everyone, and support tax relief for low-income seniors, so nobody gets taxed out of their home.

Seems like a reasonable request, many seniors have a fixed income and have to manage rapidly rising costs. Factors such as fuel prices and de-icing salt will have an immediate impact on the cost of services this winter.

While I too would like a freeze on tax increments, more data is needed to make any meaningful commitment. In principle I do agree with the idea at least for this budget year until I have a clearer picture of the actual expenditure and cost reduction measures. My focus is on the services being of value for the cost and establishing a better return for our tax dollars.

Exploring additional ways to support our seniors is a high priority. Accessible services, transportation and anything that can uplift the dignity and independence of our marginalized residents will get my full attention.

I think that such a by-law would be wonderful but I'm not sure how realistic it is given the cost of goods and services, and the expectations people have around maintaining (and even adding to) existing service levels. With Development Charges not flowing in currently, taxation and user fees are supporting our Town. And, there are people amongst us that are not currently feeling the pain of inflation, recession, tariffs or fixed-incomes. Rather than a blanket approach to freezing taxes, I think it would be a much better idea to discuss an option to apply for an exemption from increases, or move certain services to a "pay per use" model whereby only those receiving the services are actually charged. This of course would also be costly for the municipality to organize and enforce and could create other imbalances or confusion. But it's a great question and one I think we could look at in the next term of council. Thank you for asking.

The cost of the Collingwood pipeline and pump system added a noticeable cost increase to municipal water and sewage users.

Hi there! Thanks for the question. Out of 15 comparable municipalities 15th being the lowest rate and 1st being the highest rate New Tecumseth is number 10. I have a chart I can share with you (this forum wont allow me to attach a pic) send an email to [email protected] and I can share that chart with you! Unfortunately for a very long time New Tec water rates were based off the cost of producing the water - seems no one took into account that over the years this major assest needs fixing, upgrading and regular maintenance. Asset management should always be factored into the cost of service delivery.

Thanks for the question. I believe our bills are completely based on what you use. There are no hidden costs.

There isn’t one simple reason our water and wastewater bills are where they are, and there isn’t one simple solution to lowering them.

New Tecumseth has significant infrastructure costs, including aging water and wastewater systems and the cost of securing enough water capacity for our growing community.

I also think it’s important to recognize that the current Council has successfully advocated for outside funding. Earlier this year, the Province committed up to $12.5 million toward rehabilitation of the Alliston Wastewater Treatment Plant, which helps reduce the amount that ultimately has to be funded locally.

We need to keep doing that. We also need to ensure growth pays its appropriate share through development charges, continually review operating and capital costs, and look for every opportunity to reduce pressure on existing ratepayers.

I don’t think it would be responsible for me to promise that I can simply lower everyone’s water bill. What I can promise is that I will question increases, understand what’s driving them, support every reasonable opportunity for outside funding, and make affordability part of every decision.

massive infrastructure demands, long-term external water purchasing

My perspective on other municipalities is limited. While I have no numbers to compare with other towns, I do share in the dissatisfaction with the costs. This is on my list of items needing to be examined.

Water and wastewater aren't profit centres for the Town. We operate on a cost-recovery basis, meaning what residents pay goes toward delivering these services, maintaining our systems and planning for future repairs and upgrades.

Every municipality is a little different when it comes to how they get their water and what it costs to treat and deliver it. Here in New Tecumseth, we rely on a combination of wells and water brought in through a 57-kilometre pipeline from Collingwood. We also have three wastewater treatment plants to operate and maintain. None of that is inexpensive, especially when you factor in provincial regulations, testing, treatment and the people needed to keep everything running safely.

Something worth pointing out is that, before the recent rate increases, New Tecumseth actually had some of the lowest water and wastewater rates in Simcoe County and among comparable municipalities. Even with the increases, we're moving closer to the middle of the pack.

We also have a projected $141 million shortfall in funding for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 10 years. That's a significant amount of money, and it's one of the reasons we need to build our reserves and plan ahead instead of waiting until something breaks and being faced with a much larger expense.

I know nobody likes seeing their utility bills go up. I don't either. But we also can't afford to fall behind on maintaining the infrastructure we all rely on every day. We've seen what happens in communities where corners get cut and that cannot happen here in New Tec.

This is a difficult choice as one option will upset one group, and another answer will upset another. However, as difficult as it is, decisions have the be made.

As I discussed the issue with constituents, the missing pool always comes up. Residents repeatedly noted how a year-round pool should have been included when the New Tec Rec Centre was originally built. Given the fact the prior council has already approved the arena, this question seems like a purely academic exercise. My view is I would have elected for the pool since New Tecumseth already has facilities available for all residents across Alliston, Tottenham, and Beeton. The pool would serve a larger demographic, including toddler swimming lessons, school safety programs, seniors and open public recreation. In addition, I do agree Beeton deserves a new arena as the existing one has run its course and is very costly to maintain. The broader question is what is best for New Tecumseth as a whole. The inability to access a pool forces families, seniors, and swimmers to travel outside the municipality or rely on private/seasonal alternatives. Having said that one cannot dismiss the impact a 5% increase and its demands will have on the already stretched taxpayer.

I had previously answered this question. Thank you :)

Pools are nice, but never pay for themselves. The 5% refers to the "arena build in one of the 3 options", not including a pool. Keep in mind that the 5% is on top of any other usual increase for any given year. The cumulative tax increase from 2022-2026 (inclusive) is around 27%.

Also consider that the p/i of the $46 million option (no pool) is about 2.8m per year. Then you add the operational costs and subtract the actual usage fee to arrive at the net cost, then add any repairs or depreciation. The cost to build is just one factor.

I believe we need to review the plan and instead of asking a service to offer a suggestion, we should come up with the requirements, with a FULL and comprehensive understanding of the actual costs, and then request a tender based on our acceptable budget.

In the current economic climate I am not in favor of any increase in taxes. I do reserve the right to change my view if there is strong evidence that supports the need.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on what makes this a pressing need. My limited view suggests that we are trying to honor a broken promise to appease part of the electorate.

Every taxpayers dollars are important and we should not burden the whole town with debt at the expense of what was a campaign promise of last century. Decisions should be made according to what services would stimulate the town and all residents.

I don't think building another arena was wise — we already have numerous rinks. If anything, we need an indoor public pool. And I don't want taxes to increase, so I'd fund it through development charges and grants instead of property taxes.

I think this question has been asked already.

If I could only choose one, I would choose an indoor pool. I believe it would serve a broader range of residents, from children and families to seniors, recreation, therapy and competitive use.

But I don’t think that’s how we should be planning for a growing community. We have three important recreation projects to consider: the Beeton arena, an indoor pool and the field house.

I would have moved all three forward to the next steps so we could better understand the costs, funding opportunities and options before making final decisions.

We need to plan ahead for the whole community, while still being realistic about what taxpayers can afford and when.

This question doesn't really give the whole picture. Because it's important to also note a pool comes at even higher tax rate increase. But this does circle back, how do we find additional funding if we only move one of 3 projects forward and that's where previous council made an error in my opinion.

Yes. I do have concerns about a 5% tax increase to build another arena before we address the need for a pool. I believe we need to look carefully at our community’s priorities, affordability for taxpayers, and whether our recreation investments are meeting the needs of the whole community.

Not in the form currently proposed. I voted against moving forward with the single-pad Beeton arena because I don't believe the cost provides enough benefit to taxpayers, particularly when we have other significant gaps in our recreation facilities.

The current concept is a very expensive single-pad arena, and the capital cost is only part of the equation. Once it's built, taxpayers are responsible for the ongoing operating and maintenance costs indefinitely. We also know that, as New Tecumseth grows, we will eventually need additional ice capacity. Building one new pad now and potentially having to address a second one somewhere else later doesn't strike me as good long term planning.

I've also listened to Beeton user groups whose needs extend beyond traditional ice sports. Ball hockey, roller derby and other dry-floor users need appropriate space too. I think we should be looking at how a future facility can serve as many residents and activities as possible rather than designing around one use.

I would like to see us investigate a larger, long-term recreation complex in Beeton, including whether the JOC lands could accommodate a twin-pad arena together with other recreation amenities, potentially including the future indoor pool. A larger site could also give us room for future expansion and ample parking as the community grows.

There may also be opportunities to fund the growth-related portions of a larger recreation complex through DC's, which should be fully explored before asking existing taxpayers to carry the entire cost.

I absolutely support maintaining municipal arena and recreation facilities in Beeton. The question for me isn't whether Beeton deserves investment. The question is whether spending tens of millions of dollars on a single-pad arena today is the best use of that investment. It isn't.

I believe Beeton is due for an expansion of facilities, but we have to re-examine the finances to minimize the tax burden. I believe we can achieve a facility build-out and enhancement without the projected (and almost always underestimated) budget of $44-$46M.

Our cumulative tax increase from 2022 is approximately 27%**

Adding 5%*** for the facility and then adding the usual tax increase due to inflation, etc. will result in a total tax increase beyond 5%. Many residents are unhappy with the constant tax increases.

**Adding the individual yearly tax increases.

***Although it's stated in the proposal that a 5% tax increase would be required, there is no stated clarity on the projected tax increase due to other factors, ands as such we can't know the total tax impact from 2026-7 and beyond.

The Beeton arena is a topic I have heard about since moving to New Tecumseth. It tends to come up as a sore point of broken promises.

No one should feel cheated and I understand the sentiment of injustice. The message comes across as "we deserve this".

Beeton has grown a great deal over the last few years. I would be interested to know numbers before I form an opinion. How many different users are we talking about across the different arenas? What is the cost per user and what do we charge them? Occupancy levels and demand levels etc.

The business case should make sense. If this is the best value for ALL residents, then we have to find a way to make it work. This shouldn't be an emotionally charged decision, rather a calculated rational action.

If someone has actual numbers, please share them.

No, not at all. We already have rinks available, and property taxpayers do not want an increase in taxes.

A 5% increase in taxation for the Beeton Arena is not something I support. My approach is that the replacement of the arena is something the whole of New Tecumseth deserves. But that doesn’t mean we should shoulder the cost alone. Many municipalities have built state of the art rec facilities with grants and funding from higher levels of government. It is those relationships and governments that I will bring to the table and secure funding from. Our town pays its fair share of taxes, and our residents deserve to see value for it.

As it stands now the Beeton Arena is already approved. Those who voted for it are Mayor, Deputy Mayor, councillors Jacks, Biss, Harrison-McIntyre, Cox and Masters.

I absolutely support Beeton having an arena. Where I struggle is with asking taxpayers, particularly at a time when so many households are already feeling financially stretched, to absorb an approximately 5% tax increase for this project alone.

The financial information presented to Council estimated the single-pad arena option at more than $44 million, with an equivalent tax-rate impact of approximately 5.47%. That’s significant, and it can’t be considered in isolation from all of the other needs facing our municipality.

So, would I support building that option today under the current financial circumstances? No.

That doesn’t mean I don’t support Beeton or believe it deserves an arena. Quite the opposite. I want Beeton to have a recreation facility that can serve that community for generations. I just don’t believe we should put ourselves in a position where achieving that one goal creates an unaffordable burden for taxpayers or prevents us from addressing roads, infrastructure and other priorities across New Tecumseth.

I would rather continue maintaining and repairing the existing Beeton Memorial Arena, provided it can be operated safely, while we work toward a more financially responsible path to replacement.

That means looking at future growth and the increased tax base it can bring to Beeton, development-charge funding where applicable, reserves, grants and funding opportunities from other levels of government. I would also want to revisit the project as our financial position changes rather than committing taxpayers to the entire burden today.

This is actually one of the reasons I support balanced growth across Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham. Beeton needs additional residents not simply for the tax base, but also to support its businesses, recreation facilities and community services.

I want a new arena for Beeton. The question for me isn’t whether Beeton deserves one — it absolutely does. The question is how we get there without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers.

Sometimes responsible leadership means saying, “Yes, I support the goal but no, I don’t support the way we’re being asked to pay for it today.”

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.