North Bay 2026 Candidate Answers

For 2027, I would aim to keep the tax levy increase in the 3–4% range, with a clear breakdown of how much is driven by City operations versus external partners, and how much is offset by reserves and growth in assessment. This can only be speculative until we have more details.

I support dedicating future casino revenues to paying down the Community Centre debenture. Doing that could free up approximately $1.2 million annually that can be redirected toward road investments.

We need to stay the course on infrastructure funding. I support continuing the dedicated capital levy increase of 1% plus CPI so we keep building a sustainable funding source for roads, water, and infrastructure.

We cannot ask North Bay taxpayers to carry the entire burden alone. Strong relationships with our MPP, our MP, and senior levels of government are essential. I'll continue strongly advocating for infrastructure funding because every outside dollar we secure means less pressure on local taxpayers.

We need to get smarter about how we maintain roads. That means examining best practices from other municipalities, investing in preventative maintenance, and using technologies and approaches that extend the life of asphalt so we're protecting the investments we've already made.

By 2030, I believe North Bay should be approving at least 400–500 new homes per year across the spectrum which includes purpose-built rentals, missing-middle infill, additional dwelling units, and supportive housing, with clear targets in our Official Plan and annual reporting on approvals versus completions.

The key measure I’d use: the number of people chronically homeless in North Bay, tracked through by-name lists and reported publicly at least twice a year, alongside shelter usage, housing placements, and overdose data, so we can see whether fewer people are stuck on the street and more are stably housed.

We should treat the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot and other federal/provincial tools as part of a single, proactive recruitment strategy linking physician recruitment, skilled trades, tech, and to a clear North Bay value proposition: affordable housing, lifestyle, and a welcoming, inclusive community.

Success would be measured by net new doctors and skilled workers recruited per year, plus five-year retention rates and income growth in lower-income neighbourhoods.

In the first two years, I would prioritize an EV fleet and charging transition for City operations, starting with electrifying more of the City’s fleet.

On AI data centres: I would only support attracting one under strict conditions, including:

• Power use: must align with grid capacity and climate goals, preferably using non-emitting or low-carbon power, with efficiency standards and demand-management commitments.
• Trout Lake water: any water use must avoid impacts on our drinking water and be subject to transparent environmental review.
• Land: located in appropriate industrial/commercial zones, with clear community benefits (jobs, training, tax revenue) and binding agreements on noise, visual impact, and future expansion.

If those conditions can’t be met, we should focus instead on smaller-scale digital and tech growth that fits our infrastructure and environmental responsibilities.

If the Trout Lake water plant needs a permanent PFAS treatment upgrade, my priority is keep the cost off local ratepayers as much as possible by:

• Pursuing long-term federal and provincial funding (infrastructure programs, environmental remediation funds, and any PFAS-specific streams).
• Exploring cost-sharing with responsible parties where applicable, and ensuring we maximize grants before considering local borrowing.
• Structuring any local contribution over a long amortization period, if absolutely necessary, to avoid sharp rate spikes.

Yes, I would commit to publishing PFAS test results in plain language, on a dedicated, easy-to-find webpage and through regular updates, including:

• What PFAS are.
• How current levels compare to health guidelines.
• What treatment is in place.
• What’s being done next.

Residents shouldn’t have to decode technical reports to understand their drinking water.

Yes, I would support:

• Recorded votes on every item, so residents can see exactly how everyone voted.
• Follow legislation for closed-door (in camera) sessions, strictly limited to what the Municipal Act requires.
• City budget and council data published online in open formats. Definitely. And I would be interesting in knowing what type of format you are interested in so that we can consider it.

Strong mayor powers: I haven’t seen a need to use them yet and don’t intend to unless it:

• Advance provincially mandated priorities like housing and infrastructure, where council is already broadly aligned.
• Ensure budgets are passed on time, while still engaging council and the public meaningfully.

I would not use strong mayor powers to sideline council debate or concentrate power for its own sake. Any use would come with a public explanation, clear rationale, and an open vote wherever possible, so residents can see that the goal is better outcomes, not less democracy.