Questions 5 through 8 of the twenty-three put to the four candidates for mayor of Collingwood on 30 August. Three answered. Every answer below appears in full and unedited, in alphabetical order, with nothing added.

Mayor Yvonne Hamlin did not return a questionnaire. Where a candidate does not respond, that is reported plainly, without adjective. Her answers will be published in full if they arrive at any point before 26 October. She is not mentioned again in this post.

---

5. Strong mayor powers

The question asked: As mayor I would use strong mayor powers [yes, where useful / only in a defined emergency / no, never]. I will delegate authority over the CAO back to council [yes / no]. Outline your position on how this town should be governed, and what you would commit to in writing on day one.

Jon Hillis

☒ No, never Delegate authority over the CAO back to council: ☒ Yes

My ‘No, never’ answer means I would not voluntarily use discretionary strong-mayor powers to sideline Council or bypass collective decision-making. Council should set priorities and make policy decisions, while the CAO manages the organization. I would delegate the CAO appointment power back to Council and delegate other powers where provincial law allows it. I would put that approach in writing on day one. Some strong-mayor duties are required by provincial law, including parts of the annual budget process. Where the law requires the mayor to act, I would do it openly and involve Council as much as the legislation allows.

Kathy Jeffery

☒ Yes, where useful Delegate authority over the CAO back to council: ☒ Yes

Will delegate authority over the CAO back to Council within 30 days of taking office.

Norm Sandberg

☒ Yes, where useful Delegate authority over the CAO back to council: ☒ Yes

I believe municipal government works best when Mayor and Council work collaboratively. I would use Strong Mayor powers only in exceptional circumstances where their use is clearly necessary and in Collingwood’s best interests—not simply because they are available or convenient.

At the first Council meeting, I commit to delegating appropriate authorities, including authority over the CAO, back to Council.

Strong Mayor powers should never substitute for earning the support of Council. I will not pretend those statutory powers do not exist, but if I use one, I will explain publicly what I did, why I did it and why the normal Council process was not sufficient.

Leadership is not about accumulating authority. It is about building a Council capable of making good decisions together.

---

6. Development charges — who pays for growth

The question asked: Residential development charges in this town should be [increased / held / reduced further to unlock grants / undecided]. Development charges on attainable and affordable housing units specifically should be [eliminated / reduced / deferred / unchanged]. Outline your platform. Development charges fund growth-related capital. If they fall, name what fills the hole — the levy, the rate base, debt, or projects that do not get built.

Jon Hillis

Residential: ☒ Held Attainable and affordable: ☒ Reduced

Growth should continue to pay its fair share of the infrastructure it needs, so I would hold the Town’s general residential development-charge policy rather than make another across-the-board cut. Qualifying affordable units already receive development-charge relief under Ontario law. My ‘Reduced’ answer is about targeted help for attainable or workforce housing that does not already qualify. That help should have clear eligibility rules, an enforceable affordability agreement and repayment or clawback if the commitment is broken. I would not reduce charges simply because a project is labelled affordable. If development-charge revenue falls short, I would re-sequence growth-related capital before shifting the gap to existing taxpayers. Any use of debt, rates or the levy should show the household impact first.

Kathy Jeffery

Residential: no box marked Attainable and affordable: ☒ Unchanged

Affordable housing is already exempt from Development Charges.

Until there is a process whereby the Federal and Provincial orders of Government are fully making municipalities whole to fund into infrastructure and can guarantee that the reduction to the DCs on other housing is actually passed on to the buyer, it would not be advisable to pursue grants in the name of reducing DCs.

Norm Sandberg

Residential: ☒ Held Attainable and affordable: ☒ Deferred

By “held,” I mean no deliberate reduction in development charges unless off-setting Provinvial or Federal funding is available, while allowing normal indexing and appropriate updates to the Development Charges By-law.

The Town and the development community are both community builders. This should not be an us-versus-them relationship. We need a collaborative relationship, with reasonable, predictable and workable rules that allow good development to proceed while ensuring growth pays its fair share of the infrastructure it requires and existing user benefit pays for its.

Broadly reducing development charges simply transfers those costs to existing taxpayers and ratepayers, increases debt or delays infrastructure.

I would consider targeted deferrals where there is a demonstrated public benefit, particularly workforce rental housing. Any deferral should identify the benefit being achieved, when the charges will be recovered and how the infrastructure will be financed in the meantime. The exception may be for smaller infilling projects where the existing infrastructure is debt-free.

---

7. Housing

The question asked: Would you commit to a numeric target for affordable and attainable housing units, including rental, created during the term? If yes, state the target and the definition you are using. Outline your housing platform: which tools you would actually use — municipal land, development-charge deferrals, zoning, public–private partnerships, incentive programmes, strong mayor powers — and how each is paid for.

Jon Hillis

☒ No

Target: N/A — I have selected No. Definition used: For municipal policy, I use housing costs at or below 30% of gross household income as my affordability benchmark. Where provincial legislation establishes specific definitions of affordable or attainable housing, those statutory definitions apply.

I do not want to invent a four-year housing number without a solid baseline and a real delivery pipeline. Collingwood already has Rapid ARU, CHIPP and a Town-owned-land stream. I want to see which tools are actually producing homes people can afford and scale what works. I would report units funded and completed, actual rents or purchase prices, how long they stay affordable, municipal cost per unit, approval times and project status. Existing programs already have approved funding sources, and any expansion should identify its funding up front. I would also use Town land and work with the County, non-profits and private partners. Faster approvals do not mean unlimited growth; the Official Plan, SCAP and confirmed servicing capacity still determine what can move forward.

Kathy Jeffery

☒ No

Target line, completed: as many as possible – currently we need 1,300 units by 2030. Definition used: Affordable Housing Task Force, Town of Collingwood — 60th percentile.

Continue to support the Affordable Housing Task Force Master plan (AHMP) and to support continued budget contribution of $350,000 annually to the reserve for affordable housing initiatives.

Continue to leverage municipal land holdings (which are limited) by lease or donation depending on best long term financial benefit to the taxpayer, development charge exemption already in place for affordable housing, continue to implement the recommendations in the AHMP, which includes updating local land use planning policy and regulations to provide for more infill and gentle density housing in existing neighbourhoods, supporting the creation of smaller rental units by creating a comprehensive first in Ontario (2025 Provincial Association award winning program) Rapid Additional Residential Unit Deployment Initiative, establishing a framework to provide direct financial and land incentives to non-profit and for-profit housing providers who are building affordable housing, and collaborating with regional government on key housing projects.

Will be paid for through Affordable Housing Reserve, donation/lease of land, grants from other orders of government, a variety of potential partnerships already well developed by the Affordable Housing Task Force, waiving of fees and Development charges.

Norm Sandberg

☒ No

Target and definition lines left blank.

I will not manufacture a housing target that the Town cannot deliver by itself. I would rather be measured on what we actually accomplish.

My priority is workforce housing—creating opportunities for people who work in Collingwood to live in Collingwood.

The Town can help through workable zoning, timely approvals, targeted incentives and public-private partnerships. I would advance concepts my team and I have developed for using underutilized municipal parking lots to create additional public parking, workforce rental apartments and commercial space while retaining municipal ownership of the land.

Simcoe County is also a major housing provider and funder, especially social housing. As Mayor and County Councillor, I would advocate strongly for Collingwood’s fair share of County housing investment.

Judge us by what gets built, not by an election-year number.

---

8. Asset management and the renewal gap

The question asked: Do you accept your town’s asset management plan’s estimate of the annual funding gap? Outline how you would close the gap between what this town owns and what it is setting aside to replace it — and if you would not close it, say so and say what fails first.

Jon Hillis

☒ Yes

Yes. I accept the roughly $15 million gap as the Town’s current planning estimate, but I do not think the answer is simply adding $15 million to taxes and utility rates. We already have a long-term financial model, so I would use it rather than commission another plan. Residents should see three versions: one with no unapproved grants, one with realistic grant or cost-sharing assumptions, and one with different project timing. I am not going to promise the whole gap disappears in one term. Each budget should show whether we narrowed it, by how much and what risk remains. Public safety, service continuity and the highest-risk assets come first. Any deferral should clearly identify what is being delayed and the risk that comes with it.

Kathy Jeffery

☒ Yes

Uploading water and wastewater infrastructure has the potential to significantly reduce the annual funding gap for the municipality and free up reserves for allocation to other major projects prioritized by the community.

Norm Sandberg

☒ Yes

I accept the Asset Management Plan as the Town’s current planning basis, recognizing that its assumptions and figures must be regularly reviewed and updated.

During my career, I have prepared several municipal asset management plans, ranging from basic to complex. Their purpose is not simply to identify a funding gap, but to prioritize necessary work and phase it in an affordable, financially sustainable way.

A $15-million annual gap cannot responsibly be eliminated in one budget, nor can Council ignore it. I would establish a multi-year strategy prioritizing infrastructure by condition, public safety, consequence of failure, regulatory requirements and lifecycle cost.

Funding will require a responsible combination of reserves, appropriate long-term debt, development charges and senior-government funding, with the objective of reducing the infrastructure gap over the term.

Infrastructure Before Crisis.

Two Towns, One Failure is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work,

consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid