Questions 17 and 18 of the twenty-two put to the three candidates for mayor of The Blue Mountains on 30 August. All three returned a questionnaire.

Every answer below appears in full and unedited, in alphabetical order, with nothing added.

---

17. The two bills every household pays

The question asked: Reserves fell from roughly $82 million in 2021 to a projected $6.7 million by the end of 2026. Audited long-term debt at the end of 2024 was only $5.24 million, because the capital programme was paid by draining reserves rather than borrowing. Roughly $99 million of projects is committed and under way with more than $150 million further planned, about 90 per cent of it water and wastewater — which lands on the water bill, not the tax bill. On a no-intervention path the municipal tax on a $1 million home rises about 69 per cent by 2030 and the fixed water charge more than doubles. Separately, section 290 of the Municipal Act forbids an operating deficit, and closing the projected $10.3 million operating gap by 2028 implies a further 42 per cent. Do you accept these projections [yes / no — I will supply my own figures / undecided]? Which of the $150 million in planned projects would you defer or cancel [none / some / most]? Outline your platform. Will you commit to a cap on the combined increase a household faces, and name specifically what you would cut to stay under it?

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

Peter Bordignon

Accept these projections: ☒ Undecided Projects to defer or cancel: ☒ Some

I accept the seriousness and direction of these projections: reserves have been depleted, major borrowing is approaching, and both taxpayers and water users face significant pressure. However, I would not endorse precise increases without validating the timing, financing assumptions, growth revenues, grant funding and whether the projected tax increases overlap.

I would review the entire capital plan before the 2027 budget.

Projects required for public safety, compliance, critical infrastructure and reliable water and wastewater service would receive priority. I would defer projects that are discretionary or not core, that can be safely phased, lack confirmed funding or do not have sufficient design and cost certainty. Previously approved projects should not be treated as untouchable if circumstances have materially changed.

We need to have a project-by-project list showing cost, funding source, debt impact, urgency and consequences of delay before council makes those decisions.

Marni Moreau

Accept these projections: ☒ Undecided Projects to defer or cancel: ☒ Some

I like to keep my commitments. It makes sense to finish what we have already started, but I would consider reducing projects if advised and it was necessary. Some projects may need to go on hold, be delayed or cancelled. First we will look at our asset management plan to determine if we are overbuilding based on the current economic situation. Then we will continue to work on reducing the approximately 25% of water that is lost in delivery. Water bills will depend on many decisions the next council will make, and I am one vote in seven so I cannot commit to a cap on pricing. I will say that the Town has already submitted an Expression of Interest to the province about a Municipal Services Corporation. The fees charged to my constituents would be a major factor in the analysis of whether or not this structure makes sense for our Town. There are different grants and loans that will assist us move these expenses into debt where they can be paid for by the people that will use them in the future and not land on our ratepayers tax bill.

Paul Reale

Accept these projections: ☒ No — I will supply my own figures Projects to defer or cancel: ☒ Some

The $6.7 million reserve projection came from an earlier forecast. The Town’s June 2026 updated Reserve and Reserve Fund Forecast in ADM.26.038 projects a $39.1 million negative funding position by the end of 2026 under the current capital plan and funding assumptions.

I will establish an affordability ceiling for the combined household impact of taxes and water/wastewater charges once a reliable five-year financial forecast is complete.

Staying within it means being willing to stop projects before the Town is locked in. I would pause the Craigleith Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade program, whose 30% design estimate is $50.2 million against a $45 million approved construction budget, until Council determines what is needed now, what serves future growth, what can be phased and how each component will be funded. If the full program cannot be justified and financed affordably, it should not proceed as one commitment.

---

18. Thornbury, Craigleith and the Campus of Care

The question asked: The Town bought 32 acres at 125 Peel Street, Thornbury in February 2021 and selected peopleCare with Skyline/SkyDev to build 160 long-term care beds, seniors’ retirement living and attainable staff housing, to be delivered by CIHA order approved in April 2023. Negotiations were terminated in November 2024; servicing and the Peel Street reconstruction were cancelled; the Town kept the land and the beds moved to Craigleith. Meanwhile Thornbury West Phase 2 is suspended and the Thornbury plant nears fifty. The 32 acres at 125 Peel Street should, in the next term, be [brought back to market for seniors’ and attainable housing / used for another municipal purpose / sold / held undeveloped / undecided]. Long-term care, attainable housing and higher-density rental should be built in Thornbury as well as in the Craigleith corridor [agree / disagree]. State plainly what position you took on the Campus of Care at the time, and what you would do differently now. Then set out how a permanent base of roughly 9,000 households pays for a service load sized for visitors.

Peter Bordignon

125 Peel Street: ☒ Used for another municipal purpose Built in Thornbury as well as Craigleith: ☒ Agree

I supported the Campus of Care. The developer ultimately withdrew; the Town’s role was to sell the land for the project, not develop or operate the facility itself.

I was then instrumental in the motion to continue discussions with peopleCare and secure another location for 160 long-term-care beds within the Town of The Blue Mountains.

If starting again, I would require firmer timelines, financial assurances, and provincial funding for servicing plans and milestones before tying up public land.

I would now evaluate Peel Street and 171 King Street for other municipal purposes, including a multi-use community recreation facility, while retaining public ownership until feasibility, servicing and funding are confirmed.

Approximately 9,000 households cannot alone fund services and facilities sized for a much larger seasonal and visitor population. Funding must combine development charges where eligible, grants, partnerships, user fees and Municipal Accommodation Tax revenue so visitors contribute. Any facility must be phased, affordable to operate and supported by a clear business plan. The 2026 census report will be an important tool for planning as we move forward.

Marni Moreau

125 Peel Street: ☒ Undecided Built in Thornbury as well as Craigleith: ☒ Agree

Adding more Long term care beds in Thornbury is a priority and I would champion this as Mayor. I also recognize the need for accessible housing for Seniors, rentals, active transportation corridors, point-to-point transportation and the missing middle of housing. Higher density is appropriate where it does not affect the character of the area. This can be done through landscaping, location choice and scaling.

We need to examine the servicing needs of any property before choosing a development partner.

It does seem to me that the 125 Peel Street property is ideally located for something that benefits the municipality rather than another development of expensive, large scale homes. The majority of our current long term $ 4.7 million dollar debt is from this purchase.

Our seasonal homeowners pay the same taxes as full time residents, often on larger homes, and they use a fraction of the services. Our municipality greatly benefits from this financially.

Paul Reale

125 Peel Street: ☒ Brought back to market for seniors’ and attainable housing Built in Thornbury as well as Craigleith: ☒ Agree

I supported long-term care and attainable workforce housing then, and I support them now. What I opposed was putting taxpayers at risk to make the 125 Peel project work. In June 2024, I challenged the $11.5 million servicing estimate, asked where the money would come from and questioned whether the development-charge assumptions were realistic.

Those concerns proved well founded. Infrastructure tied to servicing 125 Peel became part of the wastewater program that later ran $19.7 million over budget. And the development-charge rates I questioned were subsequently reduced substantially through the 2026 OLT settlement.

I would take the same position today. Long-term care and workforce housing are important, but they do not justify an open-ended financial risk to residents. As mayor, I will support projects we need while insisting that the servicing costs, funding and taxpayer exposure are understood before council commits.

With roughly 9,000 households, we cannot size services for peak visitor demand and expect the residential tax base to carry the entire cost. Where tourism creates additional service demand, tourism should pay for tourism. I would use the Town’s share of the Municipal Accommodation Tax and appropriate user-pay revenues to offset identifiable visitor-related costs, and pursue regional cost-sharing where services benefit the broader South Georgian Bay area. Property taxes should primarily support the core level of service residents require year-round; the incremental cost of serving seasonal peaks should be recovered as directly as possible from the activity creating it.

Two Towns, One Failure is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

CLICK HERE