Questions 13 through 16 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.

---

13. Contracting out municipal services

The question asked: Municipalities deliver some services with their own staff and buy others from contractors. This question asks where you would draw that line. Would you support contracting out services currently delivered in-house [yes / yes, where a business case supports it / no / undecided]? Which would you be prepared to contract out? Check all that apply. Others you would contract out. Services you would never contract out. Outline your platform. Say what test you would apply before contracting a service out, what you would do about the staff currently delivering it, and how service quality would be held to account once it sits with a contractor.

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

Peter Bordignon

☒ Yes, where a business case supports it Prepared to contract out: ☒ Transit and buses · ☒ Tree pruning and forestry · ☒ Fleet maintenance · ☒ Waste collection Others you would contract out: line left blank Services you would never contract out: Snow ploughing and winter control, By-Law and IT

I could support contracting out Town services only when an independent business case demonstrates better value or service and not simply a lower initial price. This must consider the full cost, service quality, local responsiveness, contract oversight, long-term risk and the danger of becoming dependent on one or two suppliers.

Employees currently delivering the service must be treated fairly. I would require early consultation, consider reassignment and retraining opportunities, and respect collective agreements and employment obligations. Their operational knowledge should inform the evaluation.

We must include measurable service standards, response times, public reporting, penalties for poor performance and clear termination provisions. Residents must also have a clear complaint process. Contracting out should proceed only when it delivers sustainable value while protecting core service quality, workers and the public.

Marni Moreau

☒ Undecided Prepared to contract out: ☒ Transit and buses · ☒ Tree pruning and forestry Others you would contract out: “Without a business case, I would contract out nothing.” Services you would never contract out: “I want residents to be able to easily contact someone who can service their requests. If it is a service provided to residents that may require them to call Town Hall, I don’t want to use a contractor.”

Before contracting out a service I would want to make sure that the costs were considered including the costs of bringing the service back in-house in case of failure.

If a service was outsourced a written service standard should be public and enforced.

I would not support contracting out services where a resident would call Town to get service and then be sent to a contractor.

The service being contracted out would need to make a business case. Staff decisions on that level are made by the CAO.

Paul Reale

☒ Yes, where a business case supports it Prepared to contract out: ☒ Landscaping and parks maintenance · ☒ Transit and buses · ☒ Tree pruning and forestry Others you would contract out: Seasonal and specialized technical work where the Town does not require permanent full-time capacity. Services you would never contract out: By-law enforcement and final regulatory, financial and policy accountability.

I would contract out a service only where a full business case shows better value over the life of the contract, not just a lower first-year price. The comparison must include wages and benefits, equipment, supervision, transition costs, contract escalation, and whether the Town would lose important operational capacity.

If a service currently delivered by Town staff is contracted out, I would first use attrition, vacancies, reassignment and retraining to reduce the impact on existing staff. Staffing savings have to be real; outsourcing makes little sense if we continue carrying the same internal cost.

The Town would remain accountable for the service. Contracts would include measurable service standards, response times, reporting requirements and financial consequences for missed performance. Results would be reported publicly, and contracts would include review points and the ability to terminate or retender if promised savings or service levels are not being delivered.

---

14. Performance management

The question asked: Ontario discontinued the Municipal Performance Measurement Program effective the 2014 reporting year. Since then no province-wide requirement has obliged a municipality to publish what it achieves for the money it spends, though some measures survive inside the Financial Information Return. Residents can see what this town spends. They cannot easily see what it delivers. This town’s present ability to measure and report service performance is [adequate / inadequate / I have not reviewed it]. Within the term, the Town should publish a scorecard of service standards against results [annually / quarterly / no]. Building a culture of performance measurement in this town would require: check all that apply. Performance measurement should be owned by [council / the CAO / an officer reporting to council independently of the CAO / it is not a priority]. Building this capability costs money and staff time. You would [fund it as new spending / reallocate from within the existing budget / require it within current resources / not proceed]. Set out how you would build performance management into this town. Say what you would measure first, who answers for the numbers, and what happens when a measure shows a service is failing.

Peter Bordignon

Present ability to measure and report: ☒ Adequate Scorecard: ☒ Annually Building a culture of performance measurement would require: ☒ A small set of council-approved corporate measures, published and reported on a fixed cycle · ☒ Service standards for each department, reported against publicly · ☒ Benchmarking against comparable Ontario municipalities · ☒ Every major report to council stating the measure by which it will be judged · ☒ An annual public account of what was delivered against what was budgeted · ☒ Resident satisfaction surveyed on a fixed cycle Owned by: ☒ Council, through targets it sets and publishes Cost: ☒ Reallocate from within the existing budget

I would begin with a small set of council-approved measures reported publicly every quarter. Priorities would include capital projects completed on time and on budget, operating results against budget, infrastructure condition, permit-processing times, resident response times and progress on council’s strategic commitments through our strategic plan.

Council would set the outcomes and targets. The CAO would answer to council for overall results, while department heads would explain their numbers and corrective actions. Reports should use plain language and include comparisons with similar Ontario municipalities where available.

When a measure shows a service is failing, staff must identify the cause, present a time-limited improvement plan and report publicly to Council. Measurement must produce action plans, not simply another staff report.

Marni Moreau

Present ability to measure and report: ☒ Inadequate Scorecard: none of the printed options marked. She has written in her own: ☒ Semi-Annually Building a culture of performance measurement would require: ☒ Every major report to council stating the measure by which it will be judged · ☒ An annual public account of what was delivered against what was budgeted Owned by: ☒ The CAO, as an internal management system Cost: ☒ Reallocate from within the existing budget

Project management and reporting need improvement. If elected mayor, I would request that the CAO work with staff to measure capital projects semi-annually against the original budget and create a management and reporting template for all projects. Each project should receive a separate budget and be tracked independently. An overrun triggers a report to Council at the next meeting. Project expansion and lack of formal rebaselining were major issues with recent projects including the $19 million dollar overrun.

We must continue our work reducing inflow and infiltration by replacing pipes at the end of their life and by measuring water losses by developments. Reducing the approximately 25% current loss would be the most cost effective way to increase water capacity. Water capacity limits not only houses, but businesses, day cares, long term care homes and schools.

Bylaw is an area where residents have expressed frustration. During the current reorganization of staff, this is a good time to look at bylaw training, scheduling and needs.

The CAO is the council’s only direct employee. I would work with my CAO to direct staff, measure performance and make necessary changes when performance falls short. In the case of a failure of service the date and fix would come to council.

Paul Reale

Present ability to measure and report: ☒ Inadequate Scorecard: ☒ Quarterly Building a culture of performance measurement would require: ☒ A small set of council-approved corporate measures, published and reported on a fixed cycle · ☒ Service standards for each department, reported against publicly · ☒ Every major report to council stating the measure by which it will be judged · ☒ An annual public account of what was delivered against what was budgeted · ☒ Resident satisfaction surveyed on a fixed cycle Owned by: ☒ Council, through targets it sets and publishes Cost: ☒ Reallocate from within the existing budget

I would start with the services residents rely on most and define, in a simple to read format, what level of service they should expect and how quickly the Town should deliver it. Performance management only works if the standard is clear before the result is measured.

Council should set and publish those expectations; the CAO should be accountable to council for the results, with department heads accountable through the CAO. Results should be reported publicly on a quarterly scorecard.

When a measure shows a service is failing, the number should trigger action. The CAO should identify the cause, the corrective action and when performance will recover. If fixing it requires more money, staff or a change in priorities, that decision comes back to council.

---

15. New water and wastewater infrastructure

The question asked: The Town carries roughly $57 million in water and wastewater debt. The Thornbury plant is approaching fifty years old. A $66 million new water-treatment programme has been carried to the Ministry of Infrastructure. The Town’s own servicing allocation policy concedes that growth has been outpacing completion of the projects meant to serve it. On the proposed new water-treatment programme [proceed as planned / proceed only with senior-government funding / pause and pursue regional supply / cancel]. Outline your platform for new water and wastewater infrastructure: what gets built, what gets deferred, the fixed water charge trajectory you will accept, and where the money comes from.

Peter Bordignon

☒ Proceed only with senior-government funding · ☒ Pause and pursue regional supply (two boxes marked)

I would pause the current program long enough to complete an independent comparison with regional water-supply and shared-servicing options. The Thornbury plant’s age and growth-related capacity pressures mean cancellation is not responsible. However, before proceeding with a $66 million program, we must carefully consider affordability for local ratepayers alongside The Town of The Blue Mountains’ existing water and wastewater financial commitments.

The review must compare capital and operating costs, water-rate impacts, reliability, timelines and local control. It should also consider whether a Municipal Services Corporation could provide more effective management, financing and regional partnerships while protecting public ownership and accountability. If regional supply provides better long-term value and resilience, we should pursue it. If a Town-owned program remains the best option, it should proceed only after meaningful provincial or federal funding is secured and the scope and costs are independently validated.

Growth allocations must be tied to confirmed servicing capacity and achievable project schedules.

Marni Moreau

None of the printed options marked. She has written in her own: ☒ None of the Above

One of my first priorities if elected mayor is to examine the underlying assumptions of the water and wastewater capacity forecasts. The record breaking years that we are basing our future build out needs can be updated. Our economic situation has changed with a drop off in real estate sales, reduced building activity and uncertainty around tariffs and trade.

We have recently made great progress reducing leaks, but still lose about a quarter of our water before it gets to the tap. How much more progress we can make will determine the priority order of replacing our aging infrastructure. This is the most economical way to expand our capacity.

Anything mid-project should be finished and we should look at our other asset needs and score them according to urgency, necessity and financing. Then we look at the whole picture and determine what must be deferred, fixed or built. At this point we will hopefully have more information about the financial implications of a Municipal Services Corporation and know which neighbouring communities are interested.

Paul Reale

☒ Pause and pursue regional supply

My approach is plan first, then build better. We must maintain the infrastructure needed to provide safe, reliable service today, but I would pause major new capacity until council knows the need, scope, full cost and how it will be paid for.

Before committing to a major expansion, I would compare building additional capacity ourselves with regional supply and any other viable option. Growth-related projects should be phased to actual demand and deferred when the demand or funding is not there.

Growth should pay its eligible share through development charges, confirmed grants should reduce the local burden, and user rates should support the system. Also long-term debt can be used prudently for infrastructure that serves several generations.

I would not commit to a fixed water-charge trajectory before that work is done. Residents should see the full rate impact before council commits to the project, not after.

---

16. The overrun, and whether anyone is ever held to account

The question asked: Three bundled projects — the Craigleith lift station, the Mill Street pumping station and the Bay–Grey Street linear works — went from $34.79M to $53.56M. Council learned of the full variance in November 2025. Staff report ADM-26-015 found the bundling obscured individual cost pressure and that escalation should have been triggered at the Craigleith tender. Council spent $150,000 on value engineering, declined to spend more, and on 2 April 2026 asked for a performance audit from a body that does not review municipal matters. Thornbury came in 92 per cent over budget; Craigleith 54 per cent. An independent third-party performance audit of these projects should be commissioned [yes, in the first 90 days / yes, later in the term / no]. Its findings should be [published in full / received in closed session]. Outline what you would do. Name who would conduct it, by when, and what consequence would follow from an adverse finding.

Peter Bordignon

Audit: ☒ Yes, in the first 90 days Findings: ☒ Published in full

I would review the need for an additional independent third-party performance audit during the first 90 days, rather than committing to one before assessing the work already completed.

I was pleased with the KPMG report council commissioned, and the Town has already adopted many of its recommendations. The first step should be determining whether those recommendations fully address project scoping, bundling, estimating, tendering, cost escalation and reporting to council.

If meaningful questions remain unanswered, an additional independent review should remain an option. Any further work must have a clearly defined scope, avoid duplicating the KPMG review and provide value to taxpayers.

If another audit or review is commissioned, its findings should be published, subject only to legally required protections. The objective should be to improve project controls, transparency and accountability and not simply produce another report.

Marni Moreau

Audit: ☒ No Findings: ☒ Published in full

We already spent $100,000 paying for an audit, KPMG’s Capital Project Delivery Review. I will support the Council and staff in implementing the recommendations. Spending more money to get another report on the shelf is a waste of resources.

The primary issues identified in the “overrun” of 19 million included that went wrong are:

• approved on conceptual estimates and no mandated recosting

• project expansion with no process triggering a public report to council

• no status reports or formal rebaselining after major changes

• no escalation thresholds where an unexpected expense triggers a public report to council

• three projects bundled together

There will be time spent on creating project templates and reporting that will prevent these issues in the future, and I would rather spend the money on that than on a second opinion. We also need to hire an experienced Director of Planning, Operations and a Treasurer. These major hires will shape the possibilities of the next Council.

Paul Reale

Audit: ☒ No Findings: no box marked

On March 9, 2026, Tom Maloney and I made a deputation asking council for an independent third-party review of the $19.7 million overrun. Council ultimately retained KPMG, and in July accepted its Capital Project Delivery Review as the final performance audit and investigative exercise into these projects.

KPMG identified the systemic problems I wanted examined: weak stage-gate controls, late escalation, poor project-level cost visibility, insufficient re-baselining and weak cost assurance.

I would not spend public money commissioning another audit of the same file. The work now is implementation. In my first 90 days, I would require a public report showing which KPMG recommendations have been implemented, which remain outstanding, who is responsible and the deadline for each.

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