Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

This question makes two points. One is correct; the other goes too far. Lake owners contribute significant tax dollars, and the Municipality must help look after the lake. But those dollars are not more than a fair share, nor should they serve only lake owners. We all benefit from roads, open arenas, community centres, and libraries.

My answer is Yes: a dedicated Lake Health and Water Quality budget line, and a reserve where there is a defined multi-year need. Staff should publish an accessible annual report on property-tax revenue from lake communities and municipal spending on the lakes.

The oxygenation system is an impressive achievement of community leadership. Turning concern into community action is to be celebrated.

Lake Eugenia is too important environmentally, recreationally, and economically to be an afterthought. I support the Municipality contributing its fair share to ongoing water-quality work, including oxygenation, once performance data, lifecycle cost, OPG’s responsibility as owner, and partner funding are publicly reviewed.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

The Task Force report should be adopted as a road map. It is sensible and, unlike has been the case with so many reports given to Council, should be utilized.

Given that the septic re-inspection program is in its first year, we need to be sure about its effectiveness before expanding the program to all four lakes. So far so good - but let's be sure.

The dedicated Water Quality and Health line that I referenced in Question 1 should be utilized for the lake carrying capacity study. It will inform the major long-term planning decisions - it should be undertaken in a sensible manner that doesn't duplicate earlier work from the Friends of Lake Eugenia and other community groups. I'd move to get the cost of that report on the table, as well as a fair share for the oxygenation plant, and start moving towards having it funded as a first priority.

At this stage it would be premature to mandate re-inspections across the lakes or choose owner fees versus the levy before the pilot results and costs are public. I would seek provincial funding for phragmites control.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Yes. The Lake Eugenia carrying-capacity study should be completed before we approve new intensification on the Lake. That said, we can't ignore the law, cancel existing approvals, or create other legal liability situations for the Municipality.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

Yes - the Task Force has shown its value to the community. It also relates to one of the pillars of this campaign - giving the community back to its citizens and putting them back at the table.

However, with the need to reign spending in I would propose one Council member instead of two, given that they are paid to attend these meetings. As noted the committee must remain advisory, public, and recorded.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

Yes - it's been part of my public position statements at all candidate meetings and in my response to the Friends of Lake Eugenia. Let's take action.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

It's not obvious nor public what funds have been taken in at the boat launch and what they've been used towards. This needs to become public. At that point an appropriate balance in the distribution of funds needs to be found, including advancing lake health priorities.

As a member of Grey County Council, will you advocate to the County and to Ontario Power Generation on the issues affecting Lake Eugenia, including upstream farm runoff, roadside buffers and reservoir management? Full question

Obviously we have road sides impacting the lake on County roads, as well as larger policy decisions with impact upon the lake. It only makes sense that any mayor or deputy mayor will take these concerns to the County level. Taking issues to OPG follows the same logic.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

Yes I will support investments into lake health however I do not think investment in a community should be tied to how much property taxes we get from said community. Property values equals taxes. And many services residents have access to may not make sense to have in a small settlement area. I.e. Libraries, community halls arenas.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

General tax levies do not cover waste water costs as such they should not cover a septic re-inspection. I do agree that a boat wash station is very logical and should move forward to help prevent the spread of invasive species. Absolutely we should apply for provincial funding to control phragmites around the lake. and continue to work with the conservation authorities on this matter as well.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Yes I support completing a carrying capacity study for lake eugenia. This should be started soon but I do not believe we can stop landowners from submitting applications that carry forward. But we only see a few so the study should be able to be completed before intensive growth.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

Yes I am open to having further community engagement on the future of Lake Eugenia and other lakes in Grey Highlands

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

Yes we need to review the ditches, understand the all sides of the situation.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

I do support the EDCIA MOU. Your question speaks to a boat wash station. Yes this is a great Idea and the MOU speaks to EDCIA running the boat launch so they can support the boat wash. Other funds they raise support the whole of Eugenia.

As a member of Grey County Council, will you advocate to the County and to Ontario Power Generation on the issues affecting Lake Eugenia, including upstream farm runoff, roadside buffers and reservoir management? Full question

the County will be reviewing the official plan which is where the policies around streams and rivers exist. This is a good time to bring up these concerns.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I would be open to Grey Highlands working jointly with a Lake Task Force to improve water quality.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

The pilot septic re inspection will be implemented on all four lakes in 2027. The inspection should be paid for by property owners. The municipality should look for provincial funding for the control of invasive species around the lakes. A boat wash station and boat launch improvements are something I could support.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

I do not believe there is any intensive development capability on Lake Eugenia.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

No explanation given.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

• A co-operative arrangement where culverts drain on to private property between the lake and the culvert outlet where green infrastructure could be used to absorb ground water is something that could be explored.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

No explanation given.

As a member of Grey County Council, will you advocate to the County and to Ontario Power Generation on the issues affecting Lake Eugenia, including upstream farm runoff, roadside buffers and reservoir management? Full question

No explanation given.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I would be open to discussions at budget time as to whether a dedicated budget line is approved. Grey Highlands should, in the MOU, ensure that some of the boat launch funds are directed to improving lake health. Significant revenue is generated through lake front property taxes so it makes sense to protect the lake to ensure that those revenues continue and that owners property values do not decline.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

I fully support stronger municipal by-laws on the fertilizer ban and septic inspections paid for by property owners on lake front properties. Protecting our local lakes from nutrient runoff and toxic algae is vital to environmental health, property values, tourism, and local businesses. I would propose a mandatory septic system inspection for all lakefront properties. During discussions about this summer’s Lake Eugenia pilot project, most residents supported inspections but wanted to choose their own inspector. We must implement strict protections for the water flowing from the lake through the Beaver River into Georgian Bay. By preventing toxic contaminants from entering our waterways, we secure long-term public health and preserve our local environment for generations to come. Any and all funding sources should be sought for the betterment of our lakes. I feel that protective planning by-laws, once adopted, would have the greatest chance of limiting development and keeping our lakes healthy.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

An expensive study will only tell us that Lake Eugenia is already at capacity. Building out existing lots or upgrading/replacing existing cottages coupled with new septic systems would be my choice for the lake. I have opposed commercial development on the east side of the lake as I feel that this kind of development is exploiting the lake and diminishing the ability for property owners to enjoy their properties.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

We have four lakes in Grey Highlands that would benefit from a permanent lake management advisory committee. These lakes and the properties surrounding them generate significant tax revenue for the Municipality of Grey Highlands. They also tremendously benefit many, many businesses in and around Grey Highlands. Visitors to the lake also boosts our local economy. Keeping our lakes healthy not only benefits property owners but the community as a whole.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

I recently inspected the culvert on Point Road.Two low cost, low maintenance interventions are;
1. Vegetated bioswales: Use native plants and suitable soils in roadside ditches to slow runoff and absorb phosphorus before it reaches the lake.
2. Catch-basin inserts or silt traps: Install filters in key culverts to capture sediment and organic debris.
A Council member could raise the issue through a notice of motion, but the quickest approach would be for a LEPOA member to submit their concerns to the clerk and copy Council. A councillor could then request that the letter be placed on an upcoming agenda. Council could direct staff to report on possible solutions and then determine the appropriate action.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

The current MOU states “that the EDCIA agrees at its sole expense to be responsible for the overall operation, maintenance and management of the boat launch and related premises” (see Responsibilities of the Eugenia & District Improvement Association- fourth bullet)
The MOU identifies the Eugenia Boat Launch as an opportunity for community investment. EDCIA’s priorities are to:
• Protect Lake Eugenia for residents, boaters, and visitors;
• Maintain the boat launch and waterfront; and
• Promote the lake’s long-term sustainability.
Because two priorities directly support lake health, I support adding a revenue-sharing agreement between EDCIA and Friends of Lake Eugenia to the updated MOU, helping offset the water quality system’s operating costs.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

Lake Eugenia is an important environmental, recreational and economic asset for Grey Highlands. I support a dedicated budget line for lake health and annual reporting showing both the property tax revenue generated by lake communities and municipal spending on the lakes.

I also believe the municipality should be willing to help fund community-led water-quality initiatives, including ongoing monitoring and projects such as the oxygenation system, where there is evidence they are effective and provide good value for taxpayers. Municipal support should be transparent, accountable and tied to measurable results.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

I support adopting the Task Force report as a framework, but not automatically implementing or funding every recommendation.

I support septic re-inspections for all four lakes, with the cost primarily paid by the properties being inspected. My first funding priority would be a comprehensive lake study so future decisions are based on good data.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Before approving more intensive shoreline development, Council should understand what Lake Eugenia can reasonably sustain. A carrying capacity study would give Council better information to balance property rights and responsible development with protecting the long-term health of the lake.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

I see value in ensuring lake communities continue to have a direct voice at Council after the Task Force concludes. However, before creating a permanent committee, I would want to review the Task Force’s final work, the proposed committee’s mandate and costs, and whether a permanent committee is the most effective structure.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

I support assessing municipal drainage into Lake Eugenia to identify problem areas and determine where the municipality may be contributing to nutrient runoff. Where municipal infrastructure is shown to be a significant source, practical and cost-effective fixes should be incorporated into the capital plan.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

I support directing a reasonable portion of boat launch fees back into protecting Lake Eugenia. Using revenue generated by lake users to support practical measures such as water quality initiatives or a boat wash station is worth considering as part of the renewed agreement.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I would investigate the possibility of a budget line or reserve fund for lake health and improvements. However, I would not be in favour of reporting how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities any more than I would report how much comes from farming communities, individual towns or any other criteria within the Municipality.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

I am in favour of reviewing and implementing the task force report. Council and staff need to review all aspect in order to determine the feasibility of implementing it as a whole.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

No explanation given.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

No explanation given.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

No explanation given.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

I would like to see the agreement renewed as is. It is my understanding that the net revenue is not substantial if any.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I support a dedicated budget line for lake health. I would like to explore the potential for public/private partnership to facilitate lake health.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

I would start with the carrying capacity study to examine the level of development. Additionally, septic reinspection for homes over 15 years old. It should be owner funded. Grey Highlands should apply for provincial funding to control invasive phragmites.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

No explanation given.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

No explanation given.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

No explanation given.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

More information is needed to make a decision. Boat owners would have to pay for the washing of their boats to help offset wash stations cost. Provincial grants might also be available to offset initial capital expenses for the boat wash station.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I’m quite happy to look at how the municipality can add to the conservation and oxygenation efforts that Lake Eugenia residents have spearheaded since these last several years. It seems like these efforts have had a good effect, and as we start talking about sustaining the oxygenation and other good lake health measures. I agree these efforts will be easiest to sustain if they are conducted through the public purse in the form of distinct municipal operational and capital budget lines. Achieving this may entail a slight increase in the municipal tax rate, of course. If that’s a taxpayer proposal, it’s worth discussing.

I am less certain about combining tax revenue and lake expenditure reporting. The municipality should be spending our money on things that support the prosperity of the whole community, as lake conservation does. As a resident of Kimberley, I am perfectly happy that my tax dollars go to fund services and projects that I may not personally ever intend to use, but that help perhaps only my neighbours. What is good for Eugenia is good for Markdale. What is good for Markdale is good for Feversham. What is good for Feversham is good for Grey Highlands.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

First, good job encouraging candidates to read the report! The report findings all seem sensible and feasible to me. Strategically, I would focus funding first not just on the ‘quick wins’, however. From the report I see that comprehensive lake studies, capacity study, and the boat launch station will need the most focused and sustained resources to realize, and thus need the longest lead times to achieve within the next term of Council. So I don’t know if that means ‘funding them’, but those would be what I’d recommend starting on first, and precisely because they will take the most time and effort to achieve. That’s to say that my approach is always to work first on the most difficult and high value targets.
As to funding the inspections, I'm not sure whether it's better just commit to funding those from the levy, or to have owners pay directly. I'd like to hear back more about how the pilot has gone before considering that part further.
The municipality should certainly be leading applications to fund invasive species control.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Not much to say here. Sounds good. I generally think ADUs that respect existing setbacks and general Code requirements are okay too though.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

I certainly like the idea of building committees focused on quality of life and planning in the villages and former townships of Grey Highlands. That said, I can’t help but consider whether instead of a specific ‘Lake management’ committee, broader ‘Eugenia Committee’, or ‘Euphrasia Committee’ might provide space for additional discussions and community building around other topics. On the other hand, lake management might be more successfully addressed through a Highlands-wide ‘Environmental Stewardship Committee’ or similar. These are nitpicks, to be fair. The task force has done good work, and I agree that we need to integrate lake management into the committee governance structures on a permanent basis.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

I'll support this if the data are clear, if they show the fix will make a real difference, and if the capital requirements for the fix are reasonable and proportional to the benefits realized.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

I would consider adding an additional surcharge levied on all boats put in at the public launch specifically for lake health initiatives. Although I would imagine the actual revenue from these operations will be relatively minor in terms of the overall lake health budget, it does make sense on principle to ask people benefiting most from lake health to contribute to sustaining it even if they don't have property or live here.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I support transparent reporting of municipal revenues and expenditures, but I would go further. I am working toward a motion asking staff to develop a municipality-wide Fair Taxation and Investment Framework.

The framework would consider factors such as property assessment and values, population, number of households, geography, road and other infrastructure kilometres, recreational assets, service demands and infrastructure needs.

The goal is to create a clear, easy-to-understand reference showing how municipal dollars are allocated across Grey Highlands—not to promise any community a particular share.

Lake Eugenia is an important environmental, recreational and economic asset, and its needs should be considered within that broader framework.

I would also like staff to identify potential funding sources for lake health, including municipal funding, user fees, grants and community partnerships.

Fair Taxation does not mean that the community with the highest property values automatically gets more money back. It means we establish transparent criteria and apply them fairly across the entire municipality.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

I support adopting the Lake Management Task Force report and continuing septic re-inspection, with consideration given to extending the program to the other lakes. The Task Force's mandate already includes water quality, nutrient loading, human use, invasive species and potential funding partnerships.

My first funding priority would be a comprehensive lake study, providing the evidence needed to guide future decisions about carrying capacity, water quality, development, drainage and lake health.

I support septic re-inspection because preventing nutrient loading is preferable to trying to correct the problem after it reaches the lake. I would generally expect the direct inspection cost to be paid by the property owner benefiting from the inspection, rather than automatically placing the entire cost on the general tax levy, while ensuring the program remains accessible and fairly administered.

I would also pursue provincial funding and other grants for invasive-species work, including phragmites, rather than assuming municipal taxpayers should carry the entire cost.

I would also look at these priorities through the proposed Fair Taxation and Investment Framework, so that Council can understand the relative needs, costs and benefits before committing municipal dollars.

We need to protect Lake Eugenia, but we also need a sustainable financial model.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

I support completing a carrying-capacity study before approving more intensive shoreline development.

I am not anti-growth. I am for controlled growth.

Before increasing density, reducing setbacks or adding dwelling units, Council should understand what the lake, groundwater system, shoreline, drainage and existing infrastructure can reasonably support.

This is exactly where evidence matters. We should know the environmental and infrastructure consequences before making decisions that may be difficult or expensive to reverse.

My approach is simple:

Right use. Right place. Right time.

A carrying-capacity study doesn't mean stopping development. It means making better-informed decisions about what type and level of development Lake Eugenia can sustain over the long term.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

I support a permanent Lake Management Advisory Committee, provided its role remains clearly advisory and Council retains responsibility for final decisions.

The existing Task Force was created to review the condition of four lakes, develop management plans and identify priorities, funding measures and partnerships.

A permanent advisory structure could preserve that knowledge rather than starting from scratch every few years.

I support representation from lake associations and communities, public meetings, recorded meetings and transparent recommendations brought to Council.

But I also believe in good governance: Council should listen to the committee, ask questions, consider the evidence and then make the decision.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

I support assessing municipal drainage into Lake Eugenia and identifying where ditches and culverts may be contributing nutrients or other impacts to the lake.

But I also want this assessed within a broader Fair Taxation & Investment Framework that I am working toward through a proposed Council motion. Staff should develop a transparent model considering property assessment, population, households, geography, infrastructure kilometres, recreation and service needs, so Council can understand how capital dollars should be prioritized across the entire municipality.

If a municipal drainage problem is confirmed, it should be assessed alongside other infrastructure priorities and, where appropriate, included in the capital plan.

Measure the problem, identify the source, understand the cost, and then prioritize the solution.

That gives Eugenia a fair assessment without promising that one community automatically receives more municipal spending than another.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

The upcoming renewal of the boat-launch agreement is an opportunity to apply my Fair Taxation principle: those who use infrastructure and place greater demands on it should reasonably contribute to its costs.

I would like EDCIA and the Municipality to explore a fair-use fee structure that considers factors such as boat size, engine size, weight and frequency of use, based on actual operational and environmental impacts.

If that creates additional revenue, I would explore whether an appropriate portion could support Lake Eugenia's infrastructure, water-quality monitoring, environmental studies or other lake-management priorities.

But this should not become simply another tax.

Let's understand the cost, understand the use, and make the contribution fair.

The details should be developed collaboratively, based on evidence and the renewal agreement, rather than promising a predetermined fee or dollar amount.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I support reinvesting in lake health because an unhealthy lake is a public-health risk and a threat to an important community asset. I remember when Lake Eugenia was closed because of E. coli concerns. Given that I have had E. coli-induced kidney failure, the consequences of agricultural waste entering into our water and food supply are well known to me. These experiences reinforce my appreciation for the Friends of Lake Eugenia and other community-led organizations whose work helps keep the lake healthy and safe for public use.
I support establishing a dedicated reserve fund for Lake Eugenia. I would also support annual staff reporting that identifies the property tax revenue generated by lake communities, the municipality’s lake-related expenditures, and the balance and use of the reserve. Municipal funding should complement—not replace—the work of community-led organizations and may appropriately support ongoing water-quality initiatives, including the oxygenation system installed in 2026, where the expenditure provides a clear public benefit and falls within the municipality’s authority.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

Yes, I would vote to adopt the Lake Management Task Force report, including continuation of the septic re-inspection program and its extension to all four lakes. My first funding priority would be a comprehensive lake study that identifies likely contaminant sources—including pesticides, herbicides, agricultural runoff, septic systems, and PFAS/"forever chemicals"—and provides evidence for targeted action. Effective decisions require reliable information about where contaminants are entering the lake and which interventions will produce the greatest benefit.
Septic re-inspection requires a careful approach. If evidence shows that septic systems are releasing contaminants into the lake, the municipality must act promptly. Although I would like to reduce the cost to property owners, legislation governing the Building Code and source-water protection prevents municipal funds from paying for private inspections. Accordingly, the property owner would be responsible for the inspection fee.
Any mandatory re-inspection program should be evidence-based and targeted to identified risks. Inspections should be required where the age, condition, location, or performance of a septic system creates a reasonable concern about contamination, rather than imposed without a demonstrated public-health or environmental rationale.
I would also support applying for available provincial funding to control invasive phragmites around the lakes. External funding could help the municipality and community organizations undertake coordinated control work without placing the full cost on local taxpayers.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Yes. I support completing a carrying-capacity study before Council approves more intensive shoreline development, including additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks. Council currently lacks the evidence needed to determine whether Lake Eugenia can sustain further development or is already beyond its capacity. Until the study is complete, I would support pausing approvals that would increase shoreline density or reduce existing setbacks.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

Yes, I would support establishing the Lake Management Task Force as a permanent advisory committee of Council. A permanent committee would preserve institutional knowledge, create an ongoing forum for public participation, and ensure that lake-management recommendations continue to come before Council for decision. I would also recommend including the Mayor or Deputy Mayor in the membership to provide a direct connection to County Council.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

Yes. I support assessing municipal drainage into Lake Eugenia, identifying culverts and ditches that contribute phosphorus and other nutrients, and prioritizing necessary remediation in the capital plan. Because an unhealthy lake is a public-health and environmental risk, the municipality should address deteriorating drainage infrastructure and design upgrades that can withstand the increased pressures associated with climate change.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

Yes. On renewal, I would support directing an appropriate portion of boat-launch fees toward lake health, provided the revenue is sufficient and the permitted use is reflected clearly in the renewed agreement. The MOU with the Eugenia District Community Improvement Association identifies protecting the integrity of Lake Eugenia, maintaining the boat launch and waterfront, and ensuring the lake’s long-term sustainability as priorities. Funding a boat wash station or water-quality work would be consistent with those objectives.
Before committing launch-fee revenue to a specific project, Council should confirm how much revenue the EDCIA collects and what funding is available after operating and maintenance costs. If the remaining revenue is insufficient for a boat wash station or other lake-health project, the municipality should consider complementary funding sources and partnerships.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

I lived in Eugenia for years, and fell in love with the lake. I lived in town, not on the lake, but I would frequently enjoy its beauty from the dam and the beach. I believe that lake residents deserve dedicated operational funds for water protection and they also deserve to see comprehensive budget data that includes lake revenue and lake investments.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

To be honest, the Taskforce presented their final report yesterday (Oct 7) and I haven't had a chance to read it cover to cover. But I watched the presentation at Council, and I was really impressed with the quality of the research. If elected, I'll ensure that the new Council follows through on the recommendations.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

No explanation given.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

YES! Too often we see well-written reports that go nowhere... and gather dust.

The LMTF final report explicitly recommends "a working structure to keep the lake
management efforts moving forward in a collaborative manner", and asks for a staff report regarding "Lake management committee/working group participation to continue lake management efforts".

I support this 100%.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

I know that staff have been very dismissive of this particular issue. I think it's reasonable and sensible to look at culverts, assess the situation, and consider raising culverts if it can help create a settling pond/area.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

I'm not familiar with the numbers, but intuitively it makes sense to me that all lake users should contribute towards its health. (NOTE: I believe that non-motorised boats should not be charged a fee. Canoes, kayaks, paddle boats..)

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

Having made no contribution to the oxygenator system thus far, it seems appropriate that the municipality should be making some contribution to the ongoing work and expenditure toward its continued operation.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

There is a lot of ground to cover in the body of this question so I am, at this point, undecided on some of its content.
The septic re-examination data thus far collected at the expense of the property owners should already be on file at the health department or in the possession of the property owners.
If there are properties where the septic inspection data is not available already, re-inspection should be mandatory.
Otherwise, the re-inspection is redundant.
Yes, if grant money is available through provincial funding, those grants should be applied for to help implant control mechanisms that prevent invasive phragmites around the lake.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

In my view, derived from inspection of, and speaking to many concerned residents it is likely already clear that more intensive shoreline development would be bad planning and detrimental to the work thus far achieved.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

The Lake Task Force should continue with its important oversight of these bodies of water and the discussions should be open transparent and made accessible and available to the general public and all interested parties.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

Any sources of phosphate enrichment from lakeside properties or upstream chemical contamination should be identified,
and measures should be taken to mitigate or eliminate entirely those deleterious contaminants.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

All of the groups who are party to the memorandum of understanding need to sit down together and decide on the value of its continuance, in which there is in fact much value.
The decision of how any revenues are allocated to community and/or water quality projects should be decided by those having a vested interest in the community and the lake.
Having said that, we all have a vested interest in the water quality of the lake and community improvement projects.
So let’s continue with a memorandum of understanding and work together in a harmonious way moving forward.

Will you support a dedicated budget line or reserve fund for lake health, with staff reporting each year how much property tax revenue comes from the lake communities and how much the municipality spends on the lakes? Full question

Yes, I would support a dedicated budget line or reserve for lake health, along with transparent annual reporting on what the municipality spends on lake protection and monitoring for all lakes.

I think residents deserve to understand how municipal resources are being allocated to protect our lakes, while recognizing that tax revenue supports the entire municipality.

I would also support the municipality contributing to community-funded water-quality initiatives, such as the oxygenation system, where there is clear evidence of a public benefit and measurable outcomes.

However, I would want municipal support to be based on evidence, effectiveness and a clear understanding of ongoing costs—not simply because a project is community-funded.

For me, this should be a partnership. The community should not be expected to carry the entire cost of protecting a resource that is important to Grey Highlands, but municipal funding should be transparent, accountable and based on results.

Our lakes are an important environmental, recreational and economic asset, and protecting their long-term health benefits the entire municipality.

Will you vote to adopt the Task Force report, including continuing the septic re-inspection program and extending it to all four lakes? Which of the items the report leaves to the new Council would you fund first? (A comprehensive lake study, a carrying capacity study, protective planning by-laws, a boat wash station, roadside native plant buffers, boat launch improvements.) Full question

Yes, I would support adopting the Task Force report and continuing septic re-inspections, with the goal of extending the program to all four lakes.

I would like to ensure we have feedback on the initial septic inspections that were made to be able to make adjustments on how these were conducted and address concerns before implementing on our other lakes that need to be inspected.

I believe septic re-inspections should be required for lake properties because septic systems directly affect water quality. I would support an owner-paid inspection fee rather than placing the full cost on the general tax levy, while pursuing available provincial funding.

I would also support applying for provincial funding to control invasive phragmites around the lakes.

Will you support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development, such as additional dwelling units or reduced setbacks? Full question

Yes. I would support completing a carrying capacity study for Lake Eugenia before approving more intensive shoreline development.

We need to understand the lake’s capacity to absorb additional development without compromising water quality, shoreline health or the broader ecosystem.

A carrying capacity study would give Council evidence to guide decisions about additional dwelling units, shoreline setbacks and other development pressures.

I would not want to make decisions based on assumptions or isolated concerns. We should have good data, understand the cumulative impacts of development, and then use that information to make responsible planning decisions.

For me, the principle is simple: understand the capacity of the lake first, then make development decisions based on the evidence.

It would also depend on the cost and who would pay for these types of assessments.

The Lake Management Task Force ends in early 2027. Will you support making it a permanent advisory committee of Council, with members appointed by the lake associations and lake communities, meetings open to the public and recorded, and recommendations brought to Council for decision? Full question

Yes, I would support making the Lake Management Task Force a permanent advisory committee of Council.

I think ongoing local knowledge and community involvement are valuable when it comes to protecting our lakes. Having representatives from the lake associations and communities would provide an important connection between residents and Council.

I would also support meetings being open to the public and recorded, with recommendations brought forward to Council for consideration and decision.

The committee should have a clear mandate, defined roles and transparent reporting, while recognizing that elected Council remains responsible for municipal decisions and the use of public funds.

I see this as a way to maintain the momentum and knowledge built through the Task Force, while creating a consistent and transparent process for lake communities to provide input.

Road ditches and culverts carry runoff, and the nutrients that feed blue-green algae, directly into Lake Eugenia. Lake residents have raised concerns that at least one culvert is a significant source of phosphorus. Will you support assessing municipal drainage into the lake and including fixes in the capital plan? Full question

Yes. I’d support assessing municipal drainage into Lake Eugenia, including identifying where road ditches and culverts are contributing nutrients or other pollutants to the lake.

The municipality already has an expanded Lake Eugenia water-quality monitoring program with public reporting and annual reporting to Council, so I think the next step is to connect that information with our municipal drainage infrastructure.

I’d want the assessment to identify priority drainage points, determine whether phosphorus or other nutrients are entering the lake, and identify practical fixes. If a municipal culvert or drainage system is contributing to the problem, those improvements should be considered in the capital plan.

I would also look for opportunities to use provincial or other outside funding, rather than relying entirely on municipal taxpayers.

The key is to identify the sources, measure the impact and then invest where we can demonstrate that a fix will improve lake health.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Lake Eugenia boat launch expires in December 2026. Should its renewal direct part of the launch fees toward lake health, such as a boat wash station or water quality work? Full question

Yes. I would support discussing this as part of renewing the boat-launch agreement.

I think it’s reasonable to consider directing a portion of launch fees toward lake-health initiatives, such as a boat-wash station or water-quality monitoring.

The renewed agreement should be transparent about how fees are collected and used, with any dedicated funding tied to clear lake-health priorities and measurable outcomes.

The municipality has already expanded water-quality monitoring on Lake Eugenia, so I think we should use that information to help identify where funding can have the greatest impact.

My principle would be simple: some of the revenue generated from activity on the lake should help protect the lake itself, while ensuring the arrangement is fair, transparent and financially responsible.