Town Hall / Civic Centre

Leadership Means Supporting Good Ideas and Asking Hard Questions When the Stakes Change

I’ve seen a few comments about my decision to vote NO on proceeding to tender for the proposed Civic Centre, so I’d like to provide some additional context.

First, I have never opposed the idea of the more than 10-year vision of a new civic facility.

In fact, I was one of the strongest advocates for ensuring that any new Town Hall also included a performing arts theatre and community gathering space. I believed then, and I still believe today, that if we’re going to build a once-in-a-generation public facility, it should serve the entire community, not just house municipal offices.

I worked to help shape that vision because I wanted residents to have a facility they could be proud of for generations to come.

My vote at the tender stage wasn’t a vote against that vision.

It was a vote about timing, affordability and due diligence.

As the project evolved and the costs became clearer, I believed Council owed it to residents to pause and ask whether we had fully explored every reasonable option before committing to one of the largest capital projects in our Town’s history.

One perspective I brought to the discussion comes from my career in the construction industry. Over the past several years, the construction sector across the GTA, Ontario and Canada has changed dramatically. As private investment in high-rise residential construction slowed because of rising interest rates, construction costs and changing market conditions, many of the industry’s largest developers, contractors and consultants shifted their focus toward government infrastructure, institutional buildings, public housing and Public-Private Partnership (P3) projects.

These projects have become a major part of today’s construction market, allowing the private sector to bring innovation, specialized expertise, alternative delivery methods, risk management and financing solutions to complex public projects. Having worked in this industry for decades, I’ve seen firsthand how the marketplace has evolved. That’s why I believed it was reasonable to ask whether all available procurement and financing models had been fully evaluated before moving forward.

To be clear, I was never suggesting that a Public-Private Partnership (P3) was automatically the best solution. A P3 is simply one procurement and delivery model that should be evaluated alongside traditional municipal procurement. Due diligence means exploring all reasonable options and determining which approach provides the best value, manages risk appropriately, and protects taxpayers.

My concern wasn’t that Council had already chosen the wrong model. My concern was that Council was never given the opportunity to compare different delivery models through a formal business case before proceeding to tender. Having those options available would have allowed Council to make a more informed decision based on evidence, costs, risk allocation and long-term value.

I also believed we should continue pursuing every available funding opportunity, whether through provincial and federal grants, naming rights, strategic partnerships or other innovative financing opportunities, to help reduce the long-term cost to local taxpayers.

Asking those questions wasn’t an attempt to delay progress. It was an attempt to ensure we had done everything reasonably possible before making one of the largest financial commitments our Town has ever considered.

Some have suggested these ideas should have been fully developed before the final vote. The reality is that major municipal projects evolve over many years. As new information becomes available, including updated costs and financial impacts, Councillors have a responsibility to continually evaluate whether the path forward remains the best one. Listening to the public and altering your position after reviewing new information isn’t inconsistency. It’s part of exercising independent judgment.

Reasonable people can disagree on where that line should be, and I respect that.

But I don’t believe asking whether we could achieve the same outcome more affordably was the wrong question. I wasn’t asking Council to reject the project. I was asking that Council have the opportunity to compare procurement and delivery options before committing to one path. My goal was simple: make sure we were choosing the best option available for our community and our taxpayers.

My responsibility has always been to balance investing in our community with protecting taxpayers. Sometimes those priorities align easily. Sometimes they require difficult decisions.

Residents don’t elect us to simply continue down a path because a project has been in motion for a decade. They elect us to continually evaluate the facts, ask difficult questions when circumstances change, and ensure we’re making the best possible decision with the information available at the time. That’s exactly what I believed I was doing.

Whether people agreed with my vote or not, it was made thoughtfully, independently and with the best interests of Bradford West Gwillimbury, my family and every taxpayer in mind.

Democracy works best when people can respectfully disagree. I respect that others reached a different conclusion, and I respect their right to explain their reasoning. I simply ask for the same respect in return.

As always, I welcome respectful discussion. If you’d like to talk about the Civic Centre, or any other issue facing Bradford West Gwillimbury, my phone, email and door remain open. My commitment has always been to listen, answer questions and work with residents to build the best future for our community.