Kelowna Results

Yes. Housing construction and the thousands of jobs it supports must be a high priority for the next Council.

I have called Kelowna home for more than 36 years, and during that time I have seen many peaks and valleys in our development and construction industry. It has consistently been one of the Okanagan’s major economic engines, creating homes while supporting thousands of well-paying jobs in construction, trades, suppliers and local businesses.

The current slowdown is concerning. Kelowna’s unemployment rate reached 9.3% in July, while housing starts in the first half of 2026 were down 37% compared with the same period in 2025. CHBA Central Okanagan alone represents more than 300 companies supporting over 16,000 local jobs. When construction slows, the impact ripples throughout our economy.

My perspective also comes from practical experience. I have owned businesses, worked in commercial banking, and helped develop Deer Meadows, a 40-acre, approximately 300-unit modular housing project. That experience gave me a firsthand understanding of some of the challenges developers face—from financing and servicing to approvals, infrastructure requirements, construction costs and timelines. I understand that unnecessary costs and delays can determine whether a housing project moves forward or sits on the shelf.

I believe government should limit unnecessary interference in the marketplace. However, during challenging economic periods, government can play a constructive role in stimulating investment and protecting jobs. Any stimulus should follow three important principles: timely, targeted and temporary.

I saw those principles put into practice when I served as Member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country during the 2008–09 global economic downturn. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced Canada’s Economic Action Plan using those same principles. Infrastructure and other investments were accelerated when the economy needed them, while the measures were designed to wind down as conditions improved. Canada went on to recover the jobs lost during the recession and recorded strong employment growth compared with other G7 countries.

That experience reinforced my belief that government intervention should have a clear purpose, a defined timeframe and measurable results.

I would apply that same principle locally. A good example is Council’s temporary 25% reduction in Development Cost Charges. It provides relief when the construction industry needs it without permanently shifting growth-related infrastructure costs onto taxpayers.

I would also review our DCC structure, including the parks acquisition component, examine municipal infrastructure and park-development standards for reasonable cost savings, streamline approvals and work directly with CHBA, SICA, UDI, builders and trades to identify unnecessary costs, delays and regulatory barriers.

Most importantly, I commit to work with planning staff to find opportunities where the municipality could encourage more affordable, ground-oriented, family-style housing and homeownership opportunities—including single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and other attainable forms of housing. Not every new home needs to be a high-rise apartment. Families need choices, including opportunities to have their own front door and some outdoor space.

Our goal should be straightforward: get more attainable homes built, keep our skilled tradespeople working, create jobs, attract private investment and give young people and families a better opportunity to put down roots and own a home in Kelowna.

Yes. I strongly support a smart, responsible growth agenda supported by the proper infrastructure.

Kelowna has experienced tremendous growth over the past several years, but our infrastructure has not always kept pace. Today, we are facing an infrastructure deficit of nearly $600 million. While we have made some significant and much-needed infrastructure investments this year, we still have considerable catching up to do.

That is why I support reviewing our 10-year Capital Plan to ensure our priorities reflect what the citizens of Kelowna need, want and can reasonably afford.

Managing a city is not that different from managing our own household or business finances. We can't do everything at once. We have to distinguish between needs and wants, set priorities, live within our means and make wise investments for the future. Every dollar we spend today is a dollar entrusted to us by taxpayers, so we need to ensure we are getting the best possible value.

At the same time, we cannot allow necessary infrastructure to continually fall behind growth. When we approve significant development, we need to ensure the necessary roads, water and sewer systems, transportation networks, fire protection and community infrastructure are planned and delivered at the time of development—not 5, 10 or 25 years later when we are trying to catch up.

I support growth because it creates jobs, attracts private investment and strengthens our economy. But it needs to be smart, responsible growth that our infrastructure—and our taxpayers—can support.

As Mayor, my focus will be on making the best choices today to build a stronger, more affordable and sustainable Kelowna for the future.

Yes. Housing affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing young families in Kelowna, and I support practical municipal measures that reduce the cost of building new homes.

However, we also need to recognize that there isn't one single cause of today's affordability problem. Housing costs are affected by land prices, construction materials, labour, interest rates, inflation, government taxes and fees, regulations, approval timelines, and ultimately supply and demand.

One local example is the cost of concrete. Based on local industry information provided to me, concrete that cost approximately $182 per cubic metre in 2017 is now around $308 per cubic metre—an increase of $126, or approximately 69%. When the price of a basic construction material rises that dramatically, it has a significant impact on the economics of building concrete high-rises and ultimately on the price purchasers or renters have to pay.

That is why I believe we need to let the market work and provide greater flexibility for builders to respond to what consumers actually want and can afford. Government doesn't have a particularly good track record of picking winners and losers.

I would like to see more affordable and attainable ground-oriented housing—townhomes, row housing, duplexes and other family-friendly housing options. High-rises have an important place in appropriate locations, but we shouldn't assume that increasingly expensive concrete towers are the answer to every housing challenge.

Municipal government cannot control interest rates, national inflation or global material costs. But we can control many of the costs and barriers City Hall imposes.

That is why I supported Council's temporary 25% reduction in Development Cost Charges. I believe measures like this should be timely, temporary and targeted to help projects become economically viable, stimulate construction and protect local jobs.

I would also support a comprehensive review of our DCC structure—and just as importantly, the infrastructure standards and assumptions those DCCs are based upon. For example, if a Park Development DCC is based on a

1) particular standard for acquiring based on a per capita ratio, and

2) Construction standards to developing the parkland, we should ask whether that standard is appropriate, affordable and providing taxpayers and new homeowners with good value.

The same principle should apply to roads, utilities and other growth-related infrastructure. Before simply increasing a DCC to pay for a more expensive project or standard, we should first ask whether there is a more practical and cost-effective way to deliver that infrastructure. I would also review development application fees, approval timelines, engineering requirements and other municipal standards to identify opportunities to responsibly reduce the cost of building housing.

At the same time, there needs to be a balance. Kelowna already has significant infrastructure needs. Reducing a development charge doesn't make the cost of a road, sewer line, water system or park disappear—it could simply transfer that cost to existing taxpayers. Growth needs to contribute its fair share toward the infrastructure it requires, but we also have a responsibility to ensure the infrastructure we are charging for is being delivered as efficiently and affordably as possible.

My approach is to create the conditions for the private sector to respond to the market: reasonable fees, practical infrastructure standards, predictable regulations, efficient approvals, more housing choices and infrastructure that keeps pace with development.

We need to ask a simple question with every new municipal regulation, fee or requirement: Does this make it easier or harder for a young family to afford a home in Kelowna?

As Mayor, I would work to reduce the costs City Hall can control, encourage more attainable ground-oriented housing and allow the market to respond to what Kelowna residents actually want and can afford. I would also be willing to take a stronger role in advocacy for the housing industry if senior levels of government propose additional onerous building code regulations, taxes and fees which will deter our goal of providing more affordable housing.

Yes, absolutely. I am always interested in finding ways for the City to provide services more efficiently and effectively, and that includes our planning and development approval process.

I want to acknowledge that City staff have been working to improve the process and have shown innovation, including exploring and implementing AI and other technology to help make development applications more efficient. I support using technology to reduce repetitive work, identify missing information earlier and help applications move through the system faster.

However, technology alone won't solve every problem. I have met with developers who have told me that some applications have taken many months—and in certain cases more than a year—to work their way through the City's approval process. Some projects understandably require careful review, however, applicants need greater certainty, clearer timelines and an effective process for resolving outstanding issues. I also will encourage better communication between departments to reduce the chance of getting caught “in the system”.

Having experience working both in commercial banking and development, I understand that time is money. Every unnecessary month a housing project sits in the approval process adds financing, labour and carrying costs, which can ultimately affect project viability and housing costs.

I support reviewing the entire development approval process to identify duplication, unnecessary steps and bottlenecks, improve coordination between City departments and establish clearer timelines and accountability. Minor applications that comply with the Official Community Plan and existing zoning should be able to move through the system as predictably and efficiently as possible.

At the same time, streamlining the process should not mean eliminating the voice of residents, particularly when a significant development could substantially affect an established neighbourhood. I believe residents deserve a reasonable opportunity to understand what is being proposed, provide input and have legitimate concerns considered before major decisions are made. Most experienced developers understand the importance of having clear public consultation.

I support gentle densification and providing more housing choices within our existing neighbourhoods. That can include secondary suites, carriage homes, duplexes, townhomes and other forms of ground-oriented housing where they fit appropriately. We can increase housing supply while still respecting neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity and the people who already call those neighbourhoods home.

I also believe Council needs to be willing to review policies when market conditions change.

Some of Kelowna's rental housing incentives were introduced when our rental vacancy rate was extremely low and we urgently needed to stimulate purpose-built rental construction. Those policies served a purpose. However, circumstances have changed. Kelowna's reported rental vacancy rate increased from 3.8% in 2024 to 6.9% in 2025 to possible 8% or higher for 2026.

That raises a reasonable question: Are all of the incentives introduced during a rental shortage still necessary today?

For example, eligible purpose-built rental developments can receive a 10-year municipal property-tax exemption on the increased assessed value of the residential improvements. I understand why developers value that incentive—it can help a project financially “pencil out.” But taxpayers are also entitled to ask whether that subsidy remains necessary as market conditions change.

The same applies to parking. I understand reducing parking requirements in appropriate locations, particularly where there is good transit. However, I don't support applying reduced parking standards without considering the realities of the neighbourhood and the people who will actually live there. In most cases, a minimum of one staff per home is reasonable with the ability to request a variance and reduce a few stalls on a site specific application.

I support rental housing, but government shouldn't continue subsidizing one particular form of housing indefinitely simply because it was the appropriate response to yesterday's problem.

Government has an important role in establishing sensible land-use rules, providing infrastructure and protecting the public interest. But once those reasonable rules are established, we should increasingly get out of the way and allow the market to respond to what people actually want and can afford.

That includes creating more opportunities for attainable, ground-oriented housing—townhomes, row housing, duplexes and other family-friendly options that can provide a pathway to home ownership.

I don't believe government has a particularly good track record of picking winners and losers. Our responsibility should be to establish fair rules, remove unnecessary barriers, continually review whether incentives are still accomplishing their intended purpose, and allow builders and consumers to make their own decisions.

Good public policy shouldn't continue simply because it once made sense. When circumstances change, we should be prepared to review the policy and adapt. The goal should be to make timely decisions, reduce unnecessary costs and delays, preserve a meaningful voice for residents, and allow the market to build the housing Kelowna residents need, want and can afford. I know Investors and businesses need confidence that the rules will be clear, decisions will be responsible, and the direction of our city will be predictable. I understand how important that stability is to Kelowna’s economic future. If elected Mayor, I will work with Council, our business community and our partners to provide steady, responsible leadership that encourages investment, creates opportunity and strengthens our economy.

Yes. I would actively urge the federal and provincial governments to provide broader, temporary GST relief on new home sales in British Columbia, and I support the Urban Development Institute's campaign advocating for broader GST relief on new housing in B.C.

In 2025, the federal government introduced GST relief for eligible first-time homebuyers purchasing new homes. The measure provides a 100% GST rebate on new homes up to $1 million—worth up to $50,000—and phases out between $1 million and $1.5 million. The legislation received Royal Assent in 2026.

That was a positive step, but I believe there is an opportunity to go further.

UDI has been advocating for broader GST relief in British Columbia, including expanding the rebate beyond first-time buyers, and I support that initiative. Reducing the tax burden on new housing can help purchasers, move existing inventory, improve project viability and help get stalled housing construction moving again.

Ontario has demonstrated that provincial and federal governments can work together to provide additional tax relief on new housing. B.C.'s tax structure is different because we do not have the same provincial HST component on the purchase price of a new home, so we cannot simply duplicate Ontario's program.

However, that raises a reasonable question: Why hasn't the B.C. government worked with Ottawa and the housing industry to develop a comparable made-in-B.C. approach to broader GST relief for new home construction?

I also believe the Province needs to examine the cumulative cost of its own regulations and changes to the B.C. Building Code. Many of these requirements have legitimate objectives involving safety, energy efficiency and resilience, but we also need to understand what they add to the cost of constructing a home.

For example, the 2024 B.C. Building Code introduced a requirement that new residential buildings provide at least one living space designed not to exceed an indoor temperature of 26°C, which can require mechanical cooling or other design measures.

There may be sound reasons for such requirements, particularly given our increasingly hot summers. My concern is not with improving building safety or resilience. My concern is whether governments are adequately considering the cumulative cost of continually adding new requirements when housing affordability is already one of our greatest challenges.

Before introducing another regulation, tax, fee or building requirement, governments should be asking two questions:

What will this add to the cost of a new home, and is there a more affordable way to accomplish the same objective?

My approach to GST relief would be timely, temporary and targeted. I am not advocating for another permanent government subsidy. If market conditions are making projects uneconomical and construction is slowing, temporary tax relief can help purchasers, move inventory, get projects started and keep people working in our construction industry.

There is a broader principle involved. If governments say housing affordability is a priority, they also need to examine how their own taxes, fees, regulations, building standards and approval requirements contribute to the final cost of a home.

Every unnecessary dollar government adds to the cost of building or purchasing a home makes home ownership that much harder for the next generation.

As Mayor, I would work with UDI, CHBA and our local development and construction industries to advocate for broader GST relief and encourage both senior levels of government to review the cumulative costs their policies add to new housing.

If other provinces can work with Ottawa to find innovative ways to reduce the tax burden on new housing, British Columbia should be prepared to come to the table as well. Let's find a made-in-B.C. solution that helps get homes built, keeps people working and makes home ownership more attainable.

No. I don't believe City Hall should unnecessarily restrict housing choices or dictate what type of home people should live in. I also don't support government social engineering—using zoning, incentives or regulations to steer people toward a particular housing type or lifestyle that government has decided is best for them.

Government has an important role in responsible planning, infrastructure, public safety and protecting the public interest. But wherever reasonably possible, I prefer to give people choices and let the market work.

That's one reason I support reviewing Kelowna's Official Community Plan. Approximately 68% of our existing housing is ground-oriented, yet the OCP projects 65% of new housing through 2041 will be apartments. A lot can change over 20 years—interest rates, construction costs, immigration and population growth, consumer preferences, government policies and global economic conditions. An OCP should be a living document, flexible enough to respond.

We've also seen construction costs rise dramatically. Based on local industry information provided to me, concrete has increased by approximately 69% since 2017, making some concrete high-rise projects increasingly difficult to finance and build economically.

My campaign has consistently supported more attainable, ground-oriented housing—townhomes, row housing, duplexes and other family-friendly options—along with responsible gentle densification. High-rises and apartments have an important place too, but City Hall shouldn't try to determine which housing form must win.

I also support stronger protection for designated heritage homes and the form and character of neighbourhoods such as Abbott Street, while ensuring residents continue to have a meaningful voice in significant development decisions.

Success isn't simply how many units City Hall approves. It's whether we're helping create housing people can actually afford and choices that reflect how people actually want to live.

I want our UBCO and Okanagan College graduates to find good jobs, stay in Kelowna, raise families and still have the hope and dream of owning a home one day.

The OCP should guide the market, not dictate it. Set fair rules, protect what matters, remove unnecessary barriers and give builders and consumers the freedom and flexibility to respond to what Kelowna residents actually need, want and can afford.

Yes. Infill housing is an important part of Kelowna's housing solution. Secondary suites, carriage homes, duplexes, townhomes and other forms of gentle infill can provide additional housing while making better use of existing roads, utilities and community services.

But infill alone will not meet all of Kelowna's future housing needs, particularly the demand for attainable, ground-oriented homes for young families and established professionals.

That is why I have supported Council's work on the North Glenmore Sector Study, involving approximately 4,000 acres north of the existing developed area, between McKinley Landing and Highway 97 and extending toward Lake Country. Council unanimously initiated the accelerated study in 2025 and recently supported moving into the next stage of planning.

This is an excellent example of how we should plan for the future rather than simply reacting to growth after it occurs. Matter of fact we need to have the new council consider expediting the planning process.

The study is being undertaken with a group representing a majority of the private land ownership in the sector, with Placemark working alongside City staff and technical experts. It is examining housing, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, employment, parks and community facilities while identifying agricultural lands, environmentally sensitive areas, steep slopes and other lands that need protection.

The potential is significant. Depending on the long-term growth scenario, the study identifies approximately 7,000 to 16,000 new homes over a 30- to 50-year horizon. Most importantly, each scenario anticipates that the majority of those homes would be ground-oriented—including detached homes, multiplexes and townhomes.

Its proximity to UBC Okanagan, Kelowna International Airport and surrounding employment and industrial landsalso creates an opportunity to build complete communities closer to where thousands of people study and work.

I want our UBCO and Okanagan College graduates and young families to be able to stay in Kelowna, build careers, raise families and still have the hope and dream of owning a home one day.

That doesn't mean opening every undeveloped property to development. Environmental areas, agricultural lands, water availability, wildfire risk and infrastructure costs must all be respected. Growth also needs to pay its fair share of the infrastructure required to support it.

My approach is balanced: continue supporting appropriate infill while also carefully planning new areas that can provide the ground-oriented housing people want and can afford.

If we plan properly—with infrastructure at the time of development rather than 10 or 20 years later—we can increase housing choice without sacrificing the environmental and community assets that make Kelowna such a desirable place to live.

Yes. I support reviewing Kelowna's Growth Boundary and allowing new neighbourhoods on suitable lands beyond it—but only where a proposal can demonstrate that the land can be responsibly serviced, provide needed and attainable housing, protect important environmental and agricultural areas, and deliver a clear net benefit to the broader community. I do not support simply opening the Growth Boundary to development everywhere.

For me, affordability must be one of the tests for approving new growth. If we are going to consider opening new lands for development, there should be a clear public benefit—not simply more expensive housing that remains beyond the reach of working families.

I want to see more attainable, ground-oriented housing—townhomes, row housing, duplexes, smaller-lot homes and appropriately sized single-family homes. We should be asking a simple question when considering major new neighbourhoods: Will this help more Kelowna families afford a home?

I support infill and gentle densification, but infill alone cannot provide all the housing choices Kelowna will need. We need enough appropriately located land and housing choice to allow the market to respond to what people need, want and can realistically afford.

Any expansion beyond the current Growth Boundary must demonstrate that:

• Infrastructure is provided at the time of development, not 10, 20 or 25 years later.

• Growth pays its fair share of roads, water, sewer, fire protection and other infrastructure.

• There is an adequate long-term water supply.

• Environmental areas, agricultural lands and important natural assets are protected.

• Wildfire risk, emergency access and community resilience are properly addressed.

• Transportation impacts are realistically planned for.

• The financial impact makes sense for existing taxpayers and does not leave them with an unreasonable future infrastructure burden.

We also need to be candid with residents: Kelowna cannot afford to do everything at once. We will have to make some tough decisions about priorities. My goal would be to manage annual property-tax increases so they remain around the rate of inflation wherever reasonably possible, while continuing to fund essential services and the infrastructure our growing city requires.

That means distinguishing between needs and wants, reviewing spending carefully and ensuring new growth does not simply transfer its long-term infrastructure costs onto existing taxpayers. Housing affordability means little if families are simultaneously being priced out of their homes through continually rising taxes and municipal costs.

The North Glenmore Sector Study demonstrates why we should remain open to reviewing our long-term growth plans. It is examining the potential for thousands of additional homes while considering infrastructure, transportation, environmental, agricultural and servicing constraints.

A Growth Boundary is an important planning tool, but an OCP should be a living document—not something carved in stone. Moving the boundary should never be automatic or simply because a developer asks. It should occur when the evidence demonstrates responsible growth and a net benefit to the broader community.

My affordability commitment is clear: I will use every reasonable municipal tool to reduce unnecessary costs and barriers to homebuilding, expand the supply of attainable housing and protect taxpayers from unnecessary increases in the cost of local government.

I want young people who grow up here—and graduates from UBCO and Okanagan College—to have a realistic opportunity to build a career, raise a family and own a home in Kelowna rather than feeling they have to leave our community to achieve that dream.

My principle is straightforward: infrastructure first, protect what matters, make growth pay its fair share, keep property-tax increases around inflation wherever reasonably possible, and make home ownership attainable for the next generation.

Yes. Transparency, fairness and accountability are some of the main reasons I am running for Mayor, and I believe those same principles should apply to how we pay for growth.

I support the principle that growth should pay its fair share of the costs it creates, but “growth pays for growth” should not automatically mean that new homebuyers pay the overwhelming share of infrastructure that will benefit the entire community for generations.

DeHart Park is a good example. The City acquired the land nearly 25 years ago, when I was previously serving on Council. The park was finally completed recently, with Parks Development Cost Charges helping fund its development.

A community park benefits far more than just people purchasing new homes. That raises a legitimate question: if infrastructure provides a long-term benefit to the broader community, how much of its cost should reasonably be assigned to new growth and incorporated into the price of a new home?

This is one reason I am committed to an independent Core Review of City operations. I don't want another report that sits on a shelf. I want the review to produce measurable outcomes.

It should identify where taxpayers' money is being spent, where services can be delivered more efficiently, where duplication or unnecessary costs can be eliminated, whether City standards are providing good value, and where savings can be redirected toward higher priorities such as infrastructure and public safety.

It should also help Council make the difficult decisions necessary to manage property-tax increases around the rate of inflation wherever reasonably possible, while maintaining essential services.

As part of that broader review, I would invite representatives from UDI, CHBA, the construction industry and our local development community to work collaboratively with City staff and Council to review the assumptions, infrastructure standards and project costs used in calculating DCCs. For example, I would be willing to work with UDI and open up discussions regarding Park DCC’s. Before increasing a DCC, we should ask: Do we need this project? Is this the appropriate standard being applied? Can it be built more cost-effectively? Who benefits from it? And are we allocating those costs fairly?

This isn't about allowing developers to write the rules or asking existing taxpayers to subsidize new development. It's about bringing practical experience to the table, challenging assumptions and finding better value for everyone.

My Core Review would therefore have clear outcomes: lower unnecessary costs, more efficient City services, better value from capital projects, greater transparency in how decisions are made, more affordable housing costs where municipal policies can make a difference, and better control over property-tax increases.

My objective isn't to shift costs from one taxpayer to another. It is to determine the true cost, identify who benefits, establish reasonable standards and allocate costs fairly and transparently.

Growth should pay its fair share—but no more than its fair share.

That's the approach I would bring to City Hall: collaboration, transparency, fairness and accountability—with affordability for both new homebuyers and existing taxpayers always part of the equation.

Yes. As outlined in my earlier responses, housing construction and affordability should be priorities for the next Council—but housing, jobs and infrastructure are directly connected.

Kelowna already faces an estimated $600 million infrastructure deficit. We cannot continue approving growth while roads, water, sewer, transportation and other essential infrastructure fall further behind.

My principle is simple: infrastructure must keep pace with growth—not arrive 10, 20 or 25 years later.

Housing construction is also a major economic driver. When projects move forward, tradespeople work, suppliers sell materials, local businesses benefit and investment flows through the economy. When projects stall, those jobs and economic benefits are put at risk.

That concerns me. If construction activity continues to slow, we risk losing skilled tradespeople to other communities and provinces where opportunities are available. Once those workers leave, rebuilding that skilled workforce can be difficult.

Council cannot create every job, but it can create a better environment for investment. That means faster and more predictable approvals, reviewing unnecessary municipal costs and development standards, providing regulatory certainty, and investing strategically in infrastructure that unlocks private-sector housing and employment. One infrastructure blockage has been the issue around certainty of a long term power supply. I would invite UDI, CHBA and/or SICA to see if they would be interested in forming a working group with the City of Kelowna and Fortis to resolve the power grid constraints. We also need to diversify and create more well-paying careers by building on opportunities around UBC Okanagan, Okanagan College, YLW, aerospace, technology, health care and medical innovation, tourism and construction.

This is ultimately about affordability. Building more homes is only half the equation. People also need good jobs and sufficient incomes to afford them.

With our infrastructure deficit, Council will have to make tough choices, prioritize essential projects and manage property-tax increases around the rate of inflation wherever reasonably possible.

I want our graduates, young families, skilled tradespeople and entrepreneurs to see hope and opportunity in Kelowna—not feel they have to leave to find it somewhere else.

The objective is responsible growth: create good jobs, build attainable homes, retain our skilled workforce and put the infrastructure in place to support both

Housing construction and job creation will be top priorities for me in the next term.

Kelowna has made significant progress increasing housing supply, but changing market conditions, construction costs and financing challenges mean we need to adapt again. We need to make it easier to get viable projects to construction, reduce unnecessary costs and delays, and work directly with the development and construction industries to identify barriers.

This term, Kelowna accelerated housing approvals, introduced fast-track permitting, and significantly increased housing construction. The next step is making sure approved projects can actually get shovels in the ground.

For too long, Kelowna’s population growth outpaced investment in the infrastructure needed to support it. Major road projects were talked about for years without being advanced, while congestion and pressure on our infrastructure continued to grow.

One of my priorities as Mayor has been changing that approach. This Council accelerated investment in the roads, utilities, recreation facilities and other infrastructure a growing city needs. We created the Transportation Accelerator Program to move major projects forward sooner, and in 2026 alone the City is advancing 55 transportation projects with approximately $87 million invested in transportation and transit.

We are now advancing projects like the Clement Crosstown Connector, Glenmore Road widening, Burtch Road and Hollywood Road extensions, alongside major investments in recreation and the Kelowna International Airport.

I will continue that approach. Kelowna is going to keep growing, and we need to stay ahead of that growth by building the infrastructure that unlocks housing, attracts private investment, creates well-paying jobs and keeps our economy moving.

The cost of building new homes matters, and municipal government needs to respond when market conditions change.

This year, Council approved a temporary 25% reduction in Development Cost Charges for two years to help improve project viability and support new construction during a difficult period for the industry.

I support continuing to review municipal fees, charges and approval processes and working directly with the homebuilding industry to identify responsible ways to reduce costs and get more homes under construction.

Absolutely. Unnecessary red tape and delays make homes more expensive. Kelowna has already introduced a fast-track housing program and made accelerating approvals a priority. In the next term, I want to continue simplifying processes, expanding opportunities for faster approvals and using technology to make City Hall easier to navigate.

Our goal should be straightforward: good projects that meet our requirements should get to construction as quickly as possible.

I support advocating for the federal government to remove the GST from new home sales.

Housing affordability requires action from every level of government. Municipalities need to reduce the costs and barriers within our control, while the federal and provincial governments need to look seriously at the taxes and regulations that add to the cost of building and buying a new home.

City Hall should enable a broad range of housing choices rather than trying to dictate how every resident should live.

Kelowna needs apartments, condos, townhomes, multiplexes, rental housing and single family homes. Different neighbourhoods can accommodate different forms of growth, and our planning framework needs to respond to changing market conditions.

My focus is on creating more housing choice and ensuring our policies allow builders to deliver the kinds of homes people actually need and can afford from young families starting out to seniors looking to retire.

Kelowna needs to create more opportunities for homeownership, particularly for young families who want a family home and a place to put down roots.

That means we need to look at all appropriate options available to increase housing supply, including suitable undeveloped lands where they can be responsibly serviced and developed.

Not every site will be appropriate, and environmental, infrastructure and neighbourhood considerations still matter. But as Kelowna grows, we should be open to practical opportunities that can help deliver more family-oriented homes and expand homeownership options.

Any future expansion should be considered through the Official Community Plan process and only where the proper infrastructure can be put in place to support it, including roads, utilities and other services.

Residents and affected neighbourhoods need to have a meaningful opportunity to provide input before those decisions are made.

The Growth Boundary should be reviewed as Kelowna continues to grow, but any change needs to be carefully considered and demonstrated to be in the best interests of the broader community.

I support reviewing how growth-related infrastructure is funded to ensure the system is transparent, competitive and fair to both existing and future residents.

New development must contribute to the infrastructure it requires, but we should also recognize that major infrastructure often provides benefits across the entire community and supports broader economic growth.

Our DCC audit is an opportunity to examine those questions carefully. My objective is a system that supports infrastructure investment without unnecessarily increasing the cost of new housing or preventing viable projects from proceeding.

Absolutely. Housing and economic development were priorities for Council this term, and they will continue to be priorities for me over the next four years.

We accelerated housing approvals and increased housing supply, and we also established the Community Task Force on Economic Prosperity to bring local business leaders together and identify practical ways to attract investment, support businesses and create good-paying jobs. Economic Prosperity was also formally added as a Council priority during this term. Housing construction itself is an important economic driver. When we get homes under construction, we support jobs for tradespeople, contractors, engineers, suppliers and many other local businesses. At the same time, increasing housing supply helps make sure the people working in our community have places to live.

Over the next term, my focus will be on reducing barriers to construction, supporting investment and creating the conditions for more homes, more jobs and more opportunities for people to build their future in Kelowna.

The housing starts were very high in early 2025 because of poor planning which has resulted in an excess of housing which is now sitting empty. This isn't the construction industry's fault and I know unemployed construction workers. The only thing I think we need is the infill housing and the building of smaller homes to serve that housing need. Unfortunatley, it can't be a top priority for me and I feel bad about that.

That is a yes and no for me. We need well paying jobs and the PRC is being built and the Tolko site will be built so these are in the works and will provide a lot of jobs. Unfortunatley, I am not pro-growth at all costs but managed growth. What has happened in Kelowna has resulted in the peak and now the trough which is unfair to your industry. Community centres are important and if I get on council I will promote one for the Tolko site. The cultural centre will create a lot of jobs, as well.

Defintley!

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

This is urban spawal and infrastructure costs are very high for this kind of development. As well, building into the forested areas puts the new houses and residents at risk of forest fires.

I do not support going into the permanent growth boundary. It is there to protect sensiitive environmental areas and agricultural land. These natural areas will be important for you and your children "to get away from it all"and agricultural land represents present and future food security. As well, moving into these natural areas are exactly what we don't want because of the fire risk.

No explanation provided.

This is a yes and no question. Yes, we need to create jobs but right now we don't need a lot of housing construction. How about jobs installing heat pumps, geothermal heating, and solar panels on roofs related to existing buildings…and renovations and additionsmof existing buildings, recycling of constuction and demolition wastes.

Absolutely. After more than 30 years in the residential construction industry, I understand first-hand that housing is not only a social need, it is a major economic driver. We need to increase housing choice, improve the efficiency and predictability of approvals, address unnecessary costs, and ensure infrastructure keeps pace with growth. My experience locally, provincially and nationally has also taught me that municipalities need to work collaboratively with industry and senior governments to get housing built.

Yes, provided growth is well planned. I often say Kelowna does not have a growth problem, we have a planning problem. Infrastructure, housing, transportation and employment lands need to be planned together rather than reacting after growth occurs. Strategic investment in infrastructure creates jobs, attracts private investment and supports our economy, but every major investment should have a clearly defined need, cost, expected outcome and measure of success.

Yes. Every cost added to a new home affects affordability. One idea I am proposing is to explore amortizing DCCs over the expected life of the home, rather than front-loading the entire cost onto the original purchase price. Infrastructure serves a community for decades, yet today's homebuyer is expected to finance much of that cost on day one. I believe we should explore whether a long-term financing model could reduce the upfront cost of new housing while still ensuring growth pays its fair share of infrastructure.

Absolutely. Time is money in construction, and unnecessary delays ultimately increase the cost of housing. Streamlining does not mean lowering standards. It means clear requirements, predictable timelines, better coordination between departments and getting complete, compliant applications through the system efficiently. With more than 30 years working through permitting and construction processes, I understand both the municipal and industry sides of this issue.

Housing is a basic necessity, like food and water, and I believe governments at every level need to recognize it that way. We should be looking for ways to reduce the taxes, fees and regulatory costs embedded in the price of a new home. I would advocate to senior governments for measures, including removing the GST on new homes, that can meaningfully reduce the cost of housing for Canadians.

One of Kelowna's housing challenges is a lack of choice. Not everyone wants or needs to live in a high-rise or a multiplex. Families, seniors and young professionals have different housing needs at different stages of life. The City's role should be to plan for a diverse housing supply, including apartments, townhomes, ground-oriented homes and single-family homes, and allow the market to respond to what people actually want and can afford.

Good planning should create choices, not dictate lifestyles.

WHERE APPROPRIATE. Infill is an important part of our housing supply, but it cannot meet every housing need. I support considering suitable undeveloped lands for new housing, with a focus on creating complete communities rather than simply expanding subdivisions.

Where practical, these areas should include a mix of housing types, neighbourhood services, employment opportunities, parks and recreation, schools, and connections to transit and active transportation. If we expand, we should plan communities where people can meet more of their daily needs close to home, while ensuring infrastructure, environmental impacts and wildfire risk are properly addressed.

An OCP and Growth Boundary should guide good planning, but they should not prevent us from responding when circumstances change or a compelling opportunity emerges. I would consider expansion where housing is practical and attainable, infrastructure can be efficiently provided, and the proposal demonstrably benefits the broader community. Any expansion should be planned around the complete-community concept, not simply adding more residential subdivisions on the edge of the city.

I believe growth should contribute its fair share toward the infrastructure it requires, but we need to be much more transparent about what portion of new infrastructure serves new development and what portion benefits the existing community for decades.

We should also reconsider how those costs are financed.

I am proposing that we explore amortizing DCCs over the expected life of a home rather than front-loading the entire cost onto today's purchaser. The objective should be fair infrastructure funding without unnecessarily increasing the upfront cost of new housing.

Addressing affordability is not only about reducing the cost of housing. We also need to close the gap by attracting and creating opportunities in industries that provide higher-paying jobs. At the same time, we need a diverse housing supply that works for our existing workforce, growing families and higher-income earners coming to our community.

If we can create more career opportunities and more housing choices, particularly for young people, we give them a better chance to build their careers, own a home and build their future here in Kelowna.

We need more diverse housing in Kelowna, not just rental housing. Council's goal seems to be everyone in condos and only riding bikes. I'd like to see a better commercial/ residential mix that lets people work from where they live. Long term care also needs to be expanded.

Communities need to create opportunities for people to be successful. Busy people need to move around town quickly. The current transportation infrastructure is inadequate. I will support growth that encourages economic activity.

I would support reduced DCC's for builds that maximize a property's potential. We need more creative solutions to support housing needs in 2026 rather than 1956.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

Knee jerk reactions to short-term challenges only create long-term problems.

Kelowna has limited undeveloped lands but I do support building more ground-oriented homes wherever we can.

I would like to explore options to build beyond the current growth boundary while strongly considering the risk in the urban/forest interface that could leave these new neighbourhoods vulnerable. I feel like this question is attempting to push the City borders into Regional District lands, which would be misleading to those answering the question.

I'm willing to revisit this policy, but note that if an individual property wants to hook into the municipal sewer system, that choice comes with a direct cost because of the direct benefit for that property. It's a similar system for new development due to the direct benefit.

I support the economic possibilities posed by job creation across all industries by attracting employers in many strong sectors. Housing construction is one of those industries.

My first step is to look at what Kelowna households actually earn, map it, and lay the rental and ownership options over it. A household should spend about 30% of its income on housing. That shows us where the gaps are and which types of homes we are missing. From there we can give builders incentives to fill those gaps and work with the provincial and federal governments on more purpose-built rentals. I would also like to work with your members on lower-cost options, because builders know best how to deliver them. Housing starts and construction jobs are part of the same problem, and I will treat both as a top priority.

Yes. Growth only works when the infrastructure is ready first. Roads, water, sewer, the airport and community facilities need to be planned and built ahead of the projects that depend on them, not after. We are losing skilled trades because the work isn't steady. Kelowna needs to move past focusing only on high density and infill and open the door to building of all kinds. A well-diversified housing stock meets the city's needs today and in the future, and it keeps good-paying construction jobs here at home.

Yes. I have fought parks development cost charges since they were brought in. In 2019, as the President of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce,I held a press conference against them when the charge was $7,200 a door. I understand it is now about $15,000 a door. We do not need world-class parks. We need good parks and housing that people can actually afford. Not every project can be gold standard, and every added cost lands on the buyer or renter. We can build for all incomes. We can also build affordable homes in Kelowna if council has the courage to bring costs down.

Yes. Time is money in construction, and every month a project waits adds to the cost of the home and delays jobs. I often hear that Kelowna does well on building permits, and if that's true, let's prove it. I want a public dashboard that shows how long each type of permit and approval takes, how many are waiting, and where files get held up. Builders and residents should be able to see the same numbers council sees. Once we can measure it, we can fix the slow steps and set clear timelines with fewer resubmissions. I will listen to builders about where the process breaks down, because they live it every day.

Yes. We have to do everything in our power to get first-time buyers into homes. Removing the GST from new home sales is one of the most direct ways senior government can lower the price of a new home without adding a cent to local taxes. I will urge Ottawa to remove it for all buyers of new homes, and to look at bold help with down payments so young families can get their foot in the door. A new home also creates construction jobs here at home, so this helps buyers and the trades at the same time.

No. The 2040 OCP largely stopped new single-family neighbourhoods like Wilden or Black Mountain. That takes a whole type of home out of the mix. When supply of a home type stops growing while demand keeps rising, prices go up. City Hall should not be using zoning to decide how people of different ages and incomes ought to live. Our job is to plan the infrastructure, set clear rules and then get out of the way so builders can build the homes buyers want and can afford, from towers and multiplexes to ground-oriented family homes.

Yes. Infill alone will not meet the demand we have, and many young families and professionals want a ground-oriented home with a yard. We should open up suitable undeveloped land for new neighbourhoods while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, watercourses and farmland. New neighbourhoods need roads, water and sewer planned ahead of time, with costs shared fairly. When we add supply of the homes people actually want, we ease prices across the whole market. Kelowna needs a full range of housing, and ground-oriented homes are a big part of that.

Yes. A growth boundary should be a planning tool, not a wall. When the data shows we are short on attainable, ground-oriented homes and there is suitable land just beyond the line, the OCP should be updated to allow it. Every proposal should prove it makes sense. It needs to be practical to service with roads, water and sewer, attainable for the people we need to house, respectful of environmental areas and farmland, and clearly good for the wider community. If it meets that test, council should be willing to say yes.

Yes. New roads, water systems, parks and facilities serve the whole city, not just the people in the newest homes. When new buyers pay the full cost, it shows up in their home price and makes housing less attainable and harder to build. I will push for a full review of how our development cost charges are set, with costs split fairly between new development and the wider community based on who actually benefits. The numbers should be public so every taxpayer can see what they pay and why. That fits my long fight against parks charges, which have roughly doubled per door since 2019.

Yes. Construction jobs are good-paying jobs that support families right here in Kelowna. They are what literally grows our city: the homes we live in, the businesses we work in, and the places we play. With unemployment high and housing starts down, getting builders back to work has to be one of council's top priorities.

I support the homebuilding and contracting industry and encourage new home construction as well as to create good local jobs. Construction is an important part of our economy, and when housing starts decline, it affects much more than just the housing market.

However Kelowna needs to manage its growth responsibly. We need to make sure infrastructure, roads, utilities, schools and services are keeping pace with new development.

My priority would be to find the right balance — supporting housing and jobs while making sure we are building a Kelowna that can support that growth for future generations.

As stated before as long as we find the right balance with supporting housing and job creation, while making sure we are building a Kelowna that can support that growth over the long term.

I support looking for ways to reduce municipal fees and the cost of building new homes. We also need to look at the amount of red tape and the time involved in getting a project approved and started. Surveys, and other requirements add both time and cost for developers, and those costs ultimately get passed on to the homebuyer. We need to find ways to make the process more efficient without compromising responsible development.

No explanation provided.

At a time when affordability and inflation are affecting so many people, we should be looking for ways to reduce costs, not add them. Removing the GST on new home sales would help make home ownership more attainable.

I don't think City Hall should be forcing people into one type of housing. We need a range of housing options, including single family detached, ground-level, townhomes, multiplexes and higher-density housing where it makes sense.

I also think we need to pay attention to what the market is actually telling us. If a type of housing isn't financially viable, we need to look at why and whether our regulations are contributing to the problem. My goal would be to give people more housing choices, not fewer, while making sure growth is appropriate for the neighbourhood and the infrastructure supporting it.

Yes, but with conditions. I support creating more ground-oriented housing where appropriate, but not at the expense of agricultural land, important green space or environmentally sensitive areas. We also have to be strategic when dealing with hillside development where the costs of extending roads and utilities can create an unnecessary burden. We need to find a balance between providing housing choices and protecting the land and infrastructure that make Kelowna a great place to live.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

Job creation and balanced housing construction should be priorities for the new Council, but I don't believe they should automatically be considered the top priorities. The new Council will have many important issues to deal with, and I believe each one needs to be fairly evaluated. Housing and job creation are important, but so are affordability, safety, infrastructure and managing Kelowna's growth responsibly.

Absolutely, I will CONTINUE to champion initiatives that enable new home construction and make housing and job growth a top priority. I believe my record over the past several years on council demonstrates that commitment. Kelowna needs to continue creating housing choices for people in all stags of life, and ensure that growth is supported by the infrastructure, services, and employment opportunities our community needs. I will advocate for strong local economic growth that creates good jobs and allow people to stay in our community.

I have always actively supported a pro-growth agenda that strengthens our economy, creates good-paying jobs, and builds the infrastructure needed for a growing city. My record on council demonstrates that commitment as I have supported major investment in our airport, roads, water and utility systems, parks, and community facilities. I understand that infrastructure is not simply about buildings “things,” but it is also about creating the foundation for economic growth and attracting business, investment, and people to our community. For example, YLW now supports more than 9,200 jobs and generates more than $2M in economic output. I have also supported the redevelopment of Parkinson Rec Center, along with the three activity centres being built in unison. The City widened Glenmore Road from two lanes to four lanes, upgraded the GEID water trunk main with a second phase of $6.5M. I also recently voted to bring the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission to Kelowna from the Regional District of the Central Okanagan. This will give Kelowna more control on investment and economic growth, while helping the entire region.

I believe my record demonstrates that commitment. Just recently, Kelowna Council adopted a temporary 25% reduction in DCC’s for two years to help improve the viability of housing projects during a challenging construction and financing environment. I know that some would have liked to have the reduction at 50% but I will continue to look carefully at every cost we can control at the city level for responsible ways to reduce red tape, fees and unnecessary costs while maintaining the infrastructure and services we need in our growing city.

I believe Kelowna has done a good job of improving and modernizing our planning and development processes and I have supported all those efforts. In saying that, there is always room to look at where we can reduce red tape, improve efficiency and provide greater certainly for builders and investors.

Absolutely. Municipalities need to use their voice to advocate for measures that are within the jurisdiction of senior governments. I have activity advocated with senior levels of government for many years, particularly with the province and have built a strong working relationship with many ministers and provincial decision makers. I attended UBCM this past September and met with many ministers both formally and informally. I will continue to use those relationships for my voice at Council.

I believe the city’s planning policies need to respond to changing market conditions and the realities facing people today. I support ground-oriented homes because at this time, there is a strong demand for then, particularly for families, senior and people wanted to downsize into a “ground oriented” smaller type of housing. My husband and I are now living in a ground-oriented townhome and feel that many residents are looking for this exact type of housing. This type of housing gives a wide range of square footage also. The city’s policies cannot be based solely on what worked in the past. Developers and the city need to listen to the market and make adjustments. I feel my goal would be to provide more choice, not less.

I would be open to this where it makes planning and infrastructure sense and where environmental protections are in place and maintained. Of course, ALR land is ultimately governed by the province and the public and farmers are extremely sensitive to giving up ALR land because of food security and what we have been experiencing in Canada lately. Also, the Tourism Industry is extremely sensitive to giving up ALR land.

Yes, I feel that absolutely we need to look at the Permanent Growth Boundary as our city is fast growing. I have expressed this view in during my current term. Some of the Permanent Growth Boundary is now right in the middle of our city, which needs to be looked at.

I believe “the principle” that growth should help pay for the infrastructure required to support that growth is important. At the same time, I believe we have to make sure the system is fair, transparent (with the citizens) and does not unnecessarily make new housing more expensive or difficult to build. I would like to see clear information about what portion of an infrastructure project is required because of growth, what portion benefits the broader community and who is ultimately paying for it. We need to continue looking for opportunities to use higher levels of government funding, partnerships, and other financing tools. I am a huge fan of partnerships, when conducive. I support reviewing our DCC charges regularly to makes rue they are fair, competitive, and appropriate. We need to find the right balance.

Yes, people need somewhere to live but they also need good jobs and opportunities. We need businesses to grow, entrepreneurs to invest and young families to find housing they can afford. Housing and economic development should go hand in hand. A strong economy creates jobs. I know this is true as I have been in business in this community for many years, creating jobs to ensure people also have housing, and better yet, can actually afford to live here.

Housing construction and job growth need to be priorities for the next Council. I support a more predictable approval processes, removing unnecessary delays, and making it easier to build housing where infrastructure and services can support it. At the same time, growth has to be planned properly so infrastructure can keep pace.

I support investing in the infrastructure Kelowna needs to grow, including roads, water, utilities, community facilities and our airport. These investments create good local jobs, support existing businesses and help attract new investment. My focus would be on practical, well-planned projects that address our current infrastructure needs while preparing Kelowna for future growth without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers.

I would review municipal fees, simplify approvals and reducing avoidable delays that add to the cost of new housing. Growth must still contribute to the infrastructure it requires, so any reductions should be targeted and supported through senior-government funding, partnerships and long-term financial planning rather than shifting the cost on to taxpayers.

Yes. I support clear timelines, faster reviews for complete applications and better coordination between City departments. Kelowna should build on its AI-supported permit tools to reduce delays while keeping safety, infrastructure and final decisions with qualified professionals.

With new housing starts slowing and the market becoming stagnant, I would advocate for removing the GST from new home sales to reduce costs and encourage construction. Before supporting the final structure, I would want to understand the impact on federal revenues and ensure the savings are passed on to homebuyers.

We should use zoning to expand housing choices, not force residents into a limited set of housing types that may no longer reflect demand. I would support attainable, ground oriented options including townhomes, duplexes and smaller-lot homes alongside apartments and appropriate density where infrastructure, services and neighborhoods can support them.

We need to look at suitable undeveloped land for ground-oriented housing where infrastructure can support it. Environmental areas must be protected, and growth cannot leave existing taxpayers covering the full cost. Kelowna needs both sensible infill and well-planned new neighborhoods so families have more housing choices.

The growth boundary should be reviewed when there is clear evidence that suitable land can support housing. Any change must consider roads, water, sewer, power, emergency services, environmental protection and the full cost of growth. These decisions should be made through a transparent OCP review and must demonstrate a clear benefit to the community.

Growth should contribute to growth, but new homebuyers should not carry the full cost of infrastructure that benefits the entire city. I would review how those costs are divided and make sure residents can clearly see what they are paying for. We need a balanced approach using development charges, government funding, utility fees, taxes and responsible borrowing without placing an unfair cost on either new buyers or existing taxpayers.

Job creation and housing construction must be top priorities because they go hand in hand. Council must support practical housing construction, the infrastructure it requires and stable, well-paying jobs that support our economy and people can build their lives here.

Housing construction and job creation are closely connected. Kelowna needs housing that people who live and work here can realistically afford, including family-sized apartments, townhomes, multiplexes and ground-oriented housing.

Council cannot control interest rates, construction financing or the broader economy, but it can directly influence approval times, predictability, municipal charges, infrastructure readiness and the availability of appropriately zoned and serviced land.

I support identifying development-ready locations, making municipal decisions faster and more predictable, reducing unnecessary costs and delays, and measuring whether housing policies are actually resulting in homes being constructed rather than simply approved.

The objective should be straightforward: create the conditions in which viable housing projects can proceed and the construction jobs associated with them can be sustained.

Infrastructure is essential to support both existing residents and future economic growth, but investment should be disciplined rather than measured simply by how much government spends.

I support infrastructure investments that demonstrate a clear need, reasonable cost, available capacity and measurable economic or community benefit.

Particular attention should be given to transportation, water and wastewater capacity, the airport, employment lands, digital and utility infrastructure, and projects that enable housing and private-sector investment.

My approach is pro-growth and pro-investment while requiring major public expenditures to demonstrate value for taxpayers.

Growth without adequate infrastructure creates congestion, service pressures and future liabilities. Infrastructure without sufficient demand can burden taxpayers. Good municipal planning requires the two to proceed together.

Municipal charges are one component of the total cost of delivering housing, together with land, construction, financing, taxes, servicing and regulatory costs.

I support reviewing development charges, application fees and other municipal costs to determine what they actually cost to administer, what infrastructure they fund, how those costs are allocated and whether they unnecessarily prevent otherwise viable housing from proceeding.

Reductions or incentives should be targeted where they can reasonably be expected to improve project feasibility, increase housing supply or advance an identified public objective.

Where the public provides an incentive, reduced fee or other financial benefit, the City should also measure whether it actually resulted in construction and the intended housing outcome.

The objective should be lower unnecessary costs, greater transparency and more homes actually being built.

Predictability is nearly as important as speed. Time, uncertainty and conflicting requirements increase carrying costs, financing risk and ultimately the cost of housing and development.

I have proposed a Business and Investment Concierge to provide commercial, industrial and multi-family applicants with one accountable point of contact through City Hall.

For qualifying projects, a complete pre-application submission would receive a written Development Road Map within 15 business days, identifying required studies and reports, applicable fees, referrals, known infrastructure constraints, review stages, responsible decision-makers and target timelines.

The Concierge would coordinate across Planning, Engineering, Fire and other departments so applicants are not left to navigate conflicting or sequential requirements independently.

I also support:

• clearer submission requirements at the beginning of the process;

• concurrent departmental review where practical;

• risk-based processing for straightforward, professionally prepared applications;

• greater use of standardized requirements;

• defined responsibility for files within City Hall; and

• transparent public reporting of approval timelines.

This is not a proposal for a 15-day approval or special treatment. It is a proposal for disciplined coordination, clear expectations and accountability.

Faster and more predictable decisions should not mean weaker standards. Building, fire, engineering, environmental and public-safety requirements must continue to be met.

Housing taxation should be reviewed across all levels of government because taxes imposed during the creation and purchase of housing become part of the economics of delivering that housing.

The federal government has already introduced substantial GST relief for qualifying first-time purchasers of new homes. I support continued examination of broader GST relief where it can demonstrably improve new-home affordability and construction viability.

Any further measure should be designed carefully so that the benefit reaches homebuyers and housing production rather than simply being capitalized into higher land values.

Municipal Council does not control the GST, but it can advocate to senior governments while also addressing the taxes, fees, approvals and infrastructure policies within its own authority.

Municipal governments should also be prepared to examine their own contribution to housing costs before asking other levels of government to act.

I also recommend the review of British Columbia’s Property Transfer Tax that has evolved into a significant tax on housing mobility, particularly for principal-residence owners who may be moving for work, family, downsizing or changing housing needs. If elected, I would support a broader discussion with the Province, local government and the real estate, development and housing sectors on whether the PTT should be reduced or eliminated for qualifying principal residences and replaced with a fairer, more stable and economically neutral revenue source. Any reform should be evidence-based, fiscally responsible and designed to improve housing mobility without simply shifting the burden to another narrow group of taxpayers.

There should be a holistic review of all property taxation in BC including the annual Homeowners Grant for school taxes and property tax deferral programs also need review to ensure these program policies are still relevant, efficient and defensible from a fairness and equity test.

Given the significant land area zoned in the ALR and zoned Agriculture in Kelowna, we also need to review BC Assessment Authority's farm classification for farmers who actually make their living from farming versus "hobby farms" that produce the minimum $2,500 gross annual sales, up to 10 acres, to keep their annual property taxes lower while receiving public services and benefits. This passes on an unfair, higher proportion of the annual property tax burden onto homeowners and businesses in the community. The BC Assessment Authority must update all of their annual property assessment policies to reflect the true value of agricultural land allowing council to fully understand the total annual property tax benefits farmers receive compared to the other classes of taxable property in Kelowna.

Zoning has a legitimate role in managing land use, infrastructure, servicing, environmental constraints, safety and neighbourhood compatibility. It should not, however, be used to prescribe how people of different ages, incomes and household types are expected to live or to artificially favour one form of housing over another.

Kelowna needs a broader range of housing choices, including apartments, townhomes, multiplexes, ground-oriented homes, co-operative and non-market housing, and conventional family housing where infrastructure and land conditions support them.

We also need to distinguish between approving density and actually meeting housing needs. Recent development demonstrates the risk of allowing financing structures, investor-oriented condominium presales or government-supported rental programs to become proxies for genuine market demand. Kelowna has recently experienced higher rental vacancy, incentives to attract tenants and elevated inventories of unsold new condominiums. That does not mean apartments or rentals are unnecessary. It means that housing policy must respond more carefully to what residents actually need, can afford and are prepared to occupy.

Going forward, planning should be informed by demonstrated demand by tenure, unit size, household type and price point, together with infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and economic feasibility. A project that is theoretically permitted but cannot be financed, sold, rented or affordably occupied is not, by itself, a housing-policy success.

The objective should be neither to mandate detached housing nor to mandate density. It should be to create enough flexibility for the market, non-profit sector and housing providers to deliver an appropriate range of homes as the needs of families, seniors, workers and younger residents change over time.

Where land can be responsibly serviced and developed, I support considering additional opportunities for ground-oriented housing.

That decision should be based on evidence rather than a blanket policy.

The analysis should include:

• water and wastewater capacity;

• roads and transportation;

• wildfire and evacuation risk;

• environmental constraints;

• agricultural land considerations;

• schools and community services;

• infrastructure costs; and

• the long-term tax implications of servicing the area.

Ground-oriented housing remains an important part of the housing continuum, especially for families.

Kelowna should not unnecessarily restrict it where development can be environmentally responsible, economically viable and supported by infrastructure.

At the same time, outward development that creates disproportionately high servicing or infrastructure costs should be evaluated carefully so those costs are understood before approvals are granted.

A growth boundary should be a planning tool, not an assumption that can never be reconsidered.

I would support reviewing potential expansion areas where there is demonstrated housing need and where development is practical after considering infrastructure costs, water availability, transportation, wildfire and evacuation risk, environmental and agricultural considerations, servicing efficiency and long-term municipal costs.

I would not support indiscriminate outward expansion.

Nor would I rule out appropriate land simply because it falls outside a boundary established under different market, population or infrastructure assumptions.

The test should be whether an area can accommodate needed housing efficiently and whether development produces a demonstrable net benefit for the broader community.

Planning boundaries should be reviewed using evidence and updated where circumstances have materially changed.

I support revisiting the “growth pays for growth” principle to ensure that infrastructure costs are allocated transparently and fairly, including to the new residents who ultimately help pay those costs.

Development Cost Charges are collected from developers, but that does not mean developers necessarily bear the final economic burden. Economically, the buyer or renter often bears much of it, but incidence varies with market conditions. CMHC research has found that development charges are commonly passed through into new-home prices and rents, particularly in stronger markets. In weaker markets, some of the burden may instead be absorbed through lower land values, reduced developer margins or projects that no longer proceed.

The question should therefore not simply be whether “developers” or existing taxpayers should pay. It should be: who creates the infrastructure requirement, who benefits from the infrastructure, and who ultimately bears the cost?

Not every infrastructure project attributed to growth benefits only new development. Roads, utilities, parks, fire protection, transportation improvements and system upgrades can also improve capacity, resilience and service levels for existing residents and businesses. Conversely, existing taxpayers should not be expected to fund infrastructure costs generated primarily by a particular development.

I would support transparent disclosure of:

the total infrastructure cost;

the portion attributable to new growth;

the portion providing benefits to the existing community;

municipal, provincial and federal contributions;

the amount recovered through DCCs and other development charges;

the estimated charge per new dwelling; and

the likely effect of those charges on housing prices, rents and project feasibility.

The appropriate principle is fair allocation based on causation and benefit, not an automatic assumption that every cost associated with growth should be loaded onto new development.

New residents are also future property taxpayers, utility customers, workers, consumers and business owners. They will contribute to municipal revenues for decades after purchasing or renting their homes.

A fair system should recognize both sides of that equation: growth should contribute appropriately to the infrastructure it requires, but new households should not be asked to pay disproportionately for infrastructure that also replaces aging assets, corrects existing deficiencies or provides substantial benefits to the broader community.

Housing and employment are fundamental to Kelowna's long-term economic and social sustainability.

People need appropriate and attainable housing options near employment, and employers need a desirable community where employees can afford to live, work and play.

Construction is one of the Central Okanagan's major economic sectors and its impact extends well beyond the construction site. Investment supports trades, suppliers, professional services, transportation, equipment, finance and household spending. Because Kelowna functions as the principal commercial and service centre for much of the Southern Interior, it also captures economic activity from construction and investment occurring elsewhere in the region.

I support a four-year Jobs and Investment Strategy with measurable targets, greater certainty for housing and business investment, development-ready employment lands and transparent reporting of:

• housing starts and completions;

• approval and permitting times;

• employment and labour-market conditions;

• business and private-sector investment; and

• infrastructure capacity.

Council cannot control the entire economy in terms of interest rates, trade disputes and tariffs, immigration, provincial and federal tax policies, etc.

It should, however, be accountable for the decisions within municipal jurisdiction that either enable or impede investment, housing construction and job creation.

Economic growth, housing supply and municipal fiscal sustainability are interconnected. A growing tax base supported by productive private investment provides the strongest long-term foundation for maintaining public services without placing an unreasonable burden on existing taxpayers.

Housing and job creation need to be priorities for the next Council. The numbers are concerning.

If elected, I will support initiatives that help get well-planned housing built. That means looking for ways to streamline approvals, provide greater certainty and clear timelines, reduce unnecessary barriers, and work collaboratively with the homebuilding and construction sectors.

At the same time, growth must be responsible. New housing needs to be supported by transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, parks, schools and other community services. We need a range of housing options that people at different stages of life can afford.

Building homes also means creating jobs and strengthening our local economy. I want Kelowna to be a community where our young people can find good jobs, afford a home, and build their futures here.

Strategic investment in infrastructure is essential to a growing city and a strong local economy. As Kelowna grows, we need to ensure that roads, water and wastewater systems, transportation, parks, recreation facilities and other critical infrastructure keep pace.

I support a pro-growth approach that is responsible, financially sustainable and supported by good planning. Municipal investment can create well-paying jobs, support local businesses, attract private investment and help unlock new housing and economic opportunities.

My experience on the Board of Education has taught me the importance of long-term capital planning and advocating for infrastructure before growth overwhelms existing capacity. I would bring that same approach to City Council—planning ahead, working with other levels of government to secure our fair share of infrastructure funding, and ensuring taxpayers receive value for every dollar invested.

Growth and infrastructure must go hand in hand. We should be building not only for Kelowna today, but for the community our children and grandchildren will inherit.

I support reviewing municipal fees, Development Cost Charges and approval processes to identify where we can responsibly reduce the cost of building new homes without shifting an unreasonable burden onto existing taxpayers. Kelowna has already introduced a temporary 25% reduction in DCC rates through September 2028 in response to challenging construction conditions. I believe Council should closely monitor whether measures like this actually result in projects moving forward and more housing being built.

At the same time, growth requires roads, water, sewer, parks and other infrastructure, and those costs cannot simply disappear. We need to find the right balance.

I would support examining every municipal cost and regulatory requirement through a housing-affordability lens, streamlining approvals and reducing unnecessary delays. The goal should be straightforward: make it easier and less expensive to build the homes Kelowna needs while ensuring growth pays a fair share of the infrastructure required to support it.

I support initiatives that streamline planning approvals, reduce unnecessary delays and help housing and related projects get under construction sooner.

Time is money in construction. Lengthy or unpredictable approval processes increase financing and development costs, which can ultimately contribute to higher housing prices. The City should provide clear requirements, predictable timelines and efficient decision-making while maintaining appropriate standards and meaningful public consultation.

I would support reviewing approval processes to identify duplication and unnecessary red tape, expanding opportunities for administrative approvals where appropriate, and ensuring City departments coordinate effectively so applicants are not navigating conflicting requirements.

Streamlining does not mean lowering standards. It means making the process clearer, faster and more predictable.

Kelowna needs housing, construction jobs and investment. I want the City to be a constructive partner in getting well-planned projects from application to construction while ensuring responsible growth and the infrastructure our community needs.

I support advocating to senior levels of government for further GST relief on new housing.

The federal government has already taken an important step by providing eligible first-time home buyers with a rebate of up to 100% of the GST on new homes valued at $1 million or less, with the rebate gradually reduced between $1 million and $1.5 million. I support that measure, but I believe there is an opportunity to examine broader GST relief for new housing.

When housing affordability is one of the greatest challenges facing our community, governments at every level should be looking at what they can do to reduce the cost of delivering new homes.

As a Councillor, I would advocate with senior governments for measures that reduce the tax burden on new housing, encourage construction and increase supply. I have seen through my 15 years as a School Trustee that persistent, collaborative advocacy with other levels of government can make a difference.

Housing affordability cannot be solved by municipalities alone. We need all levels of government working together to make it less expensive to build – and ultimately buy or rent – a home in Kelowna.

I do not believe City Hall should use zoning to force people into a particular type of housing or lifestyle. Our role should be to create the conditions for a diverse range of housing choices that reflect the needs of residents at different ages, incomes and stages of life.

Kelowna needs apartments and condominiums, but we also need townhomes, duplexes, multiplexes, ground-oriented homes and other attainable options for families, seniors and young people who want to remain in our community.

Housing policy also needs to respond to changing economic conditions. If certain forms of development are no longer financially viable, Council should be willing to examine the evidence, listen to residents and the building sector, and adjust policies where appropriate rather than rigidly adhering to approaches that are not producing the housing we need.

At the same time, zoning decisions must consider infrastructure, transportation, neighbourhood impacts, environmental considerations and long-term growth.

I support more housing choice—not less. My goal would be a flexible, evidence-based approach that allows the market to respond to what people need while ensuring growth is responsible and supported by the infrastructure and services that make Kelowna a great place to live.

Where it can be done responsibly. I support considering appropriate undeveloped lands for new housing, including ground-oriented homes, provided environmentally sensitive areas are protected and the necessary infrastructure and services can support the growth.

Kelowna needs a diverse housing supply. Not every family wants—or can make an apartment or high-rise condominium work for them. Young families, professionals and seniors should have choices that include townhomes, duplexes, smaller-lot homes and other ground-oriented options.

At the same time, expanding development cannot occur without considering water availability, transportation, wildfire risk, servicing costs, agricultural lands and the protection of important natural areas. Growth also needs to be financially sustainable so existing taxpayers are not left carrying an unreasonable share of the cost.

I would support identifying areas where responsible development can occur and working with the building community to determine what types of housing are economically viable.

Housing policy should provide more choices for people, while balancing affordability, responsible growth, infrastructure capacity and environmental stewardship.

Where the evidence demonstrates that it is in Kelowna’s long-term best interests. I would support reviewing and updating the Official Community Plan when appropriate to consider suitable locations beyond the current Growth Boundary for new neighbourhoods.

A growth boundary should guide responsible planning, but it should not prevent Council from responding to changing housing needs, market conditions and opportunities. If appropriate lands can accommodate attainable, ground-oriented housing that families are seeking, I believe those opportunities deserve serious consideration.

Any expansion, however, must be evaluated carefully. I would want to understand the costs of extending roads, water, sewer and other services; transportation impacts; wildfire risk; water availability; environmental protection; and whether development would place additional costs on existing taxpayers.

I would also expect meaningful public consultation before significant changes to the OCP.

Kelowna needs more housing choices. I support a flexible, evidence-based approach to growth that considers new neighbourhoods where development is practical, financially sustainable, environmentally responsible and demonstrably beneficial to the broader community.

I support revisiting how the principle of “growth pays for growth” is applied to ensure it is transparent, equitable and does not unnecessarily contribute to housing unaffordability.

New development should pay a fair share of the infrastructure required because of that growth. However, when new infrastructure also replaces aging assets, increases capacity for existing neighbourhoods or provides significant community-wide benefits, I believe it is reasonable to examine whether the entire cost should be attributed to new development and ultimately new homebuyers.

The key is determining who benefits and who should reasonably pay. That requires transparent calculations, clear evidence and an appropriate balance among development contributions, the existing tax base and funding from senior governments.

As Councillor, I would support regularly reviewing Development Cost Charges and other growth-related costs to ensure they reflect actual infrastructure needs and do not create unnecessary barriers to building homes.

We need the infrastructure to support a growing city, but we also need homes people can afford. Growth should pay its fair share of growth—not automatically bear the cost of infrastructure that provides broader benefits to the entire community.

Job creation and housing construction should be among the top priorities of the next Council.

Kelowna needs a strong economy where people can find good jobs and afford to live in the community where they work. Housing and economic development are closely connected: building homes creates employment, supports local businesses and trades, attracts investment, and helps employers recruit and retain workers.

Council can help by creating a competitive environment for investment, streamlining approvals, reducing unnecessary delays and costs, investing responsibly in infrastructure, and ensuring there is a diverse supply of housing for people at different incomes and stages of life.

My background includes 30 years in business-to-business sales, along with 15 years of elected governance experience overseeing significant budgets, capital planning and long-term growth. I would bring both perspectives to City Hall.

We need Kelowna to be a city where businesses can invest, people can find meaningful work, and young people and families can afford to build their future.

Our infrastructure isn't ready yer

If road ways are created and water / sewer plant upgraded then yes I'm on board

Intill our infrastructure is up to par. There won't be any deals

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

Rules don't change

Same rules for everyone

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

Yes. I believe increasing housing supply and expanding attainable housing options must be a priority for the next Council term. We need more homes that meet the needs of families, first-time buyers, and working people, including smaller homes, duplexes, and townhomes. Council should work with builders and developers to identify unnecessary costs, delays, and regulatory barriers that make construction more difficult and expensive. We also need to ensure infrastructure and community planning keep pace with growth. Supporting responsible new home construction is not only essential to improving affordability, but also to supporting local businesses, protecting construction jobs, and strengthening Kelowna’s economy.

Yes, I support growth, but it needs to be the right growth for Kelowna. We need to build communities that have the infrastructure, services, and transportation capacity to support them. That means encouraging investment while also addressing the gaps in our housing market, particularly attainable options for families, first-time buyers, and working people. I want to see responsible development that creates good local jobs, strengthens our economy, and provides opportunities for people to live and work in Kelowna. Growth should be planned, practical, and aligned with the needs of our community.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No. I believe people should have a range of housing options that are affordable, economical, and attainable for different ages, incomes, and stages of life. Zoning should not be used as a tool to manipulate markets or unnecessarily restrict growth. Our focus should be on filling the gaps in the housing market and giving more people the opportunity to call the Okanagan home. At the same time, growth needs to be planned responsibly and supported by the infrastructure and services our communities require. We should build the right housing, in the right places, while maintaining livable communities.

Yes. I want to see communities, neighbourhoods, families, and people putting down roots and building their lives here in Kelowna. Where appropriate, I support permitting currently undeveloped lands for ground-oriented housing, while respecting environmental areas and planning for the infrastructure needed to support growth. We need to recognize that infill alone will not meet every housing need. Young families and established professionals should have access to attainable housing options that fit their needs. Growth should be thoughtful and responsible, creating complete communities where people can afford to live, work, and put down long-term roots.

No explanation provided.

Fiscal responsibility and transparency around policies like “growth pays for growth” are important and need to be part of the discussion around planning, growth, and development. We should understand who is paying, who benefits, and whether costs are fairly distributed. I would support reviewing these policies to ensure they are transparent, accountable, and reasonable for taxpayers.

Yes. Job creation and housing construction should be priorities for the next Council. Tourism and major development are important parts of Kelowna’s economy, but we need a deeper bench of economic drivers to create more diverse, stable, and well-paying employment opportunities. Increasing housing construction can help address affordability while supporting thousands of local jobs and businesses. I want to see Kelowna continue to attract investment, support local businesses, and create opportunities for people to build careers and families here. A stronger, more diverse economy will help ensure Kelowna remains a place where people can afford to live, work, and put down roots.

Absolutely. I am undoubtedly the most YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) and abundance-focused candidate in the race, and someone who has been diligent in raising concerns about Kelowna's unemployment rate. I have spoken in favour of controversial projects at public hearings, and sent letters to the Province and Council asking them both to do more on these important topics. While unemployment is high overall, it is particularly high for youth under 30. As the youngest candidate in the race, at 29, this has affected my friend group and my volunteers, some of whom have moved away to find work during the campaign.

My Housing and Planning page (https://www.kyleforkelowna.ca/housing-and-planning.html) as well as my Jobs and Economy page (https://www.kyleforkelowna.ca/jobs-and-the-economy.html) highlight that I feel Kelowna's economy must be managed to improve competition in order to attract investment and job creation, as well as private-sector construction in housing, commercial, and industrial spaces in order to bring down market-rate costs and rents through lower construction fees and higher rental vacancy rates.

In short, on initiatives that increase our commercial employment base or residential investment, on initiatives like zoning reforms to lower the cost of construction or provide more options for renters and buyers, and on Provincial lobbying, for everything from ending the current elevator cartel, to a new municipal infrastructure funding model, to alternate municipal income sources beyond infrastructure, I stand willing and able to champion these causes.

As a co-founder of the local Strong Towns chapter that has argued for many of these changes, as someone who was a national finalist in the Hunter Prize for Housing Policy in 2024, judged by housing economists like Mike Moffat, and as someone who has moderated an economics panel at SFU on housing & tax competitiveness, I feel qualified to do my part to improve affordability on Kelowna City Council.

Yes. Cities are about the people who call a city home. By freezing a city in amber, it’s not like nothing changes. The houses may stay the same, or they're replaced by equally zoned, more expensive new houses. But as demand increases, supply remains fixed, and prices soar. Service workers, young professionals, teachers, nurses, and grocery store clerks will either choose a more affordable city to call home, or be forced to drive further and waste more of their lives coming in from West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country or further.

There are examples of infrastructure investment and planning failures that are not in local control, like the ongoing issues with FortisBC, but when it comes to supporting capital projects like intersection improvements (with roundabouts), complete streets including sidewalks, curbs, safe bike routes, and street trees in core area neighbourhoods, the new transit yard and signal priority technology on frequent transit routes, sports and recreation facilities, and the underground utilities, such as water, sewer, etc, I will be very supportive of capital investment. Kelowna grew significantly, and I don’t want a genuine lack of infrastructure to drive up the cost of living for our residents by forcing some people to live further from their jobs, schools, or families.

As far as I am aware, I am the only candidate who has specifically proposed a DCC cut in a Castanet debate, the only candidate who has proposed a DCC reduction plan through bonded infrastructure financing and the elimination (in the meantime) of the Park Improvement DCC, a full review of unfunded mandates, including zoning, engineering requirements, bylaws, and design standards, along with lobbying for split-rate property tax reform to cut costs on property improvements as supported by organizations like the Niskanen Centre, Sightline Institute, and Common Wealth Canada. I will absolutely support such measures that are within local mandate, lobbying to higher levels of government, and will work to bring notices of motion on the subject to city council chambers.

We also need to be mindful that regulations like minimum lot sizes, side-yard setbacks, and other measures have killed the 900-1200 square foot (attached or detached) starter house. While still modifying requirements to grow Kelowna’s urban tree canopy to 30% by 2050, I would like to pursue significant changes to the zoning bylaw to re-legalize these sorts of starter homes and similar “Streetcar suburb” attached townhome suburban development models.

Yes. I think the City of Kelowna needs to look at permitting reform and delegation, as well as lessons learned from the fast-track 4plex permitting that could be scaled to other areas.

Regulatory risk kills investment. We need simple, clear, and predictable zoning bylaws that maintain quality of life for residents while providing approval certainty for those who follow the bylaws. A rules-based system so that we know what works, what doesn’t and what should or shouldn't be allowed. At the doors, I hear a lot of frustration from residents about variances, and I think there is a parallel course that works better through a more permissive yet strictly enforced permitting structure.

Yes. No question. I would like to see a lobbying resolution passed within the first 100 days.

My philosophy on zoning is improving and expanding private property rights, not reducing them. On a per-lot or neighbourhood level, I am not in favour of minimum densities. Upzoning is a function of allowing more property rights, not removing them. For example, anyone who wants to live in a house should do so. Upzoning does not take away any rights of ownership.

Cities are forced to use blunt instruments like zoning and OCPs when they have no control over downstream impacts, like traffic from far-flung suburban developments up hillsides in the upper mission, increased forest fire (and evacuation risk) from those developments, and patterns that we see in south east kelowna, where densities are so low that the despite the property taxes paid, the development is a sink on city finances, year after year. We see that in Urban3 property tax modelling software.

I don't think we need to force any lifestyles on anyone, ideally, people with sort themselves into the housing that works best for them if we make sure they are free to do so, while managing the externalities through planning.Within reason, I will be siding with increasing property rights, everywhere where it makes sense to live without imposing significant costs or risks on the City of Kelowna.

I am supportive of construction in North Glenmore. I am not supportive of development in the Thompson Flats, or of the removal of ALR lands for housing development.

Yes, this is why I am supportive of the North Glenmore Sector Study.

Yes. I believe in the beneficiary-pay model, not the growth-pay model. That is why I am focused on lobbying for a new municipal financing models for infrastructure along with more income sources for municipalities as property tax alternates, including split-rate property tax systems. The current ACC/DCC system is beyond broken.

My hope is that there are three priorities for the next council, not seven.

Strong Economy

Quality of Life

Public Safely

I am confident that housing affordability and lowering unemployment are fully covered in the first two buckets.

As you will note from answers to the previous question, housing & jobs growth are second only to addressing homelessness! And I'm glad you saying 'housing & jobs growth' because as we just found out, we need more than just housing to fuel our economy – tourism (incl Agri, Sports, etc) is up there, as is Clean Tech (incl Innovation, Vertical farms, aviation, FireSwarm drones, ZE tram-trains, etc) – with UBCO able to 'fuel' much of this! All that to say a diverse economy is a more resilient economy that can protect why we love Kelowna – our Lake, Mountains, food security, natural environment. We need to start coining the phrase that "In Kelowna, Nature IS our Business". We take care of Nature, it will take care of us.

Using a "Nature is our Business" approach makes this a no brainer. On City Council, our staff regularly start all water-related reports to us with the phrase "Water is life" – I couldn't agree more, and, it links directly to our Indigenous forefathers on whose land we live, work, and play. We need to grow in harmony with our land, water, air, flora & fauna – we have the expert scientists & engineers trained at one of the worlds top universities in our own back yard. Growth is inevitable, that is common sense, but lets grow smarter, using all the tools in our toolbox, not old outdated practises that have caused the wildfires, drought, & climate change problems we face now. We need ot build thinking about our kids not just ourselves, to seven generations ahead, like our Siylx Okanagan Nation hosts do.

Lets decrease on-site parking requirements (10% savings right there) while increasing transit and bicycling and walking alternatives so folks don't need to always drive everywhere.

Let require all new and existing homes to install full step code – zero carbon, net zero (which increases up front costs that can be mortgaged over 30 years) – to reduce operating costs by 80% to 100% and saving the homebuyer and/or renter at least 10% to 50% more of their costs! BTW, I designed & built the Valley's first Net Zero carriage house; those up front costs are now paid off, and I am enjoying $0/month energy bills! Happy to meet/chat more.

I also as an incumbent member of Council, also supported a 2 year 25% reduction in DCCs.

Kelowna is a provincial and national leader in this regard already. Our on-line digitial submission platform, with pre-approved designs, are so effective that developers are now having to wait for trades to show up!

GST of course (like DCCs) is a way to pay for government services, the value of which is debatable at times, but which in general support our Canadian way of life. I am happy to push for the Provincial and Federal governments to at least temporarily suspend GST, while a study is done to explore what can be done in lieu of GST on a permanent basis.

According to extensive community consutation (e.g. Imagine Kelowna), within our current Permanent Growth Boundary, there is more than enough land to provide the full spectrum of housing types up to and beyond OCP 2040. Council just took a look at the North Glenmore Sector Plan for possible expansion beyond 2040. What that might look like was discussed in that report, including ground-oriented homes. Within the PGB, I am also open to looking at ground-oriented homes in any area. I prefer to let the market demand drive where and what type of development is built, so long as it fits within the existing neighbourhood character and has the support of existing residents. I do not support development at all costs; I do support development that supports approved Kelowna priorities and fits well.

So long as its within the PGB that was set by Luke Stack, Charlie Hodge and the rest of the 2018/2022 Council as part of OCP 2040. It was based on extensive public consultation. We must respect that until at least the next OCP update and more citizen input.

I can't say yes or no, this is the most complex question you asking; it would be dis-respectful to give a glib yes (or no). I can say that I will bring my sustainable development engineering expertise to the table as Council conducts its review, ensuring that we protect our environment, our food security, our livability, our economy, our future generations ability to thrive – so that future Kelowna is loved as much as we love it now. Again, money is not all there is. Development at all costs is not the goal here; in my mind, smarter growth will allow BOTH a strong, resilient economy, and, housing for all in a sustainable environment.

We just discussed this at Council. Thats why we push to avoid sprawl, which is the most expensive development to service, and creates the highest DCC charges! I would like to see any new development areas (e.g. North Glenmore) clumped around Glenmore Road, which is the cheapest trunk service route and lowest DCCs and taxes. There is only one taxpayer. They will pay both taxes and (indirectly) DCCs, so it is in everyone's interest to KEEP DCCs LOW BY AVOINDING SPRAWL!!!

See my answer above to essentially the same question. One of the top priorities for sure (it was 'housing & related job growth'), we all need somewhere to live, even if we are in a temporary oversupply situation. But we need to diversify our job sectors to future-proof our economy against changing economic (& climate impact) headwinds!

Careers in construction are some of the best gainful employment opportunities available to Kelowna residents, and downturns here have a profound impact on not just our local economy but human lives of the people thrown out of work. I support initiatives to promote stability in our construction industry to minimize the boom-bust cycle we find ourselves dealing with when market conditions change on a dime, as they have now at least partly as a result of unpredictable tariffing blowing up construction costs.

Robust, well-maintained infrastructure is the strata upon which the community is built. Investment here is some of the the smartest we can be making as a city in the interest of both economic activity and resident quality of life.

I support a thorough review of existing permitting fees that are currently hindering homebuilding, especially those impacting gentle density such as the construction of carriage homes.

Absolutely. Time costs money, and reducing delays wherever sensible is smart. An expanded selection of pre-approved development plans, and accelerated approvals offered as incentive for delivering on certain housing criteria, are initiatives I support.

Yes. This is a relatively simple means of making home ownership more attainable.

This is more like a maybe than a yes/no. It is important that we be delivering homes and housing that is most in-demand by Kelowna residents and those wishing to relocate here, both in form and in budget. Rather than viewing zoning as a restrictive force imposing lifestyle choices, it should ideally be encouraging the construction of housing that is genuinely in demand. Especially for residents struggling to afford suitable housing for the needs of their household, whether it's family size, accessibility, nearness to services, etc., the glut of unoccupied microsuites and 1-bedroom apartments/condos we find ourselves with in Kelowna for which high density zoning and incentives around purpose-built rentals have encouraged the construction of are clearly at a mismatch with where demand in the housing market is.

I recognize that we have underutilized parcels in the ALR bordering developed areas of the city that are unlikely to be used as highly productive farmland going forward. I see value here in selectively seeking to remove currently unproductive parcels from the ALR with the intent to pursue residential and mixed-use development on these lands, with an emphasis on attainable ground-accessible housing options.

This is more of a conditional no, as the proposed expansion of the Permanent Growth Boundary into Duck Mountain would mean potentially devastating consequences for existing wildlife corridors, and for the sake of managing infrastructure costs of a growing city that is already struggling to keep up with asset renewal and routine maintenance, limiting sprawl wherever possible is the sensible choice. I am not against reevaluating the Permanent Growth Boundary, but any expansion needs to be taken very seriously with all impacts carefully considered. With worsening traffic congestion being contributed to by necessity of personal vehicle commutes from many more isolated neighbourhoods as it is, transportation to-and-from any even more remote neighbourhoods outside the current Permanent Growth Boundary should, for instance, include some consideration of public transit to ensure livability and minimized impact on traffic patterns.

Yes, and I support lobbying of the province to restore municipal authority over tax reform with the intent of seeking a more progressive form of property tax or a land-value tax which, if properly implemented, would shift tax burden away from many first-time homebuyers. As a community, we do not want to be overwhelming ourselves with an impossible level of upkeep of basic infrastructure.

Despite the impressive amount of residential development we have seen in Kelowna in recent years, we are still critically short of certain categories of housing. There is no one lever to pull to deliver this, but deeply affordable, family suitable, accessible housing is a major part of the solution to turning the page on the homelessness crisis we are reckoning with as a community and a society at large, and we need to do better here.

Kelowna needs construction jobs and homes people can actually afford. Housing starts have dropped sharply while local unemployment is high; City Hall must stop treating builders as the problem and start removing unnecessary cost, delay, and red tape. I will support practical policies that allow viable projects to get built.

I support growth that creates local jobs, expands the tax base, and builds infrastructure people actually need. But growth must be planned: water, sewer, roads, traffic flow, parking, emergency services, and public spaces must be accounted for before Council approves large new development

Sky-high municipal fees, DCCs, delays, and approval costs are passed directly into the price of a home. I will support a full review of DCCs, permit fees, servicing requirements, and approval costs—especially for attainable housing, secondary suites, carriage homes, small homes, and family-oriented ground-level housing. Kelowna has already considered temporary DCC reductions because current costs are choking construction; we need a fair, transparent long-term solution

Yes. City Hall needs clear timelines, fewer duplicate reviews, transparent requirements, and accountability when approvals stall. I also support using AI and automation to reduce paperwork, speed up permits, track applications, and give applicants clear answers instead of endless delays.

New-home buyers are already hit by land costs, financing costs, municipal charges, construction costs, and taxes. Removing GST from new homes would lower the barrier for families and first-time buyers and help restart construction employment.

City Hall should not force people into one kind of housing or tell families they must live in a high-rise, multiplex, or small unit if that does not fit their needs. Kelowna needs choice: apartments, condos, townhomes, suites, carriage homes, tiny homes, and attainable ground-oriented homes. Let people choose what works for their family, budget, work, and lifestyle.

Yes, provided environmental areas are protected, infrastructure is planned and funded first, and the proposal delivers real community benefit. Kelowna cannot solve housing by simply forcing all growth into existing neighbourhoods while ignoring demand for family-oriented, ground-level homes.

Yes—with strict conditions. Any expansion must be based on genuine housing need, protection of agricultural and environmentally sensitive land, complete infrastructure planning, realistic financing, and public consultation. The current Permanent Growth Boundary generally directs urban growth inside its limits, so changing it should never be a favour for a developer; it must clearly benefit the broader community.

New development should pay its fair share, but it should not be forced to carry 100% of infrastructure costs that also serve existing residents, businesses, and the whole city. DCCs must be transparent, proportionate, and connected to actual growth-related costs—not used as an unlimited revenue tool that makes new housing impossible to build.

Kelowna needs jobs, housing supply, and a City Hall that understands the connection between construction, local businesses, families, and affordability. If people cannot afford to live here and builders cannot afford to build here, Kelowna loses workers, opportunity, and its future

No explanation provided.

Infrastructure has not kept up with growth and this is a major concern of mine.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

I don't believe it's reasonable to expect a municipality to cover the development costs of Individual home buyers.

Yes but the growth must be done responsibly. There is no logical scenario where infinite growth works, especially when we have limited natural resources to support it.

Yes. I will champion initiatives that enable new home construction and make housing affordability and the jobs supported by construction a top priority. Through my work with construction businesses and my service as a past Treasurer of the local Urban Development Institute chapter, I understand how important this sector is to our economy.

My focus will be on faster, more predictable approvals for projects that meet established requirements, particularly in areas already served by infrastructure. I support reviewing development cost charges and reducing them where infill development makes efficient use of existing infrastructure, with a transparent assessment of the financial impact. The City should also work with CHBA, UDI and SICA to identify unnecessary delays and barriers, and establish measurable targets for improving approval times.

Responsible growth requires proactive infrastructure planning, meaningful neighbourhood input and financial accountability. Any development incentives should deliver clear public benefits, including greater housing affordability. My goal is to help get homes built, support local employment and expand housing choices while ensuring taxpayers receive value for their money.

Yes. I support a pro-growth agenda that creates well-paying jobs, attracts private investment and improves quality of life. Infrastructure investment should anticipate growth so that inadequate roads, water systems and community facilities do not become barriers to housing and business development.

My approach will combine strategic investment with financial discipline. Projects should have a clear business case, realistic budgets and measurable public benefits. Council should prioritize investments that address existing pressures and enable future growth, while pursuing senior-government funding and appropriate partnerships to strengthen the value of municipal dollars.

Transparency and accountability must guide these decisions. Residents deserve clear reporting on project costs and progress, and proposed increases to approved capital budgets should come back to Council for assessment and approval. With 35 years of financial and business experience, I will champion investments that support a stronger economy while respecting taxpayers’ ability to pay.

Yes. Housing affordability is one of my core priorities, and I will support municipal measures that reduce the cost of building new homes. Young families and people who work in Kelowna need a realistic opportunity to put down roots in our community.

I support reviewing development cost charges, permit fees and other municipal requirements, with particular attention to reducing or removing development cost charges for infill projects where existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity. I will also champion faster, more predictable approvals for compliant projects, because unnecessary delays add financing and holding costs that affect housing affordability.

Any reductions must be supported by a transparent financial assessment, including how necessary infrastructure will be funded. Incentives should be tied to clear public benefits and, wherever practical, demonstrable improvements in affordability. My approach will bring together builders, residents and City staff to identify meaningful savings while maintaining construction standards, essential services and financial accountability.

Yes. I will support streamlining planning approvals so that housing and related projects can begin construction sooner. My priority is to fast-track applications that meet established zoning and development requirements, particularly in areas already served by adequate infrastructure.

I will advocate for clear application requirements, coordinated reviews across City departments, and measurable approval timelines with public reporting. Working with CHBA, UDI, SICA and City staff, I would seek to identify recurring bottlenecks, eliminate unnecessary duplication and improve communication with applicants.

Meaningful neighbourhood consultation should occur early in planning, helping establish clear expectations for residents and builders. A transparent, efficient approval process will support housing affordability, local employment and responsible growth while maintaining safety and construction standards.

our concern is well founded. Zero-rating would remove GST from the sale while preserving eligible input tax credits; making sales exempt would generally prevent builders from recovering GST on related construction costs. Canada.ca

Yes. I will actively urge the federal government to remove GST from new home purchases in B.C. through a mechanism that preserves homebuilders’ ability to claim input tax credits on construction costs.

As a CPA, I recognize that the design of this measure matters. I would advocate for zero-rating new home sales, or equivalent rebate relief that maintains builders’ eligible input tax credits. Simply making sales GST-exempt could leave unrecoverable tax embedded in construction costs, undermining the intended savings for buyers.

I would work with CHBA, UDI and SICA to advocate for relief that reduces buyers’ final costs, supports financially viable construction and improves housing affordability.

No. I believe residents should have a meaningful choice of housing that meets their needs, budgets and stages of life. Market demand should play a central role in determining the types of homes that are built, including attainable, ground-oriented options for families.

I support flexible zoning that enables a broader range of housing choices. The City should be willing to review policies when they create barriers to financially viable projects or fail to deliver the housing residents need. Working with builders and residents, Council should identify practical opportunities for townhomes, duplexes, smaller detached homes and other forms of attainable housing.

City Hall’s role is to establish clear, predictable rules that support responsible growth, adequate infrastructure, public safety and meaningful neighbourhood input. My approach would expand housing choice while maintaining financial accountability and making efficient use of infrastructure and land.

Yes. I would support permitting development on suitable undeveloped lands to expand the supply of attainable, ground-oriented homes. Families and people at different stages of life should have access to housing choices that meet their needs and budgets.

My support would depend on protecting environmentally sensitive areas, assessing hazards and ensuring that roads, water, sewer and other essential services can accommodate the development. Proposals should also include meaningful neighbourhood consultation and a transparent assessment of infrastructure costs, ongoing maintenance obligations and how those costs will be funded.

I support both infill where it is practical and financially viable, and thoughtfully planned new neighbourhoods. Council should respond to housing demand with flexible planning, while ensuring growth delivers public benefits and remains financially responsible for current and future taxpayers.

Yes. I would support Official Community Plan updates that allow new neighbourhoods beyond the current Growth Boundary where proposals meet the tests outlined in your question: suitable, practical, attainable and demonstrably in the best interests of the broader community.

Suitable locations must respect environmentally sensitive areas and account for hazards. Practical development requires realistic plans for roads, utilities and access to essential services. Attainability should be supported by evidence that the proposed housing can meet residents’ needs and budgets.

Demonstrating the broader community benefit requires a transparent assessment of infrastructure costs, long-term maintenance obligations, environmental impacts and how growth will be funded, supported by meaningful public consultation.

I am open to reviewing the Growth Boundary where a clear, evidence-based case supports change. My priorities remain housing affordability, responsible growth, transparency and financial accountability.

Yes. I will support reviewing “growth pays for growth” to ensure infrastructure costs are allocated fairly and transparently. Where an investment benefits both new development and existing residents, its funding should reflect that shared benefit.

The review should clearly distinguish between infrastructure needed specifically to serve new development, improvements that address existing deficiencies, and projects that benefit the broader community. New homebuyers should pay a fair share of growth-related costs, while existing taxpayers should contribute appropriately to improvements that serve them.

As a CPA, I would seek clear, publicly available explanations of how charges are calculated, who benefits and how costs are allocated. I would also support pursuing senior-government funding to help reduce the burden on local homebuyers and taxpayers.

My goal is to improve housing affordability and enable responsible growth through an evidence-based approach that accounts for both initial construction costs and long-term maintenance obligations.

Yes. Job creation and housing construction should be top priorities for the upcoming Council. The unemployment concerns facing Kelowna underscore the need to create conditions that help businesses invest, expand and hire. Residents need both reliable employment and housing they can afford.

I will advocate for faster, more predictable development approvals, a review of municipal charges that affect housing affordability, and strategic infrastructure investment that supports responsible growth. Council should work closely with CHBA, UDI, SICA and the broader business community to identify barriers and pursue practical solutions.

My commitment is to support well-paying jobs and a broader range of attainable housing while maintaining transparency, meaningful public consultation and financial accountability. We should measure success by homes built, employment opportunities created and the value delivered to our community.

Absolutely without job growth we will have a stagnant economy, it will bring business to a crawl making things difficult for families. Buying homes could then be impossible so growing the economy, enabling new home construction are signs of a healthy economy.

Absolutely. That would include projects that include private public partnerships, partnerships with federal/provincial governments. Job growth increases demand for housing and all this has to be done carefully so we can build a city for the future.

Wherever possible I would support reducing costs to build homes.

Delays cost time and that costs money so yes I would be totally supportive of any practical initiative to reduce delays.

Yes. If GST is added to the price of a new home or can almost make that house too expensive for a buyer. Removing it will certainly bring more activity to the housing market.

I think we need to provide a variety of zoning giving residents a choice as to the kind of house they want to live in. Offering just one type of housing restricts people’s lifestyle choices.

Yes. Not everyone wants to live in a multi family development. Many families want ground oriented homes with backyards in complete neighborhoods. This will give opportunities to not only have homes but a small commercial section and potentially schools in walking distance,

Yes our community is growing and we will need to review the current growth boundary. We may have sections of the city that would be perfect to build a variety of different homes from single family units to multiple family developments. As well as townhomes.This would be particularly important in areas where there is future potential for more jobs. So people can live, work and play in close proximity. Making life simpler and more affordable for families.

If in fact any new infrastructure is benefiting the entire community then certainly the entire cost should not be borne by new homebuyers but should be distributed evenly to make those who benefit from it pay towards the upgrades.

I would suggest it would be appropriate to have it on our priority list for the new council. However it may not be a top

priority and may fall into the category of housing demands both accessible and

Attainable to meet the growing demand of residents.

Yes. I will make housing construction, affordability, and job creation a priority during the next Council term.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand firsthand how construction supports families, businesses, and the local economy. When housing construction slows, it affects not only builders and contractors but also tradespeople, suppliers, apprentices, and local businesses.

I will work to reduce unnecessary delays in the development approval process, prioritize infrastructure where housing is needed, and support practical policies that encourage responsible residential construction. I also want to expand opportunities for trades training and apprenticeships so more local residents can build careers in the construction industry.

Yes. I will actively support a responsible pro-growth agenda that creates well-paying jobs, strengthens our economy, and improves the quality of life for Kelowna residents.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand how infrastructure investment creates opportunities for tradespeople, contractors, and local businesses. I will prioritize essential infrastructure, including roads, water systems, transportation, and community facilities, so that growth is supported by the services people need.

My approach will be to:

Invest in infrastructure where it is needed most, ensuring roads, water, and services keep pace with development.

Support local jobs and trades training, creating opportunities for apprentices, skilled workers, and young people entering the workforce.

Encourage private investment by making development approvals more efficient and predictable.

Yes. I will support practical municipal measures to reduce the cost of building new homes and make homeownership more attainable for young families, working people, and first-time buyers.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand the costs involved in construction and how government fees, development charges, and approval delays can affect the final price of a home.

If elected, I will:

Review municipal fees and development charges to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary costs.

Streamline development approvals to reduce delays, uncertainty, and carrying costs.

Support responsible housing development by ensuring infrastructure is planned and funded efficiently.

Encourage a range of housing options, including starter homes, townhomes, and other attainable housing.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand that delays cost money, increase uncertainty, and can prevent projects from moving forward. These costs ultimately affect housing affordability, local businesses, and employment.

If elected, I will support:

Faster, more predictable approvals through clear timelines and improved coordination between City departments.

Reducing unnecessary red tape while maintaining appropriate safety, building, and environmental standards.

Improved communication between applicants and City staff to resolve issues early.

Prioritizing projects that address housing needs and have the necessary infrastructure in place.

Greater accountability for approval timelines and reporting on progress.

My goal is to make Kelowna a city where responsible development can move forward efficiently, creating homes, supporting local businesses, and providing well-paying jobs.

We need to spend less time waiting and more time building Kelowna's future.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand the financial challenges involved in building a home. Every additional tax increases the cost of housing and can make the difference between a family being able to purchase a home or being priced out of the market.

If elected, I will:

Advocate for GST relief on newly constructed homes.

Work with provincial and federal representatives to support measures that reduce housing costs.

Encourage policies that increase housing supply and support local construction jobs.

Press for practical solutions that help young families and working people afford to live in Kelowna.

My position is clear: I will advocate for removing the GST from new home sales in B.C. and support practical measures that make housing more affordable.

I do not believe City Hall should use zoning to dictate how people should live. We need a wider range of housing choices that people can actually afford and that builders can realistically build.

I support ground-oriented homes, townhomes, multiplexes, apartments, and other forms of permanent, safe, code-compliant housing where infrastructure can support them. I would also consider appropriately planned tiny homes as one option for attainable housing.

At the same time, tent encampments should not become a permanent form of housing. People deserve safe and dignified shelter, and the City should work toward appropriate housing and supportive services rather than allowing tents to become a long-term substitute for permanent accommodation.

City Hall should set reasonable standards for safety, infrastructure, and neighbourhood compatibility, but it should not use zoning to force people into particular housing or lifestyle choices.

We need to build the kinds of homes people can afford—not restrict housing choices or accept tent cities as the answer.

I would support permitting appropriate currently undeveloped lands for ground-oriented housing, provided environmental areas are protected and the necessary infrastructure can support the development.

My approach would be to balance housing demand with responsible growth. Kelowna needs more attainable housing choices, including homes suitable for young families and working professionals.

I would support:

Opening appropriate undeveloped lands for housing where infrastructure can be provided efficiently.

Protecting environmentally sensitive areas and important natural assets.

Prioritizing infrastructure capacity such as water, roads, drainage, and emergency services.

Encouraging ground-oriented housing where there is demonstrated market demand.

Reducing unnecessary approval delays and costs so viable projects can proceed.

Planning growth responsibly rather than forcing all new housing into existing neighbourhoods.

Kelowna needs to build where housing can actually be delivered. I will support responsible expansion that protects the environment while creating more opportunities for families and working people to own or rent a home in our community.

Yes. I would support reviewing and updating the Official Community Plan where there is a clear case for expanding the Growth Boundary into suitable locations.

Any expansion should be based on practical evidence—not simply on growth for its own sake. I would look at:

Water availability and long-term water security

Roads, transportation, fire protection, and other infrastructure

Environmental and agricultural land considerations

The actual cost of extending infrastructure and its impact on taxpayers

Whether the resulting housing can be built at attainable prices

Whether the location supports complete, connected neighbourhoods

Kelowna needs enough land to accommodate housing demand, but growth must be matched with the infrastructure and services required to support it.

Where suitable land can responsibly accommodate new neighbourhoods, I will support reviewing the Growth Boundary rather than artificially restricting the supply of housing.

Yes. I would support reviewing the “growth pays for growth” approach to ensure infrastructure costs are transparent, proportionate, and fairly allocated among new development, existing taxpayers, and other beneficiaries.

New development should contribute appropriately to the infrastructure it requires, but I do not believe new homebuyers should automatically carry the full cost of infrastructure that provides broader community or economic benefits.

I would support:

Transparent accounting showing exactly what development charges and fees pay for.

A clear distinction between infrastructure required specifically because of new development and infrastructure that benefits the broader community.

Reviewing development charges and other municipal fees where they are making housing unnecessarily expensive or preventing viable projects from proceeding.

Using appropriate municipal, provincial, and federal funding for infrastructure that serves the wider community.

Ensuring existing and new taxpayers are treated fairly when infrastructure provides benefits to both groups.

Regularly reviewing the policy as construction costs, housing demand, and infrastructure needs change.

As a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, I understand that every additional cost ultimately affects whether a project gets built and what a new home costs.

Growth should contribute to infrastructure, but we need a fair and transparent system where the costs and benefits of growth are shared appropriately—not simply passed on to the person buying the new home.

Yes. Job creation, housing construction, and affordability should be top priorities for the upcoming Council.

I’m a Red Seal Journeyman Carpenter, and the skilled trades are not just an economic statistic to me—they are the work I have built my career around. I understand firsthand what it takes to build a home, what construction costs, and how government decisions can add time and cost to a project.

I also understand that City Hall cannot solve housing affordability on its own—but it has a direct responsibility to avoid making the problem worse. Council controls important parts of the housing equation, including zoning, land-use planning, development approvals, municipal fees, permitting, and infrastructure.

As a Councillor, I will use those municipal tools to:

– Reduce unnecessary municipal costs and fees that are ultimately reflected in the price of new homes.

– Streamline planning and permitting so homes can be built sooner and developers aren't carrying unnecessary costs for months or years.

– Support zoning that allows a wider range of attainable housing, including ground-oriented homes, townhomes, multiplexes, and other forms that people can realistically afford.

– Make infrastructure investment more efficient and transparent, ensuring new homebuyers aren't unfairly burdened with costs that benefit the broader community.

– Support responsible expansion of the housing supply where infrastructure and environmental considerations allow it.

– Use municipal capital projects, where appropriate, to create opportunities for apprentices and local skilled trades.

– Work with employers, schools, industry associations, and post-secondary institutions to strengthen apprenticeship and trades-training pathways.

– Advocate to the provincial and federal governments for measures that reduce the overall cost of housing and support construction.

I believe affordability starts with the cost of building. If we want people to be able to afford homes, we need to make it easier and less expensive to build them.

A home should not be out of reach simply because unnecessary fees, delays, restrictive policies, or inefficient processes have been added to the cost.

As a carpenter, I know what it means to build from the ground up. As a Councillor, I will focus on what the City can actually do to lower barriers, increase housing supply, and help make homeownership and rental housing more attainable for working people and families.

Build more. Build smarter. Reduce unnecessary costs. And make affordability a central measure of our housing policies.

I would support getting more homes built, especially starter homes local people can afford, and the jobs that come with them, while making sure roads and services keep pace.

I would support practical infrastructure investments that help businesses grow and create well-paying local jobs, with careful attention to costs and value for taxpayers.

I would look for ways to lower building fees and costs, especially for starter homes, while making sure needed infrastructure is funded fairly.

No explanation provided.

I would advocate for removing GST from new home sales to help make homeownership more affordable, especially for first-time buyers.

People need more choice in homes they can afford, especially first-time buyers. I would support smaller houses and townhouses where they fit, while protecting farmland and making sure roads and services can handle the growth.

Where it makes sense. I would consider smaller houses and townhouses on undeveloped land, provided farmland and sensitive areas are protected and roads and services can support them without leaving existing residents to cover the costs.

No explanation provided.

I would review how costs are shared so new buyers pay a fair share of growth-related costs, improvements benefiting the whole community are funded fairly, and existing residents aren’t left carrying the bill.

No explanation provided.

As a boots-on-the-ground contractor, a 37% collapse in housing starts and a 9.3% unemployment rate is a massive wake-up call that requires immediate action. However, we cannot let out-of-town mega-developers use this crisis to import cheap labour while our local trades are told to pack up their tools. If a multi-unit project wants my vote to pass in the council room, they must provide auditable proof that they are hiring local Kelowna trades first—no proof, no permit to proceed.

As a boots-on-the-ground contractor, a 37% collapse in housing starts and a 9.3% unemployment rate is a massive wake-up call that requires immediate action. However, we cannot let out-of-town mega-developers use this crisis to import cheap labor while our local trades are told to pack up their tools. If a multi-unit project wants my vote to pass in the council room, they must provide auditable proof that they are hiring local Kelowna trades first—no proof, no permit to proceed

I will support reducing government fees only if those savings are legally tied to protecting our workforce, not just padding corporate profit margins. To get my vote for fee relief, developers must sign a covenant guaranteeing that all on-site workers are paid a localized living wage of at least $26.00 gross per hour. A $26.00 gross wage only equals about $22.00 an hour take-home pay after taxes; anything less forces our hardest workers to live out of their vehicles because they can't afford basic survival in Kelowna.

We must slash City Hall red tape to get shovels in the ground faster, but streamlining must never mean cutting corners on human dignity. To pass my standards, streamlined mega-projects must include a "Green Card" worker parking pass framework so tradespeople aren't forced to show up at 5:00 AM or walk blocks carrying heavy tools. Furthermore, fast-tracked approvals must prioritize ground-oriented designs so our seniors don't have to navigate massive parkaides, endless corridors, and broken elevators just to carry their groceries home.

I will fiercely lobby senior levels of government to completely eliminate the federal 5% GST on new home sales. Tacking a 5% tax grab onto new construction artificially inflates costs by tens of thousands of dollars, penalizes supply, and suffocates our local workforce. Completely removing this tax will instantly put shovels back in trades' hands and incentivize older adults to downsize into accessible homes, freeing up established starter homes for young local families. If I am demanding that mega-developers face strict local hiring audits at City Hall, I must also stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our local building sector to push back against higher levels of government tax grabs that stall our economic progress.

City Hall should absolutely not be using central-planning zoning to restrict housing types and force lifestyle choices on our residents. The current push for massive high-rise "beehives" completely ignores the "silver hair wisdom" of practical living, forcing seniors into elevator-dependent complexes and young families completely out of the market. We need to stop over-regulating and start allowing the market to build the attainable, ground-oriented "missing middle" housing—like duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard town homes—that people actually want and that keep our local construction crews steadily employed.

While strictly respecting critical environmental areas, we must open up appropriate, currently undeveloped lands to meet the massive demand for ground-oriented homes. Young families and working professionals are being frozen out of Kelowna because the city refuses to permit practical layouts. Opening up these lands provides the exact type of low-rise, family-friendly construction projects that keep our 16,000 local construction workers steadily employed, creating a true win-win for our local economy and our community's future.

The current rigid growth boundary is driving up land scarcity and artificially inflating home prices beyond the reach of everyday families. If expanding the boundary allows for practical, attainable, ground-oriented neighborhoods that directly benefit young families and the local workforce, I will support it. However, any boundary update must be paired with an immediate "Infrastructure-First" mandate to ensure roads and water utilities are built alongside the development, ensuring we are not creating future tax burdens for Kelowna residents.

The current "growth pays for growth" framework has turned City Hall into a regulatory roadblock that treats the building industry like an endless ATM, adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. We must audit this policy to ensure true transparency and fairness. If we expect our builders to work with us, we must stop forcing new home buyers to entirely subsidize infrastructure that benefits the broader economy, while aggressively demanding our fair share of provincial and federal grants to bridge the gap.

Job creation and housing construction must be the absolute top priority for the upcoming Council, but it requires independent, practical leadership to execute. I am running to officially smash the "Okanagan Sunshine Tax" corporate scam that uses our valley's weather to justify paying depressed wages while charging big-city prices for housing. By putting local workers first, enforcing a $26.00 gross project, Kelowna's living wage, and fixing City Hall bottlenecks, we will get Kelowna back to work and build a truly livable city for both our tradespeople and our seniors.