Vernon Results

Yes. Housing construction and the jobs it supports will be a top priority for me. Growth reaches beyond the homes we build. It creates jobs, expands our tax base and strengthens our local economy.

Lengthy, unpredictable approval processes add interest and carrying costs, leaving projects exposed to changing market conditions. These delays can make housing more expensive or prevent it from being built at all. I will work with Council to champion clear requirements, consistent processes and timely decisions, while ensuring infrastructure can support growth. City Hall needs to treat housing development as an essential part of serving our community. It deserves priority, accountability and a clear path forward.

Yes. I’m pro-growth, and I want development to deliver results. Growth and development are connected, but success is measured by the jobs, housing, investment and tax base we gain not simply by how much we build. My platform calls for “a strong and diverse local economy” and development processes that are “clear, fair, and efficient.” As Mayor, I will work with Council and regional partners to turn those commitments into action: plan infrastructure ahead of growth, pursue senior-government funding and remove unnecessary barriers to investment.

Yes, I support municipal measures that reduce the cost of building homes, but we need to look at the whole picture. As a mortgage broker, I see the barriers facing buyers and the financial pressures builders face every day.

Council cannot demand affordability while imposing requirements that make projects financially unworkable. When developers are expected to fund infrastructure that benefits the wider community, we need to carefully consider how those costs are shared.

I will work with Council to identify fee changes, faster approvals and practical requirements that offer meaningful savings while ensuring the infrastructure needed for new housing is funded.

I have pushed for a review of our development approval process and made streamlining applications a priority. That includes moving from outdated submission methods to a cloud-based system that makes applications easier to submit, track and review.

Technology can reduce errors and delays, but we also need clear requirements, consistent decisions and better communication between planning staff and applicants. I will continue pushing for these improvements so builders spend less time navigating City Hall and more time delivering homes.

I never understood the governments rationale to make only FTHBs GST exempt. I get their reasoning but their rationale was deeply flawed. If the goal is help new construction, then offering a GST exemption to any one who buys a newly constructed home can help build inventory and improve people entering the housing continuum.

Again, this answer is nuanced. I believe council has a role to play when deciding what their neighborhoods will look like. But, they also have to appreciate that not all buyers want what they hope to build. The development community has their finger on the pulse when it comes to market conditions. Each community is unique and therefore represents unique challenges for developer and local government alike. Understanding shifting dynamics will help council be better prepared. Therefore, allowing some flexibility will be key to building for your community or making development nonexistent.

In our community, there is a need for multi-unit homes but there is also a huge need for single family homes. We are not the coast and therefore, shouldn’t pretend to be. Our community is not only economically diverse but we are socially diverse as well. Therefore, we must consider these attributes when encouraging development. Densification is important but it will not be the defining outcome for our community. We need to allow for flexibility in the types of homes being built given the demographic within our Community. Otherwise, we run the risk of the development community choosing to build elsewhere. Then council becomes a variable as to why construction isn’t occurring and thus, affordability is eroding.

Again, this answer is more nuanced. I will

Consider development outside the growth boundary when there is a clear net gain for the community. This can be a combination of: protected lands, affordability, and economic sustainability. If the development is going to be a drain on the tax payers with no foreseeable gain then council needs to be exceptionally careful.

Again this answer is nuanced. It’s neither a yes or no. I would work with council to review development charges to ensure they are transparent, fair and reflect who benefits from the infrastructure.

New development should fund the servicing demands it creates. Where upgrades also address existing deficiencies or benefit the broader community, costs should be allocated proportionately.

As a mortgage broker, I understand how these costs affect housing affordability and construction viability. However, reducing charges does not eliminate infrastructure costs, it shifts them to taxes, utility rates or another funding source.

My goal is to support housing construction through fair cost allocation while ensuring essential infrastructure is funded responsibly.

Absolutely. Job creation and housing construction go hand in hand. Housing supports our workforce, creates jobs and attracts investment. Sustainable growth also expands our tax base, helping share the cost of infrastructure and services across more taxpayers. Therefore, these two areas of our economy shouldn’t be considered in isolation of one another.

No explanation provided.

This is a common sense decision, improvements in this area will benefit everyone our communities, residents, industries, and developers.

We will work with Council to review and revise fees, costs, and approval processes so that City staff can process applications more efficiently and provide developers with timely, clear decisions.

See above

We will try!

City Hall should use zoning to address the needs of our community while balancing the needs of residents, businesses, and responsible development.

NO- only because I am Running for Vernon Mayor N/A

The Official Community Plan is a guide that reflects where the community sees itself in the future. It is not a document written in stone, and it is the responsibility of the Mayor and Council to review and revise it as the needs and priorities of the community evolve.

Growth needs to pay for growth while remaining reasonable to both developers and taxpayers

Most definitely, job creation and affordable housing are two of my top priorities for our community.

Providing water and infrastructure are available or in place.

If water is available in sustainable quantity's that address current and future demand.

Excessive or redundant fees should be eliminated to help with affordability.

see above answer

No explanation provided.

I am not in favour of forcing choices on residents

Not running in Kelowna

Infrastructure dependent

A revisit is a fair compromise and should happen.

No explanation provided.

We need more affordable housing in Vernon.

We need to increase our water security. Maintain our existing infrastructure.

The more affordable a house is the more people we can retain and attract to the area.

Minimize the red tape. Make sure approvals are done in a timely manner.

Reducing the cost 5% can possibly make home owner ship possible for more people.

We need to build where the infrastructure is currently as it is more cost effective than building new infrastructure to areas out side of the established areas. condos and apartment and townhomes are more affordable then a detached house.

I am running in Vernon and not Kelowna so what they do is up to them.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

Question appears to be written for Kelowna candidates.

My answer is a qualified yes. I’ll actively support infrastructure investment that strengthens our economy, creates well-paying jobs and delivers lasting public benefits. My support for growth will depend on how it serves our community.

That means planning within our water and infrastructure capacity, protecting productive agricultural land and natural areas, and ensuring development pays its fair share of costs. Investment decisions also need to account for climate change—both reducing emissions and preparing for drought, wildfire and extreme heat.

I’ll assess proposals on their merits, including their long-term costs, local employment benefits and effects on housing, services and community well-being. Thoughtful, well-planned growth can help Vernon thrive. Those are the outcomes I’ll work for.

Yes, with conditions. I’ll support municipal measures that reduce unnecessary costs and help deliver homes people can afford. That includes clearer requirements, timely approvals and compact development that makes efficient use of infrastructure.

I’ll also support targeted fee reductions where they deliver lasting public benefits, particularly housing with secured below-market rents. Any reduction needs a clear plan for paying the infrastructure costs and evidence that the benefit will reach residents.

Development should still pay its fair share. I won’t support blanket fee cuts that leave existing taxpayers covering the costs of growth or undermine essential services. My priority is affordable housing alongside sound municipal finances, environmental protection and preparation for climate change.

I’ll support clear requirements, better coordination between City departments and timely decisions so housing and related projects can move forward with fewer unnecessary delays. Applicants should know what’s required, and residents should understand how decisions are made.

Streamlining should maintain meaningful public input and careful consideration of infrastructure capacity, long-term costs, environmental impacts and climate risks. Clear rules established through sound community planning can make approvals more predictable while protecting those interests.

My goal is an efficient, accountable process that helps deliver the housing our community needs.

I would not support this as a blanket measure. I’ll advocate for targeted federal tax relief that helps people secure a home they can afford. I support GST relief for eligible first-time buyers and would consider improvements that address demonstrated gaps.

Before supporting broader removal, I’d want evidence of who would benefit, whether it would improve affordability, and how the lost revenue would affect other housing investments. My priority is to use public resources effectively to expand attainable ownership and secure, affordable rental housing.

Question appears to be targeted to Kelowna candidates.

Question appears to be targeted to Kelowna candidates.

My priority is to expand housing choices within Vernon’s Urban Containment Boundary, making good use of serviced land and connecting homes with jobs, shops, transit and community facilities.

Practical construction and attainable purchase prices are important, but they don’t establish the broader public benefit of expanding outward. We also need to consider long-term infrastructure and maintenance costs, water availability, wildfire risk, transportation needs and protection of agricultural land and natural areas.

I’m open to reviewing evidence through a comprehensive OCP process, including demonstrated housing capacity within the boundary. I would need a compelling case that expansion is necessary and serves the community over the long term before supporting a change.

Yes to part and leaning no to another part of this question.Unfortunately, your survey design does not allow me to show this.

I’ll support reviewing development charges to ensure they’re transparent, fairly calculated and regularly updated. New residents deserve fairness, as do existing residents.

That review should clearly explain which infrastructure costs arise from growth, which benefit existing users, and how those costs are shared. I wouldn’t assume that new homebuyers are subsidizing the broader community without examining the evidence.

I support development paying its fair share of the infrastructure it requires, with the City funding the portion properly attributable to existing users. Jobs and investment are valuable benefits, but we still need a reliable way to pay infrastructure bills. Any additional public subsidy should have a clear purpose, demonstrated community benefits and a sustainable funding source.

Creating lasting, well-paying jobs and delivering housing people can afford should be among Council’s top priorities. That includes attainable ownership, purpose-built rental and homes that meet the needs of families, seniors and people with disabilities.

Council should help businesses invest and expand through clear processes, suitable employment land and well-planned infrastructure. Housing growth should make good use of serviced land and connect people with work, transportation and daily needs.

These priorities need to advance alongside reliable services, sound municipal finances, environmental protection and action on climate change. I’ll judge success by whether people can build secure lives here and whether our community is stronger and better prepared for the future.

I will absolutely continue to champion initiatives that enable new home construction, as housing diversity, affordability, and the economic vitality of the construction sector are top priorities for my next term on Council. The decline in regional housing starts and the resulting impact on local employment emphasize the urgent need for local government to act as a partner to the building industry. My approach to accelerating housing and supporting the workforce relies on removing bureaucratic barriers and incentivizing smart development:

Cutting Red Tape & Streamlining Approvals: I am supporting the digital transformation of our development permitting, which is launching in Q4 of 2026, to significantly reduce administrative bottlenecks and get shovels in the ground faster. Furthermore, I support collaborative, multi-department pre-application processes to give builders clear, predictable timelines before formal submission.

Pre-Zoning for the "Missing Middle": I support modernizing our Zoning Bylaw to pre-zone for gentle density, including duplexes, townhomes, and single-stair egress apartments, expanding attainable housing choices without the friction of prolonged rezoning hearings.

Targeted Incentives: I have a track record of advocating for waived Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and fast-tracked applications for non-profit and attainable housing partnerships to ensure projects remain financially viable.

Smart Infrastructure Investment: I support directing intensive growth and public capital investment strictly within our Urban Containment Boundary. This ensures that new development leverages existing transit, water, and sewer infrastructure, maximizing efficiency for builders and preventing costly infrastructure deficits for taxpayers.

By supporting a proactive, "how can I help" service culture, we can stimulate local construction activity, support the thousands of families relying on these jobs, and build the diverse housing Vernon urgently needs.

I actively support a smart, pro-growth infrastructure agenda that expands our local economy, attracts private sector investment, and creates sustainable, well-paying jobs across our region. Municipal infrastructure is the foundational bedrock of economic development; without reliable roads, modern utilities, and premier community amenities, private capital cannot build and businesses cannot thrive.

As a two-term City Councillor and Regional District Director, I treat municipal investment as an economic catalyst by focusing on timely execution and long-term value:

Major Community Facilities: True economic vitality requires high-quality community infrastructure that attracts skilled workers, families, and private investment. Council proved its commitment to large-scale execution by delivering the new Active Living Centre on schedule for its November opening, directly creating local construction employment and establishing a premier venue for regional sports tourism.

Water Utilities & Industrial Resilience: Water security is both an economic and environmental imperative for the North Okanagan. Through my roles on Council and the RDNO, I am supporting vital utility expansions, including connecting the Vernon Water Reclamation Centre to Goose Lake Reservoir for agricultural and industrial irrigation, and bringing supplemental groundwater online via the Antwerp Deep Well to secure our regional water supply and protect the economic drivers of our valley.

Transportation Corridors & Airport Logistics: Under our newly adopted 20-year Transportation Plan, we are prioritizing high-ROI capital projects that improve freight movement, reduce congestion, and enhance multi-modal connectivity across key commercial and industrial corridors. Furthermore, I support ongoing capital investments and training facilities at the Vernon Regional Airport to expand its role as an economic hub for aviation, specialized trades, and light industrial enterprise.

Smart Growth & Fiscal Stewardship: Pro-growth infrastructure policies must be fiscally sustainable over the long term. By directing growth within our Urban Containment Boundary, we maximize existing water, sewer, and road networks, preventing costly infrastructure deficits. Simultaneously, we are updating our Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw and utilizing our Organizational Asset Management Plan so that new development fairly funds growth-related infrastructure while keeping municipal assets modern and reliable.

Investing in core infrastructure is not just a municipal expense; it is a direct investment in local construction trades, good-paying jobs, and the future competitiveness of Vernon.

Yes, I support proactive municipal measures that reduce development fees, streamline approvals, and eliminate costly regulatory hurdles to lower the purchase price of new homes for young families and local workers.

While a substantial portion of government-related costs stems from provincial and federal taxes like Property Transfer Tax and GST, municipal governments hold significant influence over project costs through fees, regulatory standards, and approval timelines. Best-practice municipal governance balances meaningful cost reductions for attainable homebuilding with fiscal responsibility, ensuring current taxpayers are not burdened with infrastructure deficits.

To lower the cost of building new homes in Vernon, I focus on four key areas:

Targeted Fee Reductions & Grants: I support expanding targeted incentives, including waiving or rebating Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and leveraging our Rental Housing Incentive Grants for attainable, missing middle, and non-profit housing. In our current review of the Development Cost Charges Bylaw, fee schedules must be predictable, transparent, and structured so compact, gentle-density builds are not disproportionately penalized.

Cutting Carrying Costs Through Faster Approvals: For builders, delay equals expense due to high construction financing interest. By completing our e-permitting system, instituting multi-department pre-application processes, and pre-zoning for gentle density under our updated Official Community Plan, we eliminate costly months of holding costs and public rezoning hearings.

Reducing Design & Engineering Costs: I actively support pre-approved, "shelf-ready" standardized housing designs from the RDNO Pre-Approved Housing Design Competition and provincial catalogues. This allows builders and homeowners to bypass tens of thousands of dollars in architectural, structural, and engineering consulting fees.

Removing Cost-Inflating Bylaw Requirements: High construction costs are often driven by municipal over-regulation. I support removing minimum parking requirements near transit, waiving traffic impact assessments for residential projects generating under 80 peak-hour trips, and adjusting street cross-section requirements so developers are not forced into unnecessary land dedications.

I fully support initiatives to streamline planning approvals, eliminate bureaucratic delays, and get housing and related projects under construction faster. In homebuilding, time is money; extended approval timelines directly translate into escalating carrying costs, construction financing interest, and project uncertainty, which ultimately inflate home prices or stall developments altogether.

During my time on Council, I have prioritized modernizing Vernon’s development approval systems, and in the next term, I will continue to drive reforms that ensure City Hall functions as an efficient partner to builders:

Expanding Digital E-Permitting: We are actively modernizing internal processes, highlighted by the rollout of digital building permit applications in Q3 of 2026. I will support the full expansion of digital e-permitting to include development permits and rezoning applications in 2027, cutting review times and replacing cumbersome paperwork with real-time digital tracking.

Formalizing Multi-Department Pre-Application Reviews: Through our application to the UBCM Local Government Development Approvals Program, we are establishing a collaborative pre-application process that brings planning, engineering, building, and fire departments together at the earliest stage. This gives applicants unified, consistent direction and clear requirements before formal submission, preventing costly mid-stream revisions.

Pre-Zoning and Modernizing Regulations: Under our newly adopted Official Community Plan, we are aligning our Zoning Bylaw with provincial housing legislation (Bills 44 and 47) to pre-zone for multi-family, transit-oriented, and gentle infill housing. Pre-zoning removes the need for prolonged public rezoning hearings for standard-compliant projects, shaving months off the approval timeline.

Streamlined Tools & Bylaw Harmonization: To simplify the process for builders and homeowners, we are deploying an online lot identification tool that enables one-click assessments for pre-approved infill building plans. Simultaneously, I support consolidating overlapping municipal bylaws, policies, and guidelines into a single, cohesive framework to remove regulatory friction.

By pairing internal process automation with a proactive, solution-oriented service culture, Vernon can ensure viable projects transition from the drawing board to the job site as quickly as possible.

I will actively urge senior levels of government to remove the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from new home sales in B.C. While municipalities control local fees and zoning, housing affordability is a multi-jurisdictional crisis, and the heavy tax burden imposed by the federal and provincial governments is a massive barrier to homeownership for young families and the local workforce.

As a City Councillor, my approach to advocacy involves:

Direct Ministerial Advocacy: I support leveraging Council's platform to directly petition the federal and provincial housing and finance ministries to eliminate or significantly expand GST relief on all new residential construction to stimulate the market.

Collaborative Regional Lobbying: I believe in the power of collaborative regional leadership to bridge gaps between local and senior governments to solve complex issues. We can use advocacy channels like the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) to build a unified local government coalition demanding structural tax reforms that lower the end cost of housing.

Aligning Local and Senior Government Efforts: At the municipal level, I have a track record of advocating for waiving Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and fast-tracking applications for non-profit and attainable housing partnerships. I will push senior governments to match our local efforts by removing the GST, which currently inflates project costs and discourages the rapid deployment of the diverse housing Vernon urgently needs.

Local government must be a vocal partner to the building industry, ensuring that every level of government is doing its part to make housing attainable and affordable for all generations.

City Hall should not use zoning to restrict housing types, micromanage the market, or dictate lifestyle choices for individuals and families across the Okanagan. Zoning should serve as an enabling, flexible framework that expands housing supply and choice, not an ideological barrier that stalls projects when economic conditions shift.

When municipal regulations ignore market realities, such as shifting interest rates, financing constraints, and escalating material costs, the result is stalled development, rising home prices, and reduced construction employment. Local government must collaborate with the building industry to ensure bylaws reflect real-world economic viability:

Enabling Market Demand for Ground-Oriented Homes: I recognize that demand remains exceptionally strong for attainable, ground-oriented housing, such as townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and small-lot single-family homes. Council must actively facilitate these formats rather than artificially channelling all density into high-rise towers or unviable multiplex footprints.

Pre-Zoning to Eliminate Holding Costs: Rather than forcing builders through unpredictable, months-long rezoning hearings for standard infill, I support comprehensive pre-zoning for gentle, missing-middle density across our serviced neighbourhoods. This gives developers immediate certainty, cuts carry costs, and allows projects to adjust quickly to buyer demand.

Removing Cost-Inflating Bylaw Hurdles: To ensure ground-oriented infill is financially viable to build, municipalities must strip away outdated requirements. I support eliminating rigid parking minimums near transit, streamlining parcel coverage rules, and accommodating small-lot subdivisions.

Balancing Market Freedom with Fiscal Responsibility: While builders should have the flexibility to deliver the housing forms consumers want, growth must remain supported by adequate water, sewer, and road capacity. Focusing diverse housing within our Urban Containment Boundary protects agricultural land while ensuring new builds do not generate infrastructure deficits for existing taxpayers.

Our role at City Hall is to be an efficient partner that clears the path for attainable housing, listening to the builders and trades who understand what it takes to get shovels in the ground.

I support permitting currently undeveloped lands to create ground-oriented homes, such as townhomes, duplexes, row houses, and small-lot subdivisions, provided these lands are located within designated urban growth boundaries and that sensitive environmental areas and infrastructure capacities are respected.

While infill and gentle density within established neighbourhoods are vital components of our housing strategy, infill alone cannot meet the full scale of regional demand or satisfy the diverse lifestyle preferences of young families and working professionals who need family-sized, ground-oriented living.

My approach to unlocking undeveloped lands for ground-oriented housing rests on four key principles:

Delivering Housing Diversity for Families: I recognize that not every household wants or thrives in a high-density apartment. Demand remains exceptionally strong for homes with private ground-level entrances, multi-bedroom layouts, and outdoor space. Undeveloped parcels suitable for master-planned suburban and neighbourhood-scale development play an essential role in providing attainable, family-oriented homeownership.

Targeting Development Within Urban Containment Boundaries: Pro-growth development must be fiscally and operationally sustainable. I support unlocking undeveloped parcels located within our Urban Containment Boundary where water, sewer, emergency response, and road networks already exist or can be extended cost-effectively. This ensures builders can bring supply to market without saddling municipal taxpayers with unmanageable long-term infrastructure deficits.

Balancing Land Use with Environmental Stewardship: New neighbourhood development must respect critical environmental features, including natural riparian corridors, steep slopes, and wildfire-interface buffers (such as Development Permit Area 4 standards). Designing with nature through clustered footprints and preserved green space allows us to deliver family homes while safeguarding local biodiversity and community safety.

Providing Certainty and Sensible Engineering Standards: Opening undeveloped land for housing only works if projects are financially viable. Municipalities must avoid imposing cost-inflating requirements, such as excessive road cross-sections, unnecessary right-of-way dedications, and over-engineered off-site upgrades. I support streamlined, predictable subdivision approvals and transparent Development Cost Charge (DCC) structures to ensure builders can turn raw land into shovel-ready home sites without delay.

By coupling smart infill in established neighbourhoods with the planned, environmentally responsible permitting of undeveloped lands inside our growth boundaries, we can deliver the ground-oriented homes our growing workforce and young families urgently need.

My primary priority remains maximizing housing capacity within our existing Urban Containment Boundary (UCB). However, during scheduled five-year Official Community Plan (OCP) and Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) reviews, I am open to considering evidence-based boundary adjustments, provided a project is demonstrably in the broader community’s interest, fiscally self-sustaining, and environmentally sound.

Pushing beyond established growth boundaries carries significant long-term municipal risks, particularly around servicing costs, infrastructure maintenance deficits, and climate vulnerability. Therefore, to warrant expanding the growth boundary for new neighbourhoods, any proposed OCP update must meet a rigorous standard:

Fiscal Neutrality and Infrastructure Self-Sufficiency: Greenfield expansion beyond current boundaries cannot burden existing taxpayers with long-term infrastructure liabilities. Any development outside the UCB must be fully serviced at the proponent’s expense, covering capital water, sewer, and transportation extensions, as well as establishing sufficient Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and reserve contributions to fund the full lifecycle replacement of those assets under our Asset Management Plan.

Regional Alignment and Water Security: Under the Local Government Act, Vernon’s OCP must align with the Regional District of North Okanagan’s (RDNO) Regional Growth Strategy and Rural Protection Boundary. In a region navigating recurring droughts and Stage 3 water restrictions, any boundary expansion must demonstrate that Greater Vernon Water (GVW) and local utility systems have verified, sustainable capacity to service new households without compromising agricultural producers or existing residents.

Protection of ALR and Sensitive Terrestrial Lands: Land beyond our containment boundaries is frequently constrained by steep terrain, high wildfire hazards, and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). I will not support expansions that encroach on active agricultural land or increase wildfire exposure within Wildfire Hazard Development Permit Areas. Any new neighbourhood footprint must prioritize low-hazard, contiguous parcels over disconnected, leapfrog sprawl.

Delivering Attainable, Complete Communities: Expanding the boundary is only justifiable if it delivers truly attainable, diverse housing forms for our local workforce and young families, such as townhomes, duplexes, and entry-level detached homes, rather than exclusively low-density luxury estates. Proposed neighbourhoods must be planned with integrated amenities, parks, and multi-modal transit connections to avoid creating car-dependent enclaves that strain our regional transportation network.

Before extending city borders into costly, unserviced terrain, our most urgent and practical task is removing regulatory barriers and expediting development on the viable, undeveloped lands already inside our serviced boundaries.

I support reviewing and updating our Development Cost Charge (DCC) framework to ensure infrastructure funding is transparent, equitable, and balanced fairly between new homebuyers and existing taxpayers.

While the core intent of "growth pays for growth" is to prevent existing residents and fixed-income seniors from bearing the full capital cost of community expansion, applying it without regular recalibration risks inflating home prices and discouraging attainable housing. Infrastructure investments generate shared economic benefits, including local construction jobs, business attraction, and broader tax revenue, meaning cost-allocation models must be grounded in data, fairness, and transparency.

As a member of City Council and the Finance Committee, my approach to achieving a fair and modern infrastructure policy focuses on four concrete actions:

Reviewing the DCC Bylaw & Municipal Assist Factor: Vernon is completing a comprehensive review and replacement of our Development Cost Charges Bylaw in alignment with our 20-Year Servicing Plan. This process provides the exact opportunity to calibrate the municipal assist factor, ensuring the City fairly funds the community-wide benefit portions of major projects so new buyers are not unfairly subsidizing broader civic upgrades.

Separating Asset Replacement from New Growth: Under Vernon’s Organizational Asset Management Plan, the City maintains a strict line between replacing aging assets and constructing new capacity. Existing taxpayers fund end-of-life repairs and replacements through Vernon's dedicated infrastructure levy, ensuring new developments and first-time homebuyers are not burdened with legacy infrastructure deficits.

Targeted DCC Relief for Attainable & Infill Housing: Front-loaded fees should not stall needed housing forms. I have consistently supported waiving or offsetting municipal development costs and DCCs for non-profit and attainable housing partnerships, and I support fee structures that reflect the reduced servicing impact of compact, missing-middle infill.

Lowering Per-Unit Capital Costs Through Smart Growth: By prioritizing development within our Focused Growth Areas and Urban Containment Boundary, projects tap directly into existing water, sewer, and transportation corridors. This minimizes expensive off-site utility extensions, lowering the net infrastructure costs that developers must pass on to prospective purchasers.

By keeping DCC calculations transparent, ensuring asset renewals are funded through civic reserves, and collaborating directly with the homebuilding industry during bylaw updates, we can protect existing taxpayers while keeping homeownership accessible for the next generation

Job creation and housing construction should be a top priority for the upcoming Council term. Housing affordability and economic stability are inseparable; you cannot build a resilient local economy without an adequate supply of attainable homes for the workforce, and you cannot build homes without a healthy, active construction and development sector.

The sharp decline in regional housing starts and rising unemployment underscore that local government must step up as an active partner to the building industry and the business community. In the next term, I am committed to advancing policies that stimulate sustainable construction and support well-paying local jobs through four key priorities:

Accelerating Development Approvals: A primary way Council can stimulate construction activity is by removing administrative bottlenecks and reducing carrying costs for builders. I am supporting the digital transformation of our permitting systems, transitioning building, development, and rezoning approvals to a fully streamlined e-permitting platform, while formalizing multi-department pre-application reviews to give applicants clear, predictable timelines from day one.

Expanding Housing Diversity & Attainability: Meeting our housing needs requires aggressive action across the entire housing spectrum. I support modernizing our Zoning Bylaw to pre-zone for gentle infill and "missing middle" housing, including duplexes, townhomes, and row housing, within our serviced neighbourhoods. In parallel, I continue to support Development Cost Charge (DCC) waivers and priority processing for non-profit and attainable housing partnerships to keep projects viable.

Strategic Infrastructure Investments: Smart municipal infrastructure spending creates well-paying jobs today while laying the foundation for future private investment. By delivering major community assets on time, such as the Active Living Centre, and investing in core utility, road, and water reclamation infrastructure within our Urban Containment Boundary, we provide the servicing capacity required for new housing developments to break ground without delay.

Proactive Workforce & Economic Development: Through implementation of our updated Official Community Plan and Economic Development Strategy, City Hall must work hand-in-hand with the Chamber of Commerce, Community Futures, and Okanagan College. Aligning local skills training in the building trades with regional employment lands planning ensures local contractors have access to the skilled talent they need to build our community.

By reducing red tape, investing in foundational infrastructure, and fostering predictable conditions for private and non-profit investment, Council can help revitalize construction starts, put tradespeople back to work, and deliver the diverse homes our growing region urgently requires.

I don't think that's in tension with responsible growth, it's part of it. Vernon isn't isolated from what's happening across the Okanagan economy, and a slowdown in construction means real jobs and real families feeling it here too, not just in Kelowna. Housing supply and construction employment need to be a genuine council priority, not an afterthought.

Where I can commit specifically: making sure our permitting and approvals process isn't adding unnecessary delay or cost on top of what's already required, and making sure the infrastructure decisions council controls, water capacity especially, keep pace with approved growth instead of lagging behind it and stalling projects after they've already broken ground. Predictability matters to builders as much as speed does, and Vernon can do better on both

With one condition I think actually serves this goal rather than getting in its way: infrastructure investment has to be sequenced properly, not treated as something that follows growth after the fact. Roads, water systems, and community facilities that are already under strain don't attract lasting private investment, they create the kind of delays and cost overruns that hurt builders and taxpayers alike. So my version of pro-growth is making sure Vernon actually funds and maintains what's already on the ground before piling on new commitments, water infrastructure especially, since a project that gets approved but then waits years for capacity to catch up isn't a win for anyone, including your members.

Within that, yes, I want to actively support infrastructure investment that opens up real economic growth and well-paying jobs, and I think a council that's honest about sequencing and capacity is actually the more reliable partner for the industry long term, not a less ambitious one.

I hear the affordability problem, and I don't think it's exaggerated. But I want to be honest about something: Vernon council actually raised these exact fees two years ago, unanimously, because construction costs were climbing and the alternative was shifting that burden onto existing taxpayers instead of the growth that triggered it. A blanket fee cut just moves the cost, it doesn't remove it.

What I'd actually support: using the new provincial flexibility that lets builders spread DCC payments over four years instead of two, which eases cash flow without shrinking the infrastructure funding those fees are meant to provide. I'd also want to use the waiver authority council already has specifically for non-profit and supportive housing, so the fee relief goes where affordability is the actual goal, not applied evenly across every project regardless of price point.

Vernon's full DCC bylaw review is already scheduled for after this year, once the new OCP and Transportation Plan are finalized. I want to be an active, informed voice in that review, one that takes cost pressure on builders seriously without quietly pushing the bill onto residents instead

Yes, without hesitation. Slow, unpredictable approvals cost everyone, builders, buyers, and the city itself when projects sit in limbo longer than they need to. Vernon's actually already moving on this, the city began digitizing building permits earlier this year, with development permits planned to follow, and I want to see that finished and expanded, not left half done. I'd also want Vernon actively pursuing provincial funding, like the Local Government Development Approvals Program, specifically meant to help local governments speed this up.

I want to be clear on what "streamlining" means to me though: cutting redundant paperwork, unclear requirements, and slow internal handoffs, not skipping the substantive checks that actually matter, like whether infrastructure can support a project or whether a major development gets real public input. Speed and rigor aren't actually opposites. A predictable, well-run process is faster precisely because it doesn't get bogged down in ambiguity or rework later on.

Yes, and I'd want to be specific about what's actually left to push for. The federal government already eliminated GST for first-time buyers on new homes up to a million dollars as of this March, that's done. What's still worth advocating for is extending that same relief to all new home buyers, not just first-time ones, since that's what actually unlocks move-up and downsizing buyers into new construction and frees up existing housing stock for the people just entering the market. This is squarely federal jurisdiction, so my role is advocacy, using whatever channels municipalities have, UBCM included, to keep pressing on it, not pretending I can implement it myself.

No, and I don't think City Hall should be in the business of deciding which single housing type is "correct" for everyone. That said, I want to separate two different things this question blends together: a lot of what gets called municipal overreach on housing type right now, like multiplexes being permitted in established neighbourhoods, is actually provincial mandate, not something Vernon council chose or could reverse on its own.

Where I do think council has real judgment to exercise is making sure zoning enables what the market and residents actually want, not what looks good in a planning document. If ground-oriented, attainable homes are what people actually want and what's actually financeable right now, zoning shouldn't be structured to make that harder to build than a highrise that can't secure financing anyway. I'd rather see zoning that opens up a genuine range of housing types and lets market demand and household needs determine what gets built, rather than council picking a preferred urban form and mandating everyone build toward it.

I'd note this reads like it was written for Kelowna specifically, so I'll answer for Vernon. Yes, conditionally, and the conditions matter. Infill alone won't meet every kind of housing demand, and I don't think council should pretend otherwise. But permitting currently undeveloped land isn't something I'd support as a general policy shift, it has to clear the same bar any major growth decision should: the project pays for itself over its full lifecycle without shifting costs onto existing taxpayers, our infrastructure and water capacity can actually support it, and residents get a real public hearing before it's decided, not after.

Ground-oriented homes for young families and professionals are a real, legitimate demand I want Vernon to meet. But "respecting environmental areas" has to mean something specific and enforced, not just a phrase in a planning document, and growth that outpaces what the city can service doesn't actually serve the people it's meant to house, it just creates the next infrastructure crisis.

There's a difference between "would you support a specific project that clears a real bar" and "would you promote a general OCP policy shift that opens the growth boundary more broadly," and I want to answer that second question directly rather than dodge it. No, I wouldn't actively promote loosening the boundary as general policy. I think exceptions should stay exceptions, evaluated individually against real conditions, not become the new normal through a policy rewrite.

That said, I noticed the language in this question, "practical, attainable, and demonstrably in the best interests of the broader community", actually lines up closely with the standard I've already said I'd apply project by project: does it pay for itself, can infrastructure and water actually support it, and does the public get a real say before it's decided. If a specific proposal genuinely meets that bar, I'm not going to reflexively oppose it just because it sits outside the current boundary. But I'd rather evaluate that honestly case by case than commit in advance to opening the door more broadly, which is what "promoting OCP updates" toward that end would actually mean.

I want to separate two things this question puts together. On transparency, yes, absolutely. DCCs should be calculated on clear, current, defensible methodology, and residents and builders alike deserve to see exactly what a charge is funding and why. If Vernon's DCC bylaw review this year doesn't already require that level of clarity, I'd push for it.

But I don't support shifting the underlying principle, that growth pays for the infrastructure its own growth requires. I've said consistently throughout this campaign that development needs to pay for itself, and that's not a position I'll hold in one survey and abandon in another. If new infrastructure genuinely benefits existing residents as much as new ones, in the cases where that's actually true, that's worth examining project by project, not solved by a blanket shift that makes new homebuyers subsidize less and existing taxpayers subsidize more by default. Someone has to pay for infrastructure. I don't think the answer should be "spread it to people who had no say in whether that growth happened," any more than I think it should be "load it entirely onto the buyer of the next unit."

Yes. A city that isn't building housing and creating good local jobs is a city that loses its young people, and that's something I feel directly, both as a business owner who depends on Vernon having a workforce to hire from, and as someone who's watched people I grew up with leave because they couldn't see a future here.

Where I'd add nuance: "top priority" has to mean building responsibly, not building at any cost. Every position I've given in this survey reflects that same throughline, growth that pays for itself, infrastructure that keeps pace, and genuine public input on anything major. That's not a lower priority than growth itself, it's what makes growth actually sustainable instead of setting up the next infrastructure crisis or tax shock down the road. I don't think "top priority" and "responsible" are in tension. I think they're the same job.

The provincial government has mandated for Vernon over 1800 new homes before 2030, many of these will be in-fill and low income, I support this growth, as well as we need to find some solace for single families homes. I’m not currently on council, but from what I have heard and researched we also need to focus on red tape when it it comes to permitting

In Vernon water will be the big one, aging infrastructure, the fact that we need to permanently figure out continuous access to reclaimed water. I support the ongoing work on infrastructure, we can. It continue to just allow it to age as we grow.

I would have to look at what % of those are municipal and ask to understand the why, and how could they be reduced, as I 100% agree the costs are out of reach, we have 6 kids, and I truly feel I need to advocate for their futures

Yes, as I stated above, especially at a municipal level, there is in many cases to many people involved , streamlining is one of my strengths

I agree, and yes I would seek to understand where we could be of influence

As I mentioned we need to find plans that serve all people wanting to live in the Okanagan, and one of those sectors are single family homes

Only in situations where we have exhausted other avenues, and proper studies have been done, and the developer is willing to share the duties of protecting the eco-systems, this has been and can be done properly.

I would say this is the same as answer as above, there would need to be studies prior, and partnerships

I think this needs to be continuously looked at. We also need to look at industry and business and other ways to support taxes, so the full percent, doesn’t land on the homeowner

I believe it should be in the top three

Yes and this is directly connected to what I already stand for, not a separate commitment.

Construction jobs disappear when housing construction stalls, and housing construction stalls when projects can't get approved fast enough, or when the economics don't pencil out. I've already said I'll champion streamlined permitting and faster approval timelines that's not just a housing affordability measure, it's a jobs measure too, for the thousands of people across this valley whose livelihoods depend on homes actually getting built. Vernon is in the North Okanagan, not the Central Okanagan where Kelowna's numbers are hitting hardest, but I'm not going to pretend our regional economy exists in a bubble what happens to construction employment in Kelowna affects workers, suppliers, and trades across this whole valley, Vernon included. My approach stays consistent with everything else I've said: real infill and densification to get more homes built in the right places, DCC relief for genuine affordable housing partnerships the same way Vernon already extends to nonprofits, and growth that funds itself rather than getting subsidized by cutting the fees that pay for infrastructure. That's not slower or more cautious than a blanket pro-development stance it's actually what lets construction keep happening sustainably, instead of booming and then collapsing the way we're seeing play out in Kelowna right now. So yes, housing and construction employment should be a top priority. My way of getting there is smart growth and an efficient approval process not deregulation for its own sake.

Yes, with the same lens I bring to everything: smart investment, not blank cheque spending.

Strategic infrastructure water systems, roads, community facilities, and yes, our airport genuinely does create jobs and attract private investment. I'm not against growth. What I'm against is growth that isn't planned for, and infrastructure spending that chases costs instead of getting ahead of them. Vernon currently maintains nearly twice as much pipe per resident as Kelowna and more than three times as much as Vancouver, because of decades of low-density sprawl. That's not a pro-growth outcome it's an expensive one, and residents are the ones paying for it through their taxes.My version of pro growth means growing inward with smart infill and densification, so the infrastructure we already have works harder instead of us constantly extending new pipe, new roads, and new services outward. It means chasing every dollar of provincial and federal infrastructure grant funding available before defaulting to local taxation I've already pushed for that on major capital decisions like the RCMP building. And it means making sure new development actually pays its fair share of the infrastructure it requires, the same principle behind development cost charges.So yes I'll support real investment that creates well-paying jobs and strengthens our tax base. But I'm going to keep asking the same question I always ask: who's actually paying for it, and is this the smartest way to get the outcome we want? That's not anti growth. That's just doing the job properly.

Yes, with one important distinction I think matters: not all of that 30% is waste. Development cost charges exist for a real reason they make sure new growth pays for the infrastructure it actually requires, instead of dumping that cost onto existing taxpayers who didn't create the need. That's a principle I've been consistent on, and I'm not going to abandon it here: growth should fund itself.

It's also worth being clear about where Vernon actually sits: our DCCs are currently middle of the road compared to the rest of the valley genuinely affordable by regional standards, and funding infrastructure that's actually needed. This isn't a case of Vernon gouging new homebuyers.Vernon already shows the kind of flexibility I support: DCCs are waived for nonprofits building affordable housing. I'd support extending that same thinking to developers who genuinely partner with the City on affordable housing real incentives for real affordability outcomes, not a blanket fee cut that quietly shifts infrastructure costs onto existing taxpayers instead. What I am interested in is making sure Vernon's process around these charges is fair, transparent, and consistent for everyone which is exactly the problem I've already raised with the current DCC bylaw rewrite. When the City held a public information session on the new bylaw this summer, residents got a same day Facebook post while roughly 90 developers got personal invites weeks in advance. Affordable charges don't mean much if the process setting them isn't open to the people actually paying them.

So my answer is: yes to real scrutiny of municipal approval timelines and unnecessary delays I already support streamlining permitting for that reason. Yes to extending DCC relief where developers genuinely deliver affordable housing in partnership with the City, the same way we already do for nonprofits. But on fees broadly, I'd rather be honest with Vernon residents: our DCCs are reasonable already, they fund real infrastructure, and growth should keep paying its own way

Yes, and this is actually one of the few housing levers a city council has direct control over unlike GST or rent, which are federal and provincial.Permitting delays cost everyone: they drive up financing costs for builders, which gets passed on to buyers and renters, and they slow down exactly the kind of infill and missing middle housing Vernon needs more of. If we want real housing choice at every budget and age, the approval process can't be the bottleneck standing in the way. I'd want to see real numbers first:how long Vernon's approvals are actually taking, where the delays happen, and whether it's a staffing issue, a process issue, or an unclear policy issue and has this changed or been resolved since the audit that was done at the planning dept. That's exactly the kind of line by line scrutiny I bring to every file. Once we know where the actual holdup is, we fix that specific thing, instead of guessing.This also connects directly to something I've already raised: transparency in how the City handles major planning files. Vernon is currently rewriting its entire Development Cost Charge bylaw, and when the City held a public information session on it this summer, residents got a same day Facebook post while roughly 90 developers got personal invites weeks in advance. If we want projects moving faster and fairly, the process needs to be clear and consistent for everyone involved, not just efficient for whoever already has an inside track

Worth being clear about jurisdiction here: GST is entirely federal, not something BC or Vernon controls. That said, I won't pretend it's not relevant to housing affordability just because it's not my level of government.The federal government already eliminated GST for first-time buyers on new homes up to $1 million, as of this past March a real, tangible step. Where I'd go further: I'd support extending that relief to more new home buyers, not just first time purchasers, because supply side cost relief helps bring more housing to market at every level. What matters more to me is making sure Vernon isn't waiting on federal tax policy to solve what's within our own control real zoning reform and infill housing that doesn't depend on Ottawa's next budget. I’ll advocate to senior governments where it actually helps Vernon residents but I'd rather be honest that this isn't a city council lever than pretend I have power over federal tax policy I don't.

No and that's actually the distinction in my platform. I'm not interested in City Hall dictating what gets built through rigid zoning mandates that ignore what's actually financeable. I'm interested in removing the barriers that currently block a variety of housing types from being built at all. It's also worth being clear about who actually controls what here: the province has already taken over a lot of this decision-making from municipalities small scale multiplex zoning, transit oriented density requirements, and parking minimums have all been mandated provincially in recent years, whether a given city wanted them or not. So some of what looks like "City Hall picking winners" isn't actually a municipal council's call to make anymore. My job is to work within what the province requires, while making sure Vernon's own remaining discretion gets used to open up options, not restrict them further.

Right now, a lot of our zoning restricts what's legally possible before the market even gets a say. Where the city still has a say, I want to open that up allow duplexes, triplexes, and small multiplexes as options in more of our established neighbourhoods, alongside ground oriented single family homes, so the market can actually respond to what residents at different ages and income levels are asking for. That's different from forcing a lifestyle choice on anyone.Kelowna's experience is a useful lesson, not a template to copy blindly: if high rises can't secure financing and mandated multiplexes aren't viable in much of the city, that tells us something zoning should expand what's allowed, not dictate what must be built. Vernon doesn't need to repeat that mistake. My job on council isn't to pick winners between housing types. Where I actually have discretion, it's to make sure Vernon's Official Community Plan reflects real housing choice for families, seniors, young people just starting out instead of forcing everyone into whatever one model happens to be in fashion. And where the province has already decided, I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to sound like I have more power over this than I do.

I'd push back gently on the premise here, because I don't think infill has hit its real limits in Vernon yet we haven't even finished trying. That's actually the heart of my opposition to proposals like the 580 Commonage development: expanding our urban containment boundary before we've genuinely maximized what's possible inside it.Here's why this matters to me as a fiscal watchdog, not just a planning preference: Vernon already maintains nearly twice as much pipe per resident as Kelowna, and more than three times as much as Vancouver, because of decades of exactly this kind of low density, edge of town development. Every new greenfield subdivision we approve is new roads, new pipes, and new services that existing taxpayers end up subsidizing for decades. That's not hypothetical it's the actual infrastructure math behind why our costs per resident are so high right now.I'm not going to pretend ground oriented housing demand isn't real it is, and I understand why young families and professionals want it. But the answer isn't defaulting to undeveloped land because infill is harder. It's actually doing the harder work: missing middle housing, smart infill, and genuine use of what's already inside our containment boundary before we expand it. If we open up undeveloped land every time infill proves difficult, we'll never actually solve the sprawl-driven cost problem we'll just keep deferring it onto the next council and the next generation of taxpayers. Where I'd be open to undeveloped land is narrow and conditional: only where it's genuinely cost-neutral by meaning the development pays the full cost of its own infrastructure extension, doesn't breach the containment boundary, and respects environmentally sensitive areas, as the question itself notes. That's a high bar, deliberately. It should be the exception that proves we tried infill first, not the default because infill is inconvenient.

I'd support OCP updates in only very limited, high-bar circumstances and I think it's important to be precise about what 'demonstrably in the best interests of the broader community' actually has to mean, because that phrase can be used to justify almost anything if it's not defined rigorously.

My starting position is that Vernon hasn't exhausted what's possible inside our current growth boundary. We maintain nearly twice as much pipe per resident as Kelowna, and more than three times as much as Vancouver that's the direct cost of decades of growth boundary expansion, and it's existing taxpayers who carry that bill for decades after the ribbon cutting. Before I'd support updating the OCP to push the boundary outward, I want to see real evidence that missing middle housing and infill inside the boundary have genuinely been maximized, not just that they've proven slower or more complicated than greenfield development. If that evidence exists for a specific, individual proposal not a blanket OCP policy shift my bar would be: the development pays the full cost of its own infrastructure extension, with no subsidy from existing ratepayers; it doesn't fragment the containment boundary into a patchwork of exceptions; and it respects environmentally sensitive land, full stop. That's a case-by-case test, not a standing invitation.What I won't support is a general OCP amendment that makes boundary expansion the new default whenever infill is inconvenient. That's exactly how Vernon ended up with the infrastructure cost burden we're carrying right now, and I don't think the fix for high housing costs is to repeat the decision that helped create high infrastructure costs in the first place

I'll engage with the fairness point directly, because there's a real question buried in here but I want to be clear about where I land: I'm not revisiting growth pays for growth as a principle. I'm consistent on that, and I'm not changing it under pressure from a questionnaire. Here's the legitimate part of this argument: when a piece of infrastructure genuinely serves existing residents as much as new development a water treatment upgrade that benefits the whole system, say, not just new hookups then charging 100% of that cost to new homebuyers isn't fair allocation, it's just moving the bill from one group to another. If that kind of over allocation exists in Vernon's current DCC structure, I'd support a transparent audit to find it and fix the allocation formula. That's a fairness and accuracy question, and I'm always in favour of more transparency, not less.But that's a very different thing from what's actually being asked here, which is for existing taxpayers to absorb costs that new growth creates. Vernon's DCCs are already middle of the road for the valley genuinely reasonable by regional comparison. If we weaken growth pays for growth broadly, the alternative isn't that those infrastructure costs disappear. They get paid by someone, and that someone becomes existing Vernon taxpayers who didn't create the demand in the first place, through higher property taxes instead of DCCs. That's not fairer. It's just a different group of people being asked to subsidize growth instead.So: yes to a transparent, line by line audit of what our DCCs actually fund, to make sure new homebuyers are only paying for the share of infrastructure that's genuinely attributable to new growth, not a dollar more. No to abandoning the underlying principle that growth should pay its own way. Those are two different asks, and I don't think the second one actually serves the 'broader community' this question claims to be protecting it just shifts who pays

Yes but through smart growth, not through loosening the standards I've held throughout this questionnaire.Housing construction and the jobs that come with it matter enormously to this region, and Vernon isn't immune to what's happening in the Central Okanagan right now. My way of prioritizing it: faster, less costly permitting and approvals, real infill and densification inside our growth boundary, and DCC partnerships for genuine affordable housing projects — the same flexibility we already extend to nonprofits. What I won't do is treat 'priority' as code for cutting corners on fiscal responsibility, environmental protection, or our containment boundary. Those aren't obstacles to housing and job growth they're what makes sure the growth we do get doesn't saddle the next generation of Vernon taxpayers with infrastructure costs they didn't sign up for. That's the kind of priority that actually lasts past one council term

Housing is essential to both our community and our economy. We need homes for young people, families, workers and seniors, and a healthy construction sector provides important local jobs. I would support reducing unnecessary barriers to building, improving approval timelines and working

Strategic investment in infrastructure is necessary for a growing community and can also support economic development and job creation. My approach would be to prioritize investments based on need, long-term community benefit and return on investment, while considering lifecycle costs and the impact on taxpayers.

Housing affordability is affected by many factors, and we should look carefully at the costs within municipal control. I would support reviewing development fees and charges to understand their impact on housing viability and affordability, while ensuring we have a fair and sustainable way to fund the infrastructure needed to support new development.

This is one of the areas where municipalities can have a direct impact. I support reviewing development processes to eliminate unnecessary steps, improve timelines and provide greater predictability for applicants. Streamlining should not mean eliminating appropriate review; it means making the process as clear, efficient and timely as possible.

With a qualification – I support advocating to senior governments for measures that can meaningfully improve housing affordability and encourage housing construction. I would want to understand the implications of any specific proposal and whether the savings would translate into greater affordability for homebuyers before advocating for a particular tax change.

I don't believe City Hall should be choosing how people should live. We need a diverse housing supply that reflects the needs of our community—including apartments, townhomes, duplexes, secondary suites and ground-oriented family homes.

At the same time, zoning and land-use planning have an important purpose. We need to consider infrastructure capacity, transportation, water, environmental impacts and compatibility as our community grows. The goal should be to provide more housing choice while planning growth responsibly.

Yes, where appropriately planned.

I support ground-oriented housing as an important part of Vernon's housing mix, particularly for families. I would consider development of suitable undeveloped land where it is consistent with our OCP and where we can demonstrate that water, roads, sewer, fire protection and other infrastructure can support it without creating unreasonable long-term costs for taxpayers.

No, not as a general approach.

Vernon adopted a new Official Community Plan in December 2025 following extensive community engagement, and I believe we should give that plan an opportunity to work. The Urban Containment Boundary is intended to manage growth, use existing infrastructure efficiently and protect agricultural lands, hillsides and natural areas.

That doesn't mean a boundary can never be reconsidered. I would consider a future proposal on its individual merits where there is a compelling community benefit and where infrastructure, water, transportation, environmental impacts and long-term costs have been thoroughly evaluated.

I think this is a conversation worth having. Development should contribute fairly to the infrastructure required because of growth, but we should also recognize when infrastructure investments provide broader benefits to the existing community.

I would support a transparent review of how those costs are allocated, who benefits, and what portion should appropriately be paid

Housing and a strong local economy should be important priorities for the next Council. They are closely connected—businesses need workers, workers need housing they can afford, and construction itself supports local jobs and economic activity.

I would support increasing housing supply, reducing unnecessary barriers to development, and creating the conditions for businesses to invest and grow in Vernon. At the same time, growth needs to be thoughtful. We need to ensure that water, infrastructure and services keep pace and that we understand the long-term costs of the decisions we make.

For me, the goal is not simply growth—it is building a strong, sustainable community where people can find a home, a good job and a future in Vernon.

As someone who works in the construction field I face these questions regularly. Locally our development has moved slowly. I do think some key things have to be addressed before a significant of building happens ie. Increasing Firefighting staff, secure water use and management. That said increasing development and keeping our industry thriving is very important to me.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

I have answered yes to this but am not embarrassed to say that I do not know exactly how this looks from a Municipal level but look forward to learning how I can help to move this forward.

No explanation provided.

No explanation provided.

This applies to Vernon, only because we have a lot of undeveloped land and vacant properties within our boundaries already

No explanation provided.

Please note I say this again with the though that some other items have to be addressed in conjunction with development as mentioned in my first answer.