My Votes & Decision-Making

Section 3 of the Municipal Government Act states:

The purposes of a council include, among other things,
      (a) providing good government in its municipality;
      (b) providing services, facilities or other things that the council considers necessary or desirable for all or part of  its municipality;
      (c) providing for stewardship of the municipality’s public assets;
      (d) developing and maintaining its municipality as a safe and viable community; and
      (e) encouraging and enabling public participation in matters affecting the municipality.

Section 8 of the City of Summerside Code of Conduct:

• "Members of Council are keepers of the public trust and must uphold the highest standards of ethical behaviour." (Sec 8.1)
• "Members of Council have a duty to make decisions based on the best interests of the municipality as a whole.” (Sec 8.3)
• "Members of Council are responsible for the decisions that they make. This responsibility includes acts of commission and acts of omission. In turn, decision-making processes must be transparent and subject to public scrutiny." (Sec 8.4)
• "Members of Council must demonstrate and promote the principles of the Code of Conduct through their decisions, actions and behaviour. Their behaviour must build and inspire the public’s trust and confidence in municipal government." (Sec 8.6)
• “Members of Council have a duty to be as open as possible about their decisions and actions. This means communicating appropriate information openly to the public about decision-making processes and issues being considered, encouraging appropriate public participation, communicating clearly and providing appropriate means for recourse and feedback.” (Sec 8.8)

Section 9.1 of the City of Summerside Code of Conduct:

Members of Council must adhere to the following principles and provisions:

• "members of Council must be committed to performing their functions with integrity and to avoiding conflicts of interest and the improper use of the influence of their office;" (b)
• "members of Council must seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws;" (e)
• members of Council are obliged to question any request to act or make a decision that they think may be unethical or unlawful; (f)

Guide to the Municipal Government Act Handbook

• CITIZENS EXPECT SIMILAR TREATMENT IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS
  "Citizens expect that people in similar situations will be treated similarly. If someone is treated differently, it should be because their circumstances are different." (p. 26)
• BIAS as a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
  "Bias can be loosely defined as instances where a council member has a closed mind or holds preconceived notions on an issue that limit their willingness to consider all factors fairly. . . The council member may not have any pecuniary interest in the matter but if the member cannot be objective and consider other positions in voting on the matter, they should seek legal advice on how to proceed.  Bias is not ordinarily presumed to exist, but where a member has close ties to a person involved in municipal business or has repeatedly refused to consider opposing views or information contrary to their position, a reasonable person may believe that a bias exists and any decision made on the matter may be subject to legal challenge. " (p. 47)

 Section 27 of the Planning Act:

• Members of Council need to act in “good faith and without negligence in the performance or intended performance of the person’s functions or duties or the exercise of the person’s powers under this or any other enactment or a bylaw" or they are no longer protected from personal liability.

Below is a concise overview of the key findings from the City’s due diligence report on the Silver Fox Curling & Yacht Club (the report was included in the March Meeting Package):

1. Legal/HR Review

   • Assets & Liabilities: The City verified real property, chattels, and lease agreements. A Phase 1 environmental assessment was also performed.
   • Employee Obligations: The Silver Fox has around 42 employees. Termination/severance requirements under PEI law, especially for those with longer service, have been factored into potential costs.
   • Contracts: VLT (video lottery terminal) agreements and other external funding/lender agreements were reviewed for any obligations the City would assume.

2. Financial Review

   • Outstanding Payables: Trade payables of roughly $253,000 plus a $142,000 loan, along with $100,000 for wind-down and unexpected costs, and $30,000 in employee liabilities.
   • Overall Debt: The total debt the City would effectively cover is approximately $525,000.
   • Financial Statements & Taxes: Corporate filings, HST returns, and other remittances were checked to ensure no hidden liabilities.

3. Building Condition Assessment

   • Several specialists (engineering, HVAC, electrical, plumbing) assessed the core systems and structure.
   • While no catastrophic issues surfaced in the report, the facility requires some maintenance and capital upgrades.

4. Proposed Operating Structure

   • Curling Operations:
     • Following Consultation with Curling President, Summerside Curling Board of Directors would remain as is and become a tenant and focus on curling advocacy, membership growth and sustainability.
     • Summerside Curling Club would lease the facilities from the City of Summerside at a mutually agreed upon lease rate. Revenue opportunities for the club will be included within the lease.
     • The City will retain the operational responsibilities for the facilities including the ice plant operations, custodial services, maintenance and repairs, etc.
       
       
   • Marina/Harbor:
     • The Yacht Club would become a Public Marina
     • Dock Registrations will be managed by Credit Union Place Customer Service
     • Dock registrations and upkeep would shift to City staff.
     • Dock installation and maintenance oversight will be managed by Facility Foreman and Seasonal Employees.
     • Junior Sailing, Adult Sailing and other water safety programming would be
       coordinated through the Community Services Aquatics staff and leadership.
     • No longer anticipate the need for a Yacht Club BOD, however opportunities for Marina Social/Events Committee should tenants desire.
       
       
   • Food & Beverage:
     • Short Term – the City will most likely require an operator– to operate a reduced food/bar service – in order to remain within contractual obligations with ALC.
     • RFP Process for the food/beverage service – May/June 2025, closing fall of 2025, allow time for renovations and fit with hopes of a summer 2026 opening.
     • Food and Beverage would operate independently from the City. Contractual terms will be mutually agreed upon between City and successful proponent and will follow existing principles used at CUP.
     • Initial separation of curling facilities and access/entrances will be handled by the City of Summerside. Restaurant fit up responsibility of new food service tenant.
       
       
   • Administration:
     • The Director of Community Services would be responsible
     • Customer Service:
       • Bookings done through Scheduler
       • Customer Service Reps accept payments.
       • Finance would support the accounting / budgetary needs
       • HR Handled by C/S and HR of the City  
     • Operations/Facility maintenance:
       • Building Foreman and seasonal employees

5. Operating Budget Projections (3-Year)

   • Year 1: Estimated $130,000 operational loss plus $100,000 in immediate capital costs.
   • Year 2: Projected $50,000 loss as new revenue streams (e.g., lease arrangements) stabilize.
   • Year 3: Nearly break-even, with a small deficit of roughly $1,390. Long-term expectations suggest the facility could move to a balanced budget or modest surplus.
   • Budget leveling driven by Curling lease revenues in years 2 and 3 being more favorable allowing the association to stabilize membership along with the successful installation of new restaurant operation/leases.

6. Debt / City Obligations

   • The City’s direct financial responsibility in acquiring the Silver Fox’s assets is approximately $525,000, covering outstanding payables and wind-down obligations:
     • Trade payables = $253,000 (after HST refund is applied/paid to vendors).
     • CCU loan = $142,000
     • Operations to April 30th (that will not be offset by revenue and allows funds for unexpected transactions related to the sale) = $100,000 (approx.) (based on March/April 2024 figures)
     • Employee liabilities= $30,000 (approx.)
   • After acquisition, the City anticipates controlling operational costs, introducing new revenue sources (leases, events), and employing existing City staff and structures to streamline management.

Overall, the due diligence findings indicate that while there is a notable up-front financial commitment (including $525,000 in debt and some initial operating losses), the facility can be integrated into the City’s recreational portfolio with potential to reach near break-even by year three.

MY DECISION

“Please consider that if the city allows the silver fox to be sold to a private buyer, it is most likely that there will no longer be curling in this city. Curling is a winter sport that does not depend on snow or consistent temperature to operate. It is a sport that can be played by all ages.  Historically, curling bonspiels have brought significant revenue to this city.” 

There were several distinct reasons that guided my decision:

1. Prime Waterfront Concerns
   Beyond the blow of losing curling in Summerside, I was especially worried about the uncertainty of what a private buyer might do with such valuable waterfront property, potentially removing access or altering its community focus.
   
   
2. Community Fears and Heritage
   I heard from many residents who emphasized how the Silver Fox is far more than a building; it fosters a sense of heritage and togetherness. The thought of losing a beloved gathering space that has anchored local recreation for years weighed heavily on me.
   
   
3. Island-Wide Curling Impact
   The Cornwall Curling Club sent a letter underscoring that the closure of the Silver Fox would reverberate throughout the entire Island curling community. Their message confirmed that this facility’s influence extends well beyond Summerside’s boundaries.
   
   
4. Youth Development
   I have personally seen lives transformed by youth participation in curling and yachting—activities that often appeal to those who might not find their niche in more mainstream sports. Offering a recreational space that meets diverse needs can open doors for individuals who feel excluded elsewhere.
   
   
5. Older Adults
   Older adults benefit significantly from opportunities that encourage physical activity and social connection, especially in the winter months on the Island. By offering recreational programs where they can interact regularly, we help reduce the likelihood of social isolation—a factor that can negatively affect both mental and physical health.
   
   
6. Alignment with the Municipal Government Act
   Finally, providing what all or part of our residents consider essential recreational services reflects our responsibilities under Section 3(b) of the Municipal Government Act: to offer “services, facilities . . . Council considers necessary or desirable for all or part of its municipality.” 

While numerous community members supported the resolution and reached out with encouragement, others contacted me with reservations, questioning the City’s rationale for even contemplating this option.  As I did during the Council meeting, I'll review the concerns and explain my decision-making.

CONCERN #1: FINANCIAL DEBT
As a Councillor I am entrusted under the Municipal Government Act to safeguard public finances and act in the best interests of the community as a whole and "ensure the costs of building and maintaining services and infrastructure are affordable and will not become an undue burden on future generations." (Official Plan, p 41). With our consolidated financial statements reflecting a jump in long-term debt from $14.6 million in 2002 to $74.8 million in 2023–24, it is imperative that we exercise caution and transparency—especially given that $5 million of taxpayers’ money is allocated to debt servicing alone in each of the last five budgets. In this spirit, the Finance Committee is actively developing policies to manage debt service more effectively and exploring additional revenue sources, as discussed at our March 4 Committee of the Whole meeting. While the $525,000 in question is no small matter, my understanding is that we will endeavor to cover these costs without increasing our own debt load. I will gladly share details once this approach is confirmed, so that we remain both accurate and accountable to our community.

CONCERN #2: ANNUAL OPERATION LOSSES
The burden of ongoing deficits in the operation of the Silver Fox was also a common theme, as illustrated in one resident's comment: "The key issue is that this is another financial liability for the City should they decide to take over an entity that cannot pay its own way."  There certainly is some truth to this statement.  As a community service, the Department does operate in a deficit annually as providing services to the community costs more money than it generates in user fees (ie, we don't want to charge user fees to play in a park or use the walking track at the CUP); so, some deficit needs to be expected to provide community services.  Here is the breakdown of the Community Services 2024-25 Budget:            

With that being said, however, based on the staff's due diligence report, it is projected the Silver Fox would be breaking even or even working towards a small surplus in year three and beyond:

§  Year 1: $130,000 loss +$100,000 capital costs

§  Year 2: $50,000 loss

§  Year 3: $1,390 loss (break even)

So, on the operational side of things, I believe a case has been made to support operating the Silver Fox as a municipality and not foresee undue financial hardship.  And, after a time period has passed and if these projections are incorrect, the option to sell for a high rate of return could be put on the table.

CONCERN #3: DECLINING SPORT
There have been concerns raised by the community about the demand for curling or yachting in the community, and that it is on the decline:

“Curling is on the downside, and someone has to determine what the taxpayer demand for a curling facility and a boat docking facility actually is.”  

"I think serious discussion is needed. How many residents sail or curl vs the cost for the city.  How much $ does it bring in from outside the city? Generally I think having a place to park boats is important but that doesn't mean you need a yacht club.  Seems like something of an era that no longer exists.  A proper curling facility is important I think. If it was making money maybe the game would be growing. It is a game that spans generations and not many do.” 

To answer the question about the thought that curling is a "declining sport," I asked that we obtain membership data.  The following chart is a combination of membership data supplied to staff and also my review of the Strategic Plan of the Curling Club:

Apart from the unique 2021–22 season—when the Crapaud Curling Club used Summerside’s facilities before returning to their own—membership trends at the Summerside Curling Club have held steady over the past seven years, without any significant decline. More encouragingly, since the introduction of the Club’s Strategic Plan, there has been a marked increase in participation from younger curlers. At the time of the Plan’s launch, 65% of the membership was aged 51 or older, whereas this year that figure has dropped to 30% (with 33% last year). This points to rising engagement among those under 50 and suggests continued growth now that the Club can devote more energy to membership development and curling programs, rather than simply keeping the lights on.

CONCERN: #4: NO ROLE FOR THE CITY in CURLING
I have heard from residents who believe a municipality should not be involved in the “curling business.” However, during my own research, I discovered that publicly owned curling facilities are actually quite common—according to a 2022 Statistics Canada report titled Inventory of publicly owned culture, recreation and sport facilities, 725 municipalities in Canada own curling rinks. This demonstrates that municipal ownership of curling venues is a recognized practice across the country.

CONCERN #5: COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR

Some have questioned whether the City might be competing with local businesses—particularly bar and restaurant operations that are essential to supporting the facility. One resident put it this way:

“This facility depends on bar and restaurant revenues to survive, which means you compete with your taxpayers. It gets complicated, and the City cannot bail out all entities that require help. That is not their core role.”

It is important to clarify that the City does not plan to run the restaurant. Instead, the City will lease out the restaurant and create two separate entrances—one for the curling club and one for the dining establishment—so the restaurant can set its own hours and operate entirely independently. Far from competing, this arrangement is likely to boost private-sector enterprise by providing a prime location for a local operator to flourish.

FINAL NOTE
In short, I hope I have been able to explain my decision-making processes, and the factors that I considered.  Feel free to reach out to me anytime on this, or any other issue.

Introduction to My Concern
What initially appeared to be a straightforward decision—approving a multi-year funding agreement for two highly valued youth organizations—required a deeper review of procedural fairness to ensure that all non-profit organizations are treated equitably under the Community Support Program policies.

1. The Community Support Policy

• Policy Statement: The Community Support Policy prohibits awarding additional City contributions to organizations already receiving funding under a legal agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other arrangement with the City.
• Relevant Fact: The City has an existing agreement with BGC Prince County (BGC) involving federal funds transferred to the City in support of rapid housing, announced in May 2023. This arrangement potentially conflicts with the policy’s restriction on additional contributions.
• During the March 4 Committee of the Whole meeting (Video), this item was brought back to Council with more information. The City’s legal representative confirmed that the multi-year funding agreement complies with the Community Support Program. Two primary factors were cited:
  1. The funding was provided to the BGC the previous budget year and not this budget year
  2. The funding was not impacting the city budget as the funds come by virtue of the federal government

2. Letter Sent to Community Support Program Recipients

• Successful applicants to the Community Support Program are explicitly notified that they “do not qualify to receive additional, separate or special City funding for the rest of the fiscal year.”
• This aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent organizations from receiving multiple sources of City funds under separate agreements.

3. Comparison of the Letter and the Proposed Agreement

• Key communication requirements (issuing a news release, using the City’s logo, etc.) appear in both the letter to recipients and the proposed multi-year agreement.
• The “do not qualify for additional funding” clause present in the letter to other non-profits is absent from the proposed multi-year agreement.
• I questioned on the rationale for omitting a policy requirement from this new agreement.

4. Potential Inequities With Other Organizations

• Other non-profit organizations must abide by the “do not qualify for additional funding” requirement.
• By omitting the same requirement in the multi-year agreement, the City risks creating two sets of rules for the same application process—one for those who signed this multi-year agreement and another for other non-profits.
• Whether intended or not, the difference in treatment could be viewed as inconsistent with procedural fairness.

5. Potential Review of Policy

• There was also a discussion that a review of this Community Support Program may be needed to clarify the language, and if exceptions could be made based on the nature of the funding (ie, funding not coming out of the City Budget but transferred from the city from a different source).  I would agree that these two statements do appear to be in need of clarity and should say the same thing:
  • On the application: "Organizations already receiving City contributions of any kind as may be set out in a legal agreement with the City, a memorandum of understanding, or any other documented arrangement" are not eligible for funding
  • In the acceptance letter: "Please note that community organizations that have been awarded a community support grant do not qualify to receive additional, separate or special City funding for the rest of the fiscal year."
• While both statements appear to have agreement in the spirit of the policy, one speaks about currently receiving contributions (on the application) and the other speaks about not qualifying for additional funding as a result of receiving funding (on the acceptance letter).   Currently receiving funding or in an agreement with the city at the time of application vs. not being able to qualify for funding once accepted seem to be saying two different statements. I think some clarity may be needed.

6. “Good Faith” Clarification

• This discussion does not reflect any doubt about the merits or value of these two organizations; it centers on ensuring that policies are applied uniformly.
• Council members are bound by a duty of procedural fairness:
  • “Did we apply policies uniformly for all applicants?”
  • “Could a reasonable person understand why one group of applicates (who sign this mult-year agreement) do not have to abide by the same rules as those who are approved the usual way?”
• Council members must exercise their duties in good faith, uphold ethical standards, and maintain public trust and confidence.
  • Our Code of Conduct states 
    1.    “Members of Council . . . must uphold the highest standards of ethical behaviour" (8.1)
    2.    Members of Council “behaviour must build and inspire the public’s trust and confidence in municipal government." (Sec 8.6)
    3.    “Members of Council must . . .  uphold the letter of the law and the spirit of applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws;" (Sec 9.1.e)
• When I became aware of this discrepancy, I was obligated to raise the concern to fulfill my duty to act in good faith and protect the integrity of the Council’s decisions.

Resolution and Final Vote

• The proposed solution was to include a clarifying clause in the agreement indicating that recipients of this multi-year funding would not be eligible for additional, separate, or special City funding during the same period—consistent with the policy and the letters sent to other NPOs.
• Because Council agreed to add this clarification, I ultimately voted yes to approve the agreement to safeguard procedural fairness.

By integrating these clarifications, in my opinion, the agreement better aligns with existing policies while continuing to support valuable community programs in a manner that is equitable and transparent; however, I would consider a review of the policy as a moving forward action.

1. Continuity of Operations
   • City of Summerside Context
     • The City of Summerside has complex immediate operational issues, including energy management, budget planning, Silver Fox transitioning, and upcoming seasonal demands. Keeping day-to-day operations running smoothly, especially when the CAO position becomes vacant, is crucial.
     • The Deputy CAO’s familiarity with local issues, staff, and community stakeholders allows for a seamless transition, reflecting a proven standard for immediate interim leadership.
   • Legislative Framework in PEI
     • Under the PEI Municipal Government Act, Council may appoint an Acting CAO when the position is unexpectedly vacant. This statutory authorization supports timely internal appointments to maintain stability in municipal administration.
       
       
2. Recognized Leadership Model
   • Trusted Internal Leadership
     • The Deputy CAO has typically cultivated strong working relationships with Council, staff, and external partners, lending immediate credibility and a clear leadership presence.
   • Clarity and Accountability
     • By appointing someone who already upholds the core administrative values of the City, Council can expect a continued adherence to best practices and ethical standards set forth by organizations such as the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators (CAMA).
       
       
3. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness
   • No Need for Immediate Recruitment
     • External recruitment can be expensive and time-consuming. Appointing a Deputy CAO in an acting capacity circumvents extended search processes, ensuring vital decisions (e.g., budget finalization, infrastructure management) continue on schedule.
   • Minimal Training or Onboarding
     • The Deputy CAO’s firsthand familiarity with City of Summerside’s strategic plans and department operations reduces or eliminates onboarding time, a critical factor cited as best practice by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for smooth financial and operational oversight.
       |
4. Defined Interim Term and Review Process
   • Clear Timeframe
     • Establishing a six-month period for the Acting CAO ensures that both Council and staff have a transparent window for planning.
     • This duration is long enough for the Acting CAO to make substantive progress on major files.
   • Mid-Term and Final Reviews
     • Scheduling performance evaluations at the mid-point and end of the interim period aligns with recognized governance best practices.
     • These reviews allow Council to address any issues promptly while ensuring accountability to municipal objectives.

Conclusion
Appointing the Deputy CAO as Acting CAO during a leadership vacancy is a recognized best practice. Within the City of Summerside and the legislative framework of PEI, this approach:

• Ensures continuity of leadership and project management.
• Maintains organizational momentum through minimal disruption.
• Provides cost-effective and efficient coverage of the CAO role.
• Upholds transparent governance through defined interim terms and performance reviews.

By following these established standards, Summerside can navigate pressing challenges securely and maintain public confidence in its municipal administration—and, in Council's only employee -- the CAO.

I voted yes to participate in the Climate Resilient Coastal Communities Program (CRCP) because of a number of reasons:

1. Investment in Long-Term Resilience

• Forward-Looking Expenditure: The $15,000 + tax fee is a strategic investment that pays dividends by preparing our community for future climate-related challenges. Rather than incurring higher costs from reactive measures after an extreme weather event, this program equips us with the tools to proactively manage risks.

2. Access to Expert Technical Assistance and Training

• Partnership Strength: By collaborating with reputable organizations such as Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) and the Atlantic Infrastructure Management (AIM) Network, we ensure that our municipal staff, elected officials, and community members receive high-quality training and technical guidance.
• Enhanced Capacity: This assistance is designed to build our local competency in climate risk management, ensuring that our strategies are both current and effective.

3. Comprehensive and Integrated Planning Approach

• Holistic Resilience Planning: The program supports the development of detailed coastal resilience plans and municipal planning roadmaps. This means that our adaptation efforts will not only be comprehensive but also integrated into our broader asset management and planning processes.
• Actionable Strategies: By defining projects and creating robust financing strategies, the program helps ensure that our resilience plans translate into practical, on-the-ground actions.

4. Regional Collaboration and Shared Best Practices

• Cohort Benefits: Organizing municipalities into regional cohorts fosters a collaborative environment. Sharing experiences, challenges, and successful strategies across similar coastal contexts enhances our ability to develop effective, region-wide adaptation measures.
• Efficiency Through Collaboration: This collective approach can lead to more coordinated and cost-effective solutions compared to isolated municipal efforts.

5. Proactive Risk Mitigation

• Reducing Future Costs: Investing in climate resilience now can significantly reduce the economic and social costs associated with climate-related disasters later.
• Increased Preparedness: With improved planning and technical support, our municipality will be better positioned to manage climate risks, safeguarding infrastructure and community wellbeing.

6. Alignment with National Priorities and Community Engagement

• Supporting National Goals: Participation aligns our local efforts with national strategies for sustainable development and climate resilience, reinforcing our commitment to broader environmental priorities.
• Community Involvement: The program’s emphasis on training for the public ensures that residents are informed and engaged, which can lead to stronger community support for municipal initiatives and a more resilient local culture.

7. Alignment with City of Summerside Urban Core Plan (2016): Direct quotes from the Plan are as follows:

• Bedrock and Surficial Geology: The study area is on the fringe of a coastal estuary with Alberry fine sandy loam soil, consistent the study area. This soil type is one of the most common to Prince Edward Island (23% of the Island is this soil type) and recognized by its light brown colour, which is formed from sandstone or mudstone. It has a coarse, loamy texture and drains well but not rapidly. The soil is highly erosion prone. The bedrock geology of most of PEI is a friable soft red sandstone intermixed with shale (referred to as the Pictou Group). The rock is off the Permo-Carbiniferous age (285 million years ago) and past sea level rise of about 2-3 mm per year has resulted in about 0.5m average of shoreline erosion per year on PEI. Global Warming is anticipated to significantly accelerate sea level rise and shoreline erosion over the next century. Only the Water Street portion of the downtown likely is underlain by sandstone geology. The other areas of the downtown are all infilled. (p. 23)
• The Wilmot & Dunk River Watersheds: For Summerside Harbour, the most significant impact of the surficial geology is soil erosion in the Wilmot and Dunk River watersheds. As one of the “most intensively farmed regions of PEI with approximately 77% of its land designated to agriculture (2010, MacDonald), the Wilmot River watershed is highly susceptible to erosion and its erosion problems have long been studied and highly documented. Soil erosion into the Wilmot River will continue to infill Summerside Harbour so continuous dredging will be necessary unless significantly more stringent watershed controls are put in place. The SPC and City of Summerside should be working closely with the Bedeque Bay Environmental Management Association to ensure soil erosion is closely monitored and managed in the watershed so that impacts on Summerside Harbour are minimized. The ecology of the Summerside estuary is an important interpretive topic and could be part of an eco-touring opportunity for the downtown. (p. 24)
• Harbour Depth: Over the last 30 years, 80,500 cubic metres of dredge material have been removed from Summerside Harbour in past dredging operations and placed in approved offshore disposal sites. The channel draft is currently 6.7m, with a tidal variation of about 2 m. This supports small cruisers and medium sized mega-yachts but it will not support large cruise ships or deep draught shipping. The cost of dredging is significant and a business case for taking the water depth even to 8.5 m was cost prohibitive. SPC will continue to support the port related uses but growing the port business will be restricted by the 6.7 m draft without dredging. The restricted harbour depth and cost of dredging suggest that SPC follow a "waterfront Development" model in order to maximize its return on investment in the future. This report elaborates on that model in future chapters. (p. 24)
• Sea Level Rise: (p.25)
  • Climate change adaptation plans in coastal areas of Atlantic Canada are considering various sea level change scenarios for waterfront communities. Summerside was one of the 22 municipalities studied in 2011 as part of the "Scenarios and Guidance for Adaptation to Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise - Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island Municipalities". The scenarios are driven by CO2 emissions.
  • Because we are planning for the next 100 years of the waterfront and downtown, it is imperative to consider sea level rise scenarios for the next 100 years. For Summerside, sea level rise is expected to increase 1.00 ± 0.48 by the year 2100. A safe value would be 1.5m. In this scenario, the existing wharves would be regularly underwater. Future wharf and waterfront boardwalk reconstruction should look at raising these structures by at least 1m. Along Heather Moyse Drive, the road is currently at the elevation of the boardwalk height; too low for future scenarios.
  • Storm surges could have a significant impact on high water elevation depending on the recurrence interval of the storm event. A 10-year storm surge event in the year 2100 could be 4.31 ± 0.68 m above the current chart datum, while a 100- year event could produce a height of 4.73 ± 0.68 m. An important sea level change policy that many coastal cities are implementing is retail or office floor level uses in storm surge areas as well as a first floor height of 4-4.5m.
  • One of the other significant factors for Summerside is that with sea level rise and accelerated coastal erosion, the sand bars that influence the mouth of the harbour could migrate significantly over time; potentially choking the mouth of the harbour. These dunes are clearly visible on aerial photos. SPC should be working with the University of PEI to monitor short and long-term changes to offshore dune formations so as to minimize future dredging costs.
  • Halifax is requiring new developments on the waterfront to raise their finished floor elevation by 1m above current boardwalk heights. This means that, over time, the boardwalk elevation will increase, one development at a time; eventually raising the boardwalk height over the next century in pieces.
  • For Summerside, future wharf improvements should raise the wharves by 1-1.5m and the sheet pile shoreline should also be raised with pile caps. 
• 8. Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) agreement with CMHC (Initiative #9): Our agreement with CMHC includes, as a funded initiative, the development of a climate change adaptation plan.  In this agreement, there is $100,000 approved in the HAF agreement for a Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Implementation with details listed as " Understand where vulnerabilities exist within the community and develop land use responses to adapt to those future  changes."

By voting yes on this (minimal) fee of $15,000 + tax, we’re not only investing in immediate technical assistance and planning support but also committing to a long-term vision that prioritizes sustainable growth, community safety, and proactive climate risk management. This forward-thinking approach is essential to ensuring that our coastal areas remain resilient in the face of evolving environmental challenges.

Below is a summary of my rationale for voting yes on this resolution:

• Protecting Our Local Economy:
  The imposition and threat of U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods directly jeopardizes the financial stability of Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and our broader national economy. By voting yes, I support measures that prioritize local and Canadian procurement, reducing our vulnerability to external economic shocks and safeguarding local businesses and consumers.

• Strengthening National Solidarity:
  This resolution is a statement of support for the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Government of Canada. It reinforces our commitment to standing together in the face of international pressures, emphasizing that the interests of the nation must come first over isolated regional or international concerns.

• Enhancing Economic Resilience:
  By mandating that procurement from U.S. sources undergo additional scrutiny and by encouraging the use of alternate Canadian or international vendors, the resolution lays a foundation for a more robust and adaptable supply chain. This proactive approach helps insulate our community from the ongoing volatility in U.S.-Canada trade relations.

• Promoting Transparency and Accountability:
  The resolution’s requirements for monitoring, reporting, and presenting alternative sourcing options ensure that every expenditure is carefully scrutinized. This level of transparency not only builds trust but also keeps us accountable in our efforts to support sustainable, long-term economic health.

• Supporting Equitable Trade Practices:
  Ultimately, the resolution is about advocating for a fair trading environment—one that benefits both Canadian and American economies without one side shouldering undue risks. Voting yes aligns with the belief that equitable trade practices will promote stability and prosperity for all involved.

In summary, I voted yes on this resolution because it is a comprehensive approach to mitigating the risks posed by the possible U.S. tariffs, safeguarding our local economy, reinforcing national unity, and fostering a resilient and transparent economic environment.

I felt truly heartened to support relocating the Fire Hall to the new site on the East West Housing Corridor rather than at Leger Park. I wasn’t involved in the Leger Park selection process, and I completely understand the discomfort and concern many of you have felt about placing a critical service facility in a space that many hold dear. I believed there must be a location that not only meets our operational first response needs but also protects our cherished community spaces. The proposed corner of Ryan and MacEwen on the EWHC is just as strategically placed to serve the center of our 8‑km service area, ensuring rapid emergency response while preserving the beauty and function of Leger Park. We all deserve to feel safe and secure, but it’s equally important that we safeguard the parks where our children play, where our seniors enjoy quiet afternoons, and where our families come together. I voted yes because I genuinely believe that this new location respects both our need for efficient fire safety and the vital greenspace that makes our city such a wonderful place to live, work, and play.

BACKGROUND

Before diving into the discussion, it’s important to share some context. During my door-to-door conversations in October 2024, many community members expressed significant concerns and misunderstandings about the Fire Hall’s proposed location. I genuinely empathize with these worries and had the same misunderstandings.  I believe a new Fire Hall should serve as a beacon of unity and celebration, reflecting our community’s commitment to safety and togetherness. Unfortunately, the lack of clear communication from the city had only fueled confusion and concern for many residents.

Land Acquisition and Early Announcements

• Historical Context:
  In the spring of 2008, APM purchased 7.3 hectares of this vacant land (which had been unused for nearly four years) with plans to divide it into commercial and residential spaces.
  
  
• Old Holland College Building:
  The old Holland College building sat without a tenant for over a decade while it was owned by APM. The area had long been considered an “eyesore” by the community.  In Feb 2020, a group of Summerside residents started an online petition to demolish the building and had 941 signatures.  Later in that same year, APM then sold the building to the City for $1.  The City resolved to clear the dilapidated old Holland College building as part of its broader redevelopment strategy as part of its capital budget for 2022-23. The city then sold the property to the province for a nominal fee (guessing $1) with an agreement to build a new 48,000 square foot facility that would house a medical home and include space for primary care, mental health and addictions services, a provincial geriatrician program and public health nursing and dental services. Health P.E.I. will manage and operate the centre once it is built. The downtown Harbourside Health Centre would be moving to this location.
  
  
• Subsequent Developments:
  APM went on to develop adjacent sites, including a strip mall. They also announced plans in Nov 2022—developed in partnership with Kings Square Housing Corporation—to build 47 affordable housing units, 42 market units, the bulk of which will be two-bedroom apartments. 
  
  
• August 2022 Fire Hall Announcement:
  In August 2022, just before the November 2022 Municipal Election, CBC reported that the city had purchased land from a developer for $300,000 and this would be the location of the new Fire Hall. This site was identified as the former Holland College location—situated between the Cineplex and the strip mall housing Cannabis PEI. A press release, photo opp, and all the related media coverage ensued.  

Community Engagement and Miscommunication

• Door-to-Door Confusion Byelection Aug - Oct 2024:
  During my door-to-door visits, I encountered significant confusion. Many residents and community members were under the impression that the fire hall would be built at the location announced and approved by Council in spring 2022. Even as late as mid-byelection, the sign indicating this location remained visible.
  
  
• Communication with the Mayor:
  Concerned by the conflicting messages, as well as rumours of relocating the Fire Hall in the Parkview Seniors Club location, I reached out to the Mayor during the byelection. I learned that Leger Park was being considered as an option, with assurances that the Parkview Seniors Club would remain in place. This confirmed the community had reasons for confusion as the Fire Hall may not be going where the 2022 announcement detailed.

Recent Developments and Official Announcements

• Council Election and Announcement:
  I was elected to Council in October 2024. On December 3, 2024, the city announced that the new Fire Hall would be located on Central Street, between Leger Park and the Parkview Seniors Club. This announcement raised two major concerns in the community:
• The lack of community consultation and transparency, as decisions appeared to have been made behind closed doors.
• The prospect of sharing one of the city’s most popular parks—Leger Park—with a fire hall, causing further public unease.
  
  
• Discrepancies in the Land Purchase:
  Prior to my election, many residents believed that the fire hall was to be built near the corner of Ryan and Granville Street, following the 2022 announcement. However, I later learned that the city had not actually purchased the land. The agreement stated that if the developer built two roads, then the land would be acquired. Since those roads were never built, that agreement expired. Despite this, the outdated sign remained up during the byelection, and no public update was provided about the change in plans.

Community Impact and Concerns for Leger Park

Following the Dec 2024 announcement of Leger Park, the only responses from the public on the Leger Park location were negative – not one member of public shared with me their support of this location. The four key concerns with Leger Park are as follows:

• Loss of Valuable Greenspace and Trees:
  Leger Park is a cherished community asset, serving as the city’s premier playground, water play area, and greenspace for families, children, and seniors. Locating the fire hall at this site would result in the removal of valuable trees and recreational greenspace, disrupting a vital community hub for socialization and outdoor activities.
  
  
• Public Trust and Transparency:
  The decision-making process—conducted without proper public consultation—has led to a decline in trust in local government. Many residents feel that the lack of transparency and the shifting plans (from the 2022 location to Leger Park) undermine confidence in future municipal decisions.
  
  
• Perception of Inconsistency:
  Changing the fire hall location creates a perception of backtracking and inconsistent planning, particularly when the city promotes parks and greenspaces as essential public assets while simultaneously reducing them.
  
  
• Safety Next to a Playground:
  Locating a fire hall adjacent to a playground raises significant safety concerns for the community. The constant movement of emergency vehicles can lead to increased noise levels, heightened traffic, and unpredictable driving patterns, all of which may jeopardize the safety of children and families using the playground.

I agree that the first three key areas of concern residents have expressed to me align with my thoughts and beliefs if Leger Park were to be chosen. I believe the plan to safeguard the area with a fence around the property would negate the safety concerns.

Community Impact and Concerns for New Location

While the community feedback for the new EWHC location was substantially more in favour of this location, there were concerns raised about the EWHC location. Here are the concerns and my response to these concerns:

• Increased Traffic:
  The added traffic based on the addition of a Fire Hall will be minimal.  For example, in 2024, there were 405 SFD Fire Calls.  Based on feedback from Staff I received, three firefighters arrive per truck (there are three trucks), and the rest report directly to the fire location.  So, that would be, on average, 1.1 calls a day x 9 firefighters x 3 trucks = 24 extra vehicles per day (counting the return trip). Also, on Mondays once a month, all 60 fire fighters arrive for training in the evening, which is during off-peak traffic times. Yes, there could be times the Fire Hall is rented out for events, but that too would not result in a daily increase of traffic. In short, the traffic for the site being developed as a Fire Hall is far less traffic increase than if the site being developed with major apartment complex or a commercial business.
  
  
• Impact on Quiet/Peaceful Neighbourhood
  We want to find a balance where the location is as less disruptive as possible for nearby residents while still offering the location that fits the needs of being able to respond quickly.  I’ve been advised that the fire trucks do not turn on sirens at night until necessary. In fact, they will not need to turn the sirens on when they leave the station unless there is traffic. Yes, located on the EWHC, there will certainly be traffic during the daytime but considerably less traffic during the sleeping hours. I hope the fact that the average number of calls is one per day, and the fact that the fire fighters always use their judgement and discretion on when the siren is needed, does help to illustrate sirens and lights will not be running all day and night long.  A resident suggested the possibility of RRFB to be placed at the exit of the Fire Hall that would stop traffic and negate the need for sirens.  I shared this info to the city.  I do believe, however, that when we live in a city, there are certain sounds we will hear more often.  The sound of sirens and emergency vehicles responding to emergencies that are a necessary sound to ensure we can response as quickly as possible in emergency situations.
  
  
• To Design the Intersection Safely
  The East West Housing Corridor was designed by external designers who are specialists in traffic design. The City included the entire intersection of MacEwen in its scope of work. The City was open to suggestions the external designers felt needed to be added this existing three-way, non-signalized intersection. The designers recommended making this new intersection a 4-way intersection with signals.  They also added a slip lane for the traffic heading West on the new road to continue north on MacEwen toward the Hospital as well as a slip lane or right turn lane on the NE corner of the new intersection to head towards Colin Avenue or Woodridge Place. In my opinion, having witnessed speeding on MacEwen Road and the Ryan Street intersection, the addition of a signalled intersection will significantly reduce the speeding in this area as it will require traffic to come to a complete stop.
  
  
• Parking on the Street:
  One resident was concerned about there not being enough off-street parking and when the Hall is rented out in the future, vehicles would be parking on the street.  The design of the parking lot will include up to 60 parking spaces to reduce the need for vehicles to be parking on the street.

In short, for the majority, even those who identified concerns, they stated that they would support the EWHC as a better solution than Leger Park.

Fiscal Considerations

• Debt Serving:
  Assumptions:
  
  • Amortize long-term debt over 20 years (typically the longest we borrow for an asset).
  • Interest rate of 4% per year (this will likely be lower by the time we borrow long term so hopefully this is the worst-case scenario).
  • Allocating CCBF direct allocation (formerly known as gas tax) for 2026-27 and 2027-28 = $3.2 million.

• Debt Service costs:
  • Amount to be borrowed long term = $7.8 million.
  • Annual principal and interest payment = $574,000 (at 3% interest = $524,000 so a percent would reduce annual debt service cost by only $50,000; mentioning this as some may feel 4% is too high).
  • Total interest over 20-year term = $3.7 million
    
    December 2027 will be the last debt payment for Credit Union Place; annually we are paying $2.4 million in debt service costs for this loan.

§  38% of this cost is allocated to the utilities, with $1.5 million being paid from the General Fund.

§  Paying off this 30 million dollar loan will not “open” up $2.4 million in spending for the general fund.

§  We are purposefully timing debt for the fire hall to come online after Credit Union Place has been paid off, knowing that Credit Union Place will have some significant capital costs that will be necessary.

• Intent to Apply for Gas Tax Loan

o   City plans to apply to the FCM Green Municipal Fund for a loan plus grant. Currently, the program is under review so we have not submitted the preapplication form yet (to determine if our project is eligible) plus we do not have final costs/timeframes nailed down yet which may be required to submit the preapplication and application forms.

o   How it works:

§  The loan can be for up to 80% of eligible costs + grant to a maximum of $10M.

§  The grant is up to 15% of the loan.

§  If we were eligible for the full $10 million then we would get a loan for $10M and a grant of $1.5M. Depending on the interest rate at the time at the end of the day the grant may cover your interest costs so essentially it would be a no (or at least a low) interest loan.

§  Based on the estimates we expect that we would hit the maximum of $10M loan + $1.5 grant

• Cost Analysis:
  The proposed location on the East-West Housing Corridor comes with a higher cost—$450,000 plus $67,500 (HST), totalling $517,500—because the city does not own the property (unlike Leger Park). All other cost assumptions listed above would remain the same. However, this expense is relatively minor compared to the intangible costs of:
• Reduced recreational area and greenspace loss.
• Decline in public trust due to opaque decision-making.
  
  
• Financial Context:
  With the city having $96 million in debt (per the October 2024 Finance Report), this additional expenditure is arguably a “drop in the bucket.” It is justified if it helps preserve community spaces and maintain public confidence.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the Fire Hall location is multifaceted—combining issues of transparency, community impact, fiscal responsibility, and the fact I came in on this process at the tail end. While the initial plan for a site between the strip mall and the Cineplex was widely publicized, subsequent developments and decisions were made behind closed doors and miscommunications had sown confusion. In my view, the process should have been far more transparent, particularly given the significant community value of Leger Park, and specifically because Council would still need to vote on the rezoning and any Councillor whom already had their mind made up would be deemed to be in a conflict of interest. I’ll end my rationale by stating that a new Fire Hall should be a moment for community celebration, not a source of contention or a reminder of lost greenspace.  By voting yes on the EWHC location, I hope the legacy of the new location will be the legacy of community pride.

I supported the resolution because it provides the City of Summerside with essential funding—through approximately $11.9 million in borrowing—to finance capital projects ($11.5M for Eco Park Building, $3.8M Water utility, $3.4M Sewer Utility, $291K Fire Hall pre-design, $27.5K Land Purchase) and refinance maturing loans ($396,200 for water and sewer reconstruction), all while staying within the debt limits set by the Municipal Government Act. The recommendation from the Finance Committee and the secured borrowing process gave me confidence that this step was necessary for maintaining our infrastructure.  However, I remain deeply concerned about our long-term fiscal trajectory. Our consolidated financial statements reveal that our long-term debt has surged from $14 million in 2002 to $74 million in 2023‑24, and debt servicing now consumes 18% of our total expenses (over $5 million per year). This trend underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive plan aimed at reducing our debt servicing costs over time to ensure sustainable financial management for the future.

INTRODUCTION

An application from Z & C Flourish International Ltd. for three different portions of PIDs to amend from Low Density Residential R1 or R2 into High Density Residential R4.  Of the 64.4 acres the developer owns, they wanted to rezone 15.2 acres (24% of the land) to R4.  The zoning for the middle section of the development will remain as is and will be developed as per the uses permitted in the current zones.  For reference, please see the Development Concept presented submitted by the Developer:

PROCESS:
The following process occurred as per City of Summerside Zoning Bylaw (Sec 5.10):

MY DECISION:

The proposed residential land use aligns with the Official Plan, subject to Council’s relevant policies regarding high-density housing. In particular, the Official Plan identifies three key location criteria for high-density development (see pages 86–87):

1. Situating high-density housing near employment opportunities, community facilities (including Holland College), and services, while also promoting walkability. This objective can be further supported if the City extends the sidewalk on Greenwood Drive to the upper portion of the development.
2. Leveraging high-density developments in difficult-to-service areas to help distribute infrastructure costs among a larger user base.
3. Ensuring any new high-density development mitigates potential negative economic and physical impacts on surrounding land uses, whether existing or proposed.

Furthermore, this development aligns with a core Official Plan objective found on page 87: “to encourage high-density housing,” which includes accommodating applications for higher-density residential development and supporting rezonings in suitable areas. Notably, the Official Plan was updated, effective January 23, 2025, to broaden its objective from “to encourage high-density housing in specific areas” to a more general “to encourage high-density housing” everywhere.

It is important to note, however, that Council’s decision on whether to rezone the subject property to R4 cannot be based solely on the location criteria for high-density housing (pages 86–87) or the Official Plan’s stated intent to encourage such development. There are numerous other considerations within the Official Plan that must be evaluated to determine whether this project fully conforms to its policies and objectives.

Summary of Official Plan Guidance on Promoting a Sufficient Diversity of Housing Types and Its Relevance to the Application

I voted no on this application because it does not align with the Official Plan’s emphasis on housing diversity, from the Council’s policy to “promote a range of housing types and forms to accommodate a mix of age and income groups” (p. 46) to its overall vision for “a broader mix of housing and affordability choices” (p. 39). The Plan highlights the importance of creating inclusive neighborhoods by encouraging “a range of housing types and tenures” (Neighbourhoods Strategy, p. 54) and supporting “other housing alternatives” (p. 49), such as conversions, accessory dwelling units, and adaptive conservation of heritage houses. It further stresses “a range of housing types, densities, and forms of tenure” (p. 79) and specifically encourages smaller-scale multi-unit forms like semidetached houses, fourplexes, and row houses (p. 81). The City’s commitment to implement the Mayor’s Task Force on Attainable Housing (p. 14) reinforces the need for a balanced mix of housing types, noting that “a one-size-fits-all approach will often mean that current needs aren’t met” (p. 15) and recommending “a broader range and mix of dwelling types” (p. 16). Considering that Summerside has already seen 22 apartment complexes constructed or underway since 2022, approving yet another seven high-density buildings—potentially 11 in total—does not address these Official Plan directives or Task Force recommendations. Instead, it merely adds more apartment units without meeting the identified need for missing middle housing, which is why I could not support this proposal.

Summary of Official Plan Guidance on Increasing Supply of Middle Missing Housing and Its Relevance to the Application

The Official Plan stresses the need to develop “missing middle” housing—which lies between single-family homes and larger apartment complexes—throughout the City’s 600 hectares of vacant, residentially designated land (p. 84). It specifically encourages housing forms such as duplexes, fourplexes, smaller multi-unit buildings, row houses, and townhouses, all of which fit better into existing neighborhoods, support walkability, and align with local retail and transit opportunities (pp. 47, 84). Additionally, the City’s Housing Accelerator Fund provides financial incentives for creating or redeveloping lots capable of supporting missing middle housing, as well as for adopting design requirements that facilitate this type of development.

Since 2022, however, 22 new apartment buildings have been built or are under construction—686 units—none of which address the missing middle gap. Proposing seven to eleven more high-density apartment buildings without meaningfully addressing the missing middle housing shortfall identified in the Official Plan led to a “no” vote, based on the concern that additional apartments do not fulfill the City's call to increase middle missing housing.

Summary of Official Plan Guidance on Affordable Housing and Its Relevance to the Application

The Official Plan’s primary vision is to create a “Livable Community” (p. 40), defined as an attractive, accessible city that meets the needs of a diverse population with quality, affordable housing, efficient transportation, and a strong economy. The Plan’s Overall Vision Goals emphasize increasing density to prevent sprawl, offering a broader mix of housing and affordability choices (p. 39), and continually promoting inclusive growth that ensures “quality housing for all household types, age groups, and income levels” (p. 42).

To accomplish these objectives, Council has introduced multiple policies, including density bonusing to support the construction of affordable units (p. 82) and initiatives such as the Housing Accelerator Fund, which provides financial incentives for projects that specifically address housing for vulnerable populations or create affordable home options. The Plan also calls for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the City’s housing supply to ensure affordability, diversity, and accessibility (p. 48, 79, 87). Further reinforcing these principles, the Mayor’s Task Force on Attainable Housing highlights that “housing should be available for all household types, life stages, and income groups” (p. 18), and calls for targeted solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

When considering whether this application helps to ensure housing affordability, the Official Plan cautions that simply increasing the number of units may not, on its own, address affordability issues in the near term [see my note beginning with "Really" in the next paragraph]. Instead, the Plan directs Council to pursue deliberate strategies—like requiring or incentivizing affordable units within new developments—to ensure the community’s housing needs are actually met. During the presentation for this proposal, there was no indication that these units would be offered at affordable rates or otherwise contribute to the City’s stated affordable housing goals.

Really, what did I say the Official Plan says about housing supply?  To be clear, the Official Plan does not include a single, verbatim statement saying that “simply increasing the number of units may not, on its own, address affordability issues in the near term.” Rather, this idea is inferred from multiple Official Plan directives emphasizing diverse and affordable housing options, as well as policies (e.g., density bonusing) that go beyond merely adding units. In other words, while the document highlights the importance of increasing supply, it consistently frames affordability as a multifaceted challenge that also requires strategies such as:

• Encouraging a range of housing types (e.g., missing middle housing, conversions, accessory units)
• Providing incentives and programs (e.g., density bonusing, the Housing Accelerator Fund)
• Monitoring local housing needs (e.g., ensuring housing remains affordable for different age and income groups)

These directives, taken together, illustrate the Official Plan’s broader stance that supply alone does not necessarily solve affordability issues—hence the paraphrase I inserted.

Environmental Review of Watercourse/Wetland Area

The application under review includes steps to mitigate potential environmental impacts. City staff have specified the following requirements:

1. Engagement with the Department of Environment: The applicant must consult with the Department of Environment to assess any watercourse or wetland areas on the property. The Province will determine the level of environmental risk and decide if a full environmental assessment is required.
2. Prohibition of Development in Buffer Zones: No development will be allowed within the watercourse or wetland buffer areas.

While these conditions would typically come into play during the Site Plan approval stage (read: not necessary at this point), this application has been before Council once already (in June 2023), with the same directive for an environmental review. Consequently, it would have been prudent for the applicant to proactively engage with the Department of Environment in advance of returning to Council.

Moreover, the proposed development sits adjacent to two designated greenspaces and intersects a planned greenspace trail. This adds another layer of environmental and planning considerations. If Council approves the rezoning based on the current concept plan and the Department of Environment subsequently raises concerns about encroaching on greenspace, the rezoning would stand, but the applicant would need to revise the concept plan. Although a concept plan can be altered at any time, establishing the viability of the proposed development at this stage is important for me. It also demonstrates that the applicant has undertaken due diligence, which in turn provides more clarity and confidence for both Council and the public.

If I were in the developer’s position, having had an earlier application denied, I would have sought preliminary discussions with the Department of Environment to ensure that the proposed concept aligns with environmental regulations from the outset. Presenting these findings to Council would have underscored the project’s feasibility and addressed potential concerns before the matter reached the rezoning stage again.

Careful Consideration of Existing R4 Land Supply and Future Growth

In evaluating new applications for high-density zoning (R4), it is critical to consider the existing supply of R4-designated land and other key factors:

• Current Undeveloped R4 Land: According to the Mayor’s Task Force on Attainable Housing (October 2023), there are 153 acres of undeveloped R4-zoned land available in the City. An R4 designation can support between 14 and 30 units per acre. At 14 units per acre, this supply translates to approximately 1,975–2,140 units (a 10–11 year supply), while at 30 units per acre it could yield roughly 4,240–4,590 units (a 21–23 year supply) (p. 4).

• East-West Housing Corridor (EWHC): Since October 2023, the land use for overall housing supply has expanded significantly. The EWHC will open up an additional 345 acres of land, creating a “growth node” via CDA zoning. This node is anticipated to add about 2,000 housing units—many of which are projected to be high-density apartments—integrated with transit and active transportation.

• Need for a Comprehensive Land Supply Study: Both the Housing Accelerator Fund and the Mayor’s Task Force on Attainable Housing call for a formal study to analyze the City’s land supply and anticipated growth patterns.

  • Housing Accelerator Fund (Initiative #8) recommends undertaking a land supply study specifically for housing, focusing on areas serviceable by municipal water and sewer.
  • Attainable Housing Task Force (p. 6) similarly advocates for an updated land supply and growth scenario analysis to identify current and future needs.

Given the addition of over 600 apartment units since 2022, the forthcoming 2,000 EWHC units, and the high-density potential of existing R4-zoned lands, the City should proceed judiciously with further rezoning to R4. This approach aligns with the Official Plan’s Overall Vision—which emphasizes creating a “Livable Community” by balancing density, affordability, and efficient land use by offering "a broader mix of housing and affordability choices” (p. 39)—and ensures that rezoning decisions support the Plan’s longer-term goals rather than simply increasing the supply of high-density units without comprehensive planning.

Summary of Applicant's Presentation and Its Relevance to the Application

I would be remiss if I did not include my thoughts on the presentation by the applicant as pat of my decision-making process.  During the developer’s presentation on December 16, 2024, Public Meeting (Video: starts at the 1:07:00 mark ) to Council, I was concerned that Council did not walk away from the presentation fully understanding the basic details of the development.  For example, even as two different Councillors asked about the number of apartment buildings or the number of units per apartment building, there were no details provided other than the development would not be five or six storeys tall and that “did not want to throw something together quickly . . . it will take some careful study.”  In my mind, and specifically because a similar application came before Council in June 2023, I would have expected the developer to be able to answer the basic questions of (1) how many apartment buildings, (2) how many units per building.  The applicant had 16 months to come back and be prepared. 

Decision Summary

After reviewing the proposal to rezone 15.2 acres of land from R1/R2 to R4, I voted no because the project did not adequately address the Official Plan’s emphasis on housing diversity and affordability. While the Plan does support high-density housing—particularly in areas close to services, jobs, and community facilities—it also stresses the need for missing middle options (e.g., fourplexes, townhouses) to accommodate varying household sizes and incomes. Given that 22 new apartment complexes have been built or are underway since 2022 (686 units) without significantly expanding the City’s range of housing choices, adding seven to eleven more high-density apartment buildings would not fill the identified gap in missing middle housing. Furthermore, the Official Plan calls for deliberate strategies (beyond simply increasing supply) to create affordable units, and the applicant did not show how these units would be priced to meet the City’s affordability goals. Finally, because the City already has significant undeveloped R4 land and upcoming high-density supply through the East-West Housing Corridor, and given the Task Force on Attainable Housing’s recommendation for a comprehensive land supply study, I concluded that approving this application for additional R4 land use zoning at this time would be premature without stronger evidence that this project aligns with the Official Plan’s broader objectives for housing diversity, affordability, and the need to fill the gap in missing middle housing.  

Vote #8: Temporary Increase in Operating Line of Credit from $5M to $10M until March 31, 2025 
January 20, 2025
Meeting Package 

VOTED YES
Resolution Carried 8-0
Meeting Video

I voted yes on this item because it ensures the City of Summerside has the financial flexibility to meet its obligations while waiting for anticipated funding. The expenditures for critical infrastructure projects—such as the east-west corridor, the eco-park building, and water and sewer reconstruction—have already been covered by our general operating account. This temporary increase to the operating line of credit serves as a safeguard, ensuring that the city can continue operating smoothly if there are any delays in receiving the expected funding from programs like the Housing Accelerator Fund and the Canada Community Building Fund.

Per section 166 (1) of the Municipal Government Act Part 6, Division 3, "a council may be bylaw authorize the borrowing of money on a short-term basis for the purpose of financing operating expenditures."

Importantly, this measure (increasing the line of credit from $5M to $10M) does not create unnecessary long-term debt; the additional credit will only be used if absolutely necessary and will be paid down once the funds are received. This is a responsible financial approach that allows the city to manage cash flow effectively while keeping essential projects on track.  I think that we should revisit increasing our line of credit to $10M permanently in case similar financial transfers are delayed. 

Vote #7: Twinning City with Kremenents, Ukraine 
December 16, 2024
Meeting Package 

VOTED YES
Resolution Carried 8-0
Meeting Video

Vote #6: Multi-year Funding Agreement 
December 16, 2024
Meeting Package 

I supported the 5-year funding agreement with the College of Piping and Harbourfront Theatre because it aligns with the goals of fostering community enrichment, promoting cultural heritage, and ensuring the sustainability of two key non-profit organizations in Summerside. This agreement, which provides $90,000 annually to each organization, represents a modest increase from previous funding levels ($87,000) and demonstrates Council’s commitment to supporting institutions that enhance our community’s cultural and artistic fabric.

Stability and Strategic Planning
A 5-year funding agreement provides these organizations with the financial stability needed to plan and operate effectively. Non-profit organizations often face challenges in securing consistent funding from year to year, which can hinder their ability to develop long-term strategies and deliver impactful programming. By guaranteeing support over five years, the agreement enables both organizations to focus on their missions and engage in sustainable growth and development.

Collaborative Opportunities
The requirement for the College of Piping and Harbourfront Theatre to work collaboratively and report on their joint initiatives fosters a spirit of partnership. This collaboration can lead to innovative programming and broader community engagement. Encouraging these organizations to explore and develop future opportunities together strengthens the cultural ecosystem in Summerside.

Streamlining Funding Processes
Exempting the College of Piping and Harbourfront Theatre from the annual community support program application process reduces administrative burdens for both the organizations and the City. This allows the non-profits to allocate more time and resources toward their programming while still maintaining accountability through annual reporting requirements.

Accountability Measures
The agreement includes annual reporting requirements to ensure transparency and monitor the effective use of public funds. This accountability reinforces public trust and provides valuable insights into how the funding supports the organizations' operations and benefits the community.

Enhancing Community and Economic Benefits
Both the College of Piping and Harbourfront Theatre play significant roles in enriching the cultural life of Summerside. They attract visitors, support local artists, and provide opportunities for residents to engage in cultural, educational, and entertainment activities. Their programs contribute to the local economy by drawing tourists and creating indirect benefits for local businesses. Continued support ensures these benefits are sustained and expanded.

Conclusion
The recommendation from the Finance Committee is a prudent decision that balances fiscal responsibility with community investment. This funding agreement supports two cornerstone institutions of our community, promotes collaboration, and ensures stability and accountability. Approving this agreement is a step toward strengthening Summerside’s cultural identity and economic vitality.

Vote #5: Repeal of Taxi Bylaw 
December 16, 2024
Meeting Package 

The City of Summerside Bylaws & Governance Committee considered whether the current Taxi Bylaw offered any tangible additional protection beyond what is already provided through provincial legislation, and recommended repealing the Taxi Bylaw with “[t]he belief there will be little to no impact on either the businesses or the clientele they serve.” (Click and enlarge the discussion points from the Committee’s Recommendations.)

While I value the committee's work, I disagree with its findings: I believe the regulatory powers in the city’s taxi bylaw do offer additional protection not already provided through provincial legislation in three key areas.

1. Criminal Record Checks

First, The Taxi Bylaw requires all persons wishing to have a taxi operator licence to pass a Criminal Record Check.  There is no provincial regulation of the taxi industry in PEI. Repealing this taxi bylaw places people using a taxi service in Summerside at a greater risk of potential harm than someone using a taxi service in Charlottetown.  For example, in Charlottetown, a person convicted of an indictable offence or a summary offence is not eligible to drive a taxi based on the number of years since the offence;  however, if repealed, that same person could become a taxi operator in Summerside.  So, a person who has been convicted of sexual assault or impaired driving would be eligible to operate a taxi as long as they are allowed to drive a vehicle.   I had tabled a report from the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women of NF during the previous Committee of the Whole meeting (report begins on Page 6) that highlighted 8 key recommended actions, criminal and vulnerable sector record checks among those recommendations.  I believe removing the current protection of criminal record checks from those applying to be a taxi operator. or the ability for the Chief of Police to suspend a license for good reason (say, convicted of an offense after obtaining a taxi operator license), does put the public at a potential greater risk.

2. Insurance

The second protection our taxi bylaw provides is insurance. The Committee’s Report states that all registered motor vehicle owners require $2M third-party liability insurance, but in my research, I found evidence that says otherwise.  

(1) The Insurance Bureau of Canada says $200,000 is the minimum mandatory third party liability insurance. Here is a screenshot of the Insurance Bureau of Canada's website:

(2) the PEI Government’s Insurance Act, Motor Vehicle Liability Policy, Sec 234., sets the minimum third-party insurance to be $200,000.  The Insurance Act does speak to the insurance company being able to set a limit “in excess of” the $200,000, but nothing in provincial legislation speaks to the $2M that is detailed in the Taxi Bylaw.  Here is that section of the Insurance Act:

In short, my research shows that $200,000 is the minimum required by provincial law for third-party liability insurance coverage, while insurance companies typically recommend $1M or more. So, the $2M required by the Taxi Bylaw is, in fact, added protection from the $200,000 required by provincial legislation. 

3. Maximum Fares

The final (and third) protection provided by the taxi bylaw that is not provided by provincial legislation is setting maximum fares.  So, if the taxi bylaw is repealed, the city will no longer regulate maximum taxi fares.  Those who typically access taxis are those without access to their own motor vehicle transportation: seniors, low income, and people with disabilities who cannot or will never be able to drive themselves.  

In my research, taxi bylaws are sometimes criticized because they determine the cost of fares, which leaves taxi owners at a disadvantage (not able to lower fares to that of ride share companies); however, setting only the maximum rate, I view our current taxi bylaw as offering the financial protection of the users of the taxis, and regulating the posting of fares in the taxi cab ensures fairness, equality, and non-discriminatory rates. 

Municipal Governance Act

In conclusion, I end with section 3 (d) of the Municipal Governance Act, which states that one of the purposes of City Council is to “develop and maintain the municipality as a safe and viable community.” Here is the complete section within the Act:

A safe community is one that actively works to prevent crime and reduce harm by implementing a variety of protective measures and proactive strategies.  If we repeal the taxi bylaw, consequently eliminating any criminal record check from the taxi operator application process, we are removing a public protection currently in place in the city.  So -- in my thinking -- I cannot reconcile how removing a current public protection aligns with the purposes of City Council as per the MGA to "develop and maintain" the city as a safe community.  In fact, the removal of legislated public protection is to lessen the current safety protections within the city.

Truth be told, and this is transparent (as I said during the Council Meeting), I see value in strengthening and “developing” our protections in the city, and with specific reference to the taxi bylaw, in addition to a basic Criminal Record Check, to include:
a.    Vulnerable Sector Checks
b.    Child Abuse Registry Checks

Based on all of this information, I respectfully voted against repealing the Taxi Bylaw.

Vote #4: Island-Wide Public Transit Governance Framework 
December 16, 2024
Meeting Package 

I voted YES for that "Council direct staff to engage with their provincial counterparts to explore options for a province-wide transit governance framework" based on the following rationale:

Supporting Vulnerable Populations

Public transit is a lifeline for many vulnerable populations, including seniors, people with disabilities, low-income residents, students, and those who cannot or choose not to drive. These groups often face barriers to mobility, such as limited access to affordable transportation or the inability to navigate car-dependent infrastructure. A strong, accessible transit system ensures that these individuals can reach essential services like healthcare, education, and employment opportunities, fostering greater independence and quality of life. For example, seniors can maintain their connection to the community, and students can travel to schools and jobs without relying on family or friends for rides. Investing in transit is a step toward creating a more equitable and inclusive province.

Supports a Greener Community

Prince Edward Island is one of the most car-dependent provinces in Canada, with 92% of Islanders relying on cars for daily transportation. In Summerside, 93% of residents drive or are passengers to work, while 7% use AT, transit or other methods (Census 2021).  As 72% of residents live and work in the city, the average commute is 13 minutes.  This level of car dependency poses significant challenges, including high greenhouse gas emissions, limited mobility for those without access to a car, and inefficiencies in how people travel within and between communities.

The proposed transit initiative represents a transformative step toward addressing these issues by creating a well-planned, province-wide framework that prioritizes accessibility, sustainability, and efficiency. Importantly, this initiative keeps decision-making power in the hands of municipalities, ensuring local input and control over transit operations while benefiting from streamlined administration and funding opportunities. By voting yes, I support a vision to reduce our reliance on cars while improving transportation options for all Islanders.

Province-Wide Transit Governance Framework: The 6 Key Principles (as presented on Dec 3, 2024 Committee of the Whole, and written below based on my understanding)

1. Streamlining Administration
   A province-wide transit framework will consolidate administrative tasks, reducing duplication and creating efficiencies. This allows cities like Summerside to focus on local transit needs while benefiting from a unified system that optimizes operations across the province.
   
   
2. Securing Long-Term Funding
   Stable, predictable funding is critical to building and maintaining a reliable transit system. This initiative aims to make it easier to find and secure financial resources, ensuring that municipalities can plan for growth and improvements.
   
   
3. Maintaining Municipal Decision-Making
   While creating a provincial framework, this initiative ensures that cities retain control over their transit decisions. This balance empowers municipalities to address local priorities while benefiting from the support and collaboration of a broader system.
   
   
4. Increasing Procurement Efficiency
   A centralized approach to procurement for transit-related resources—such as buses, equipment, and technology—saves time and money. By pooling resources, it may be possible for municipalities to achieve better pricing and access to modern, standardized solutions.
   
   
5. Ensuring a Consistent Rider Experience
   A province-wide system provides Islanders with a seamless and predictable transit experience, regardless of where they live or travel. Standardized schedules, fare systems/transfers, and service levels enhance user satisfaction and encourage more people to use public transit.
   
   
6. Emphasizing Transparency and Accountability
   By building clear processes and reporting mechanisms into the system, this initiative ensures that decisions and spending are transparent. Islanders will have confidence in how funds are used and how the transit system is managed.

Conclusion

This initiative benefits not just Summerside but all of PEI. It creates a transit framework that supports vulnerable populations, connects communities, and provides an environmentally friendly alternative to car dependency. I view a yes vote as a crucial step toward a more accessible, equitable, and sustainable future for everyone on Prince Edward Island, and residents of Summerside.

Vote #3: Mobile Sales Unit on Milton Ave 
October 21, 2024
Meeting Package 

Voted NO 
Resolution Defeated 8-0
Meeting Video

An application was received under Section 3 of the Licensing Bylaw CS-21 to allow a Mobile Sales Establishment to operate on Milton Avenue, with the proposed hours of operation being 11:00am to  9:00pm, Monday through Saturday. This mobile sales unit would be on residential land.

Fact: a mobile sales unit was approved in a residential property 6 months ago (480 Central on April 2024).

Page 26 of the Guide to the Municipal Government Act Handbook addresses an important issue on this file: "Citizens expect that people in similar situations will be treated similarly. If someone is treated differently, it should be because their circumstances are different."

So, let's first determine if this case is different or similar?  If the circumstances are not different, then the application should be approved based on "people in similar situations will be treated similarly".

The April 2024 approval was on an R4 property, and it's abutting a Commercial property to its south and the largest series of Commercial-zone properties in the city on its east.

By contrast, the Milton Ave property is an R3 surrounded by pretty tight R3 properties.

I based my vote on the fact that the individual circumstances were significantly different, and thus why one residential property was approved for a mobile sales unit in April 2024, and this second residential property received my NO vote.

Of interest, there is no policy requiring the city send a letter to nearby residences when an application is received under the Licensing Bylaw CS-21. I believe we need to revisit this policy.

Vote #2: Greenwood Drive Official Plan amendment
October 21, 2024
Meeting Package 

Voted NO 
Resolution Defeated 8-0
Meeting Video

An application was received regarding PID #308593 to amend the Official Plan land use from Industrial to Residential and the zoning from Light Industrial (M1) to High-Density Residential (R4) zone. The purpose of the amendments was to allow apartment building development (3 -24 unit buildings) in the proposed R4 zone.

I based my NO vote on the following information:

(1) Since 1998, 25 acres of industrial land (lost 30 but gained 5 acres) have been lost in the city.  As Mike Thususka, Director of Economic Development, referenced generally in a letter dated Sep 30, 2024, industrial land's role in the city must be considered as "employment lands" as these lands are essential for supporting employment and employment growth. If we lose more industrial land, we need to seek other areas in the city to replace what has been lost.

(2) As our planning officer states, finding new industrial land is not straightforward. Residents will have concerns about industrial-zoned lands located near residential-zoned areas. The idea of introducing industrial zoning adjacent to residential zoning when we currently have a M1 industrial zone property, did not make sense to me, especially considering we have just approved the HAF which will increase housing options.

Vote #1: Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendments Housing Accelerator Fund 
October 21, 2024
Meeting Package 
Backgrounder (June 2024)

Voted YES 
Resolution Carried 5-3
Meeting Video

Follow this link for details on my decision-making.

Summary: I was voting NO on this Resolution at the morning of the vote, but after residents of Evergreen Village reached out to me (57 homes on the verge of being evicted), I looked at the plan in more detail and how it could help people who are struggling to find a home or displaced from their homes and the death of someone who, if they had supportive housing, there was a good chance they would still be alive . . .

In fact, I could not shake the images of going door to door and witnessing first-hand so many people living with various forms of hardship. All of these hardships had one central theme: unsuitable or unaffordable housing.
• one  person was legally blind and was lost walking around the streets (actually crossed the street) as I held their hand and walked them back to their house,
• a young couple had became homeless and then their child was placed in foster care (they lost their home and their child in a blink of an eye)
• so many people (many seniors) pay between 40-50% of their income on rent when they don't have the capacity to earn any more income.

Lastly, when that person died who I believe would still be alive with suitable housing and I cried in the hospital's lobby, I vowed to make the hard decisions and to do whatever I could to bring more affordable, suitable, and supportive housing to the people who desperately need it in this city. 

I just never expected the hard decisions to be this hard.  And to come so quickly in my term.

I can see both sides of the issue, but if a yes vote could accelerate affordable and suitable housing, save a life, issues that are the core of who I am as a human . . . and as I examined the details more, incentives in the plan for people to build:

-          15 Accessory Dwelling Units over 3 years
-          24 missing middle housing units over 3 years
-          100 transitional/affordable housing units over 3 years
-          20 lots re-developed into lots capable of supporting missing middle over three years
-          24 units designed for missing middle over three years
 
They sound doable, not overly aggressive, and certainly a starting point for making a real effort to address the city's affordable housing crisis.

It really sounds like it could help.  It certainly sounds like a starting point.