Guelph residents have experienced significant property tax increases over the current Council term. My second campaign piece compared Guelph’s cumulative tax increase with three similar Ontario municipalities — Brantford, Barrie and Kingston — and with the growth in average weekly earnings in Ontario.

The purpose of the comparison is not to suggest that Guelph should simply copy another municipality. Every city has different circumstances. It is to provide context for an important question: Are Guelph’s property tax increases reasonable and affordable relative to the experience elsewhere and to residents’ ability to pay?

The Comparison

Cumulative property tax increase over the current Council term

Guelph — 30.6%
Brantford — 19.4%
Barrie — 17.9%
Kingston — 16.9%

Ontario average weekly earnings — 15.3%

What the Numbers Include

The figures above show the cumulative increase in the published annual property tax impact over the current Council term. This provides a useful comparison of the property tax increases experienced in Guelph and the three comparator municipalities.

I have also reviewed the Council-controlled portion of the tax increase separately. That distinction is important because Council does not directly control every component of the total property tax bill.

Cumulative City-Controlled Tax Levy Impact, 2024–2026

This comparison looks at the portion of the tax levy attributable to services directly controlled by each municipal council, excluding outside boards, agencies and shared services where those amounts can be separately identified.

Cumulative Council-controlled increase, 2024–2026

Guelph — 13.0%
Brantford — 11.8%
Kingston — approximately 7.1%
Barrie — 6.1%

This comparison is intended to provide a more focused comparison of the spending decisions over which each Council has direct responsibility.

Methodology & Sources

Property tax comparison: The figures compare the cumulative increase in Guelph’s published annual tax-levy increases over the 2023–2026 Council term. Each municipality’s published annual tax-levy increases were compounded rather than simply added. For Guelph, the published annual increases of 4.46% (2023), 8.52% (2024), 6.78% (2025) and 7.87% (2026) compound to 30.57%, shown as 30.6%.

Income comparison: The 15.3% figure represents the change in Ontario average weekly earnings over the comparable period and is included as one measure of how household incomes have changed relative to property taxation.

Sources

City of Guelph — Previous Annual Budgets
Source for Guelph’s published annual tax-levy impacts for 2023 through 2026, used to calculate the cumulative 30.6% increase. City of Guelph Annual Budget Data

City of Brantford — 2026 Budget
Source for Brantford’s published annual property-tax increases used in the four-year comparison. City of Brantford - City Budget

City of Barrie — Budget & Business Plan
Source for Barrie’s annual tax impacts used in the four-year comparison. The City’s annual budget documents provide the underlying budget and tax-rate information. City of Barrie — Budget & Business Plan

City of Kingston — Budgets and Finances
Source for Kingston’s annual property-tax increases used in the four-year comparison. City of Kingston - Budget and Finances

Statistics Canada — Average Weekly Earnings
Source for the Ontario average weekly earnings comparison. The calculation uses Statistics Canada’s seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings, including overtime, for all employees. Statistics Canada — Average Weekly Earnings

I would not commit to a significant new spending proposal such as free transit before understanding its full cost, its effect on service, and how it compares with other priorities competing for limited public funds.

Council needs to be able to consider those priorities together. If Council commits to individual proposals before that process takes place, it becomes increasingly difficult to make objective choices about where taxpayers’ money will have the greatest benefit.

Affordability of transit is important. Guelph already provides reduced-fare programs for residents who qualify, and I would want to understand how well those programs are working and whether targeted improvements would be more effective and affordable than eliminating fares for everyone.

There is also a practical question that needs to be answered: could the existing transit system accommodate the additional ridership that free transit would be expected to generate? A substantial increase in ridership will require additional operating capacity, including more service hours and operators and, in all likelihood, additional buses. Those capital and operating costs, along with the time required to expand the fleet and service, need to be understood before making a commitment. A change of this magnitude would require significant planning and preparation and should not be presented as something that could simply be implemented in the near term.

My approach would be to look at the evidence, understand the alternatives and costs, and then make the decision as part of the City’s overall priorities—not make the commitment first and work out the implications afterward.

My emphasis on affordability and careful decision-making shouldn’t be interpreted as opposition to investment. I believe the City needs to invest in the infrastructure and services that allow Guelph to function well today and accommodate the growth that is coming.That includes maintaining and renewing roads, water and wastewater infrastructure and other existing City assets before they deteriorate further; ensuring core services such as transit, winter control and emergency services are reliable; maintaining quality parks and public spaces; investing in infrastructure needed to support housing and growth; and completing major projects already underway responsibly and with appropriate attention to schedule and cost.

I also think there are circumstances where new investments are warranted. My point is that I don’t believe Council should commit to a particular solution before understanding the need, the cost, the alternatives and what other priorities may have to compete for the same funding.

Free transit is a good example. I’m not opposed to improving transit — quite the opposite. I think a growing city needs, first and foremost, a reliable and increasingly useful transit system. But before committing substantial additional public funding to eliminating fares, I would want to understand whether those dollars would produce a better result than investing them in service frequency, routes, fleet capacity or other improvements.

So my approach isn’t “don’t spend.” It is to spend where there is a demonstrated need and a clear public benefit, while recognizing that residents ultimately have to pay the bill.

Yes. Guelph’s continued growth, together with the needs of Wellington County residents who rely on Guelph General Hospital, makes long-term hospital planning essential.

Guelph General Hospital has already initiated the provincial planning process for a new facility. I believe City Council should take an active role in supporting that initiative.

If elected, I’d seek a formal update to Council on the status of the new hospital initiative, including discussions already underway with Guelph General Hospital, the Province and Wellington County.

I’d want Council to understand projected capacity requirements, potential locations, infrastructure need, funding responsibilities and anticipated timelines, as well as what role the City may be expected to play.

Under Ontario’s hospital capital funding model, the Proviince generally funds 90% of eligible construction costs, leaving a 10% community contribution. The community is also responsible for equipment and certain other costs.

That local contribution isn’t the City of Guelph’s responsibility alone. Funding can come from a combination of municipal contributions, including Wellington County, community fundraising and private donations. How those responsibilities are shared needs to be clearly established.

My position is straightforward: We shold be planning and preparing now, rather than waiting until growing demand makes the situation more urgent and our options more limited.

I abhor the loss of civilian life and the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis. I support human rights, oppose racism and discrimination, and believe both peoples deserve safety, dignity and self-determination.

I have chosen not to sign the Apartheid-Free Guelph pledge. While I support its commitments to equality and opposition to discrimination, I do not believe its framing adequately reflects the conflict’s complexity or the rights and security of both peoples. I am therefore not comfortable endorsing it in its entirety.

I also recognize that Council can appropriately express concern about humanitarian issues beyond its jurisdiction. Where proposed actions involve municipal policies, purchasing or investments, I would consider the specific proposal, its implications and the evidence before making a commitment.

My decision not to sign does not diminish my concern about Palestinian suffering or my opposition to oppression. As a councillor, I would listen respectfully to residents affected by this conflict and work to ensure that everyone in our community is treated with dignity and respect.