Throughout this campaign, residents have asked me thoughtful questions about the issues affecting their neighbourhoods and our city. Below are some of the questions I've received and my responses. I'll continue adding to this page as the campaign progresses.

Have a question you don't see here? Send it to me.

What is the number one thing you would like to achieve if you are elected?

If I had to choose one overarching goal, it would be to help restore residents' confidence that City Hall can solve practical problems and deliver results.

That means focusing on the basics people experience every day—roads and sidewalks that are properly maintained, neighbourhoods where people feel safe, reliable municipal services, responsible use of tax dollars, and infrastructure that is prepared for the future.

But it also means changing how we approach those problems. I want Council to be clearer about what we are trying to achieve, use evidence to make decisions, measure whether our investments are actually working, and report those results back to residents.

I don't think success is passing a motion or approving a plan. Success is being able to show that something actually got better.

Why should the regular citizen of Sudbury care about climate change?

Because in Sudbury, climate change isn't an abstract environmental issue. It's an infrastructure, affordability, safety and quality-of-life issue.

It affects how much we spend maintaining roads, culverts and stormwater infrastructure. It affects basement flooding, extreme heat, wildfire smoke, winter road and sidewalk conditions, insurance costs, our lakes and forests, and how reliably municipal services function during extreme weather.

My professional work has taught me that adaptation is ultimately about risk management: identifying what could affect the things we value, understanding who and what is most vulnerable, and making smart investments before the damage occurs.

That doesn't mean putting a climate label on every City decision. It means that when we're replacing a culvert, rebuilding a road, designing a park, approving development or investing millions of dollars in infrastructure expected to last for decades, we should be considering the conditions that infrastructure will actually experience over its lifetime.

Preparing ahead is usually better—and often cheaper—than repeatedly repairing damage afterward.

What are your thoughts on safe sidewalks and making the enhanced winter sidewalk pilot permanent?

I support moving toward making the enhanced winter sidewalk service permanent, while building continued performance reporting and flexibility into the program.

The City added three additional municipal tractor operators through the pilot to provide enhanced sidewalk maintenance, and the service continued through the 2025–26 winter.

I also think we need to recognize that winters are becoming less predictable. Snowfall totals alone don't tell the whole story. Freeze-thaw cycles, freezing rain, rain on snow, consecutive storms and extreme cold can create very different maintenance challenges.

I would therefore like the City to use climate-informed scenario planning when determining permanent staffing, equipment, routes and service standards. We should ask how the system performs during a normal winter, a major snowfall, repeated freeze-thaw and icing events, rain following heavy snow, consecutive storms and prolonged extreme cold—and identify where additional contingency capacity is needed.

For seniors, people with disabilities, children walking to school and residents who don't drive, a usable sidewalk isn't a luxury. It's part of our transportation system.

Where do you stand on the Event Centre?

I understand why people want a clear yes-or-no answer on the Event Centre, but I don't think it would be responsible for me to commit to cancelling or proceeding with a major project without first understanding the City's actual contractual, legal and financial position at the time the new Council takes office.

If elected, I would want to see the current contracts, updated cost estimates, money already committed or spent, cancellation costs, legal obligations, projected operating costs and the financial consequences of each available option.

Then I would make that information as understandable to the public as possible and make a decision based on what represents the best long-term value for taxpayers.

There is an important difference between asking, “Would I have made this decision several years ago?” and asking, “Given where we are now, what is the most responsible decision from this point forward?”

The second question is the one the next Council may actually have to answer.

I won't make a multimillion-dollar decision simply because one answer is more politically convenient during an election. I will do the homework, look at the numbers and obligations, and make the decision I believe best protects the long-term public interest.

What is your position on car-dependent infrastructure?

I don't think our goal should be to eliminate cars. Sudbury is geographically large, our winters are real, and for many residents a vehicle will continue to be necessary.

But we also shouldn't design neighbourhoods so that driving is the only safe or practical choice.

I think of transportation as a connected mobility system. Roads, sidewalks, cycling infrastructure, trails and transit all have to work together.

In Ward 10, there are practical opportunities to close sidewalk gaps, improve pedestrian crossings, use narrower lanes and other traffic-calming measures where appropriate, improve cycling connections, plant more street trees and make it safer to walk to transit.

I am particularly interested in combining mobility improvements with green infrastructure. Trees provide shade and improve the pedestrian environment while helping manage stormwater. Rain gardens and other low-impact development measures can reduce runoff while improving streetscapes.

And I want us to measure results. If we install traffic calming, did speeds actually decrease? Did collisions or near misses decline? Do residents feel safer? If something isn't working, we should adjust it.

My goal is a Ward 10 where an eight-year-old, an eighty-year-old, someone using a wheelchair, a cyclist, a transit user and a driver can all move safely through their neighbourhood.

What does attainable housing mean to you?

To me, attainable housing means having realistic housing choices for people at different incomes and different stages of life.

That includes a young person trying to rent their first apartment, a family looking for a home they can afford, a student, a senior who wants to downsize but remain in their neighbourhood, and someone who needs supportive or community housing.

There isn't one housing solution. We need rentals, starter homes, gentle density, secondary units, student housing, seniors' housing, supportive housing and community housing.

But I also don't think success is simply counting how many new units we approve. Housing has to be fit to live in. Residents have raised concerns with me about pests, maintenance, security and conditions in existing housing. The quality, safety and dignity of our existing housing stock matter too.

And housing cannot be planned in isolation. Can someone living there safely walk to a bus stop? Is there a grocery store or service nearby? Are there sidewalks, trees and parks? Can a senior remain independent without having to drive everywhere?

That's why my approach is about building complete neighbourhoods, not simply adding units. Housing, transportation, infrastructure, affordability and quality of life are interconnected.

How would you improve transit?

Greater Sudbury presents a unique transit challenge. We are a geographically large municipality with a dispersed population, so a transit model designed for a dense metropolitan area can't simply be copied here. At the same time, GOVA provides millions of rides each year, and ridership has grown significantly in recent years. That tells me transit is an important municipal service—and there is demand for a system that works well.

The City has already responded by increasing conventional transit service hours, improving frequency on some routes, expanding service to post-secondary institutions and continuing to develop GOVA Zone, its on-demand service for lower-density areas. I support that general direction. But I think the next step is to look at transit as part of a connected mobility system, rather than treating the bus itself as the beginning and end of the trip.

I support frequent, reliable service on core corridors, connecting routes for neighbourhoods, and flexible services like GOVA Zone where conventional routes aren't practical.

But transit is about more than the bus. A transit trip starts before someone gets on board: people need safe sidewalks and crossings, accessible stops, good winter maintenance and reliable connections. Transit and land-use planning should also work together so new housing and development can support stronger service.

Better transit isn't anti-car—it's about giving people realistic choices. I want roads, transit, sidewalks, cycling and trails planned as one connected system, with decisions based on ridership, accessibility, reliability, community need and value for money.

Will you address garbage and recycling bins blocking sidewalks?

Yes. This is exactly the kind of small, solvable issue that can make a significant difference for accessibility.

A bin blocking a sidewalk may be an inconvenience for some people. For someone using a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device—or a parent pushing a stroller—it can make the sidewalk unusable and force them onto the road.

I would work with City staff and Waste Management on a simple public-awareness effort explaining proper bin placement and ensure collection practices don't unnecessarily leave bins obstructing sidewalks. In fact, the City's own winter-maintenance information already reminds residents to keep garbage and recycling containers off sidewalks so sidewalk plows can pass safely.

I would also want to identify streets where the physical design makes proper placement genuinely difficult, because those situations may require a different solution.

Accessibility isn't only about building new infrastructure. It's also about making sure the infrastructure we already have is actually usable.

What exactly do you do for work, and what are some tangible examples of where you've made an impact?

I'm a Project Manager with the Climate Risk Institute. In plain language, much of my job is helping communities and organizations understand complicated problems, bring the right people together, and figure out practical ways to move from a plan to action.

I've been doing this kind of work for more than a decade. Some examples include:

1. Working directly with Northern Ontario communities. I've worked with municipalities to understand how changing weather and climate could affect their communities and identify practical ways to prepare—from infrastructure and flooding to impacts on residents and local businesses.

2. Turning research into something people can actually use. I've helped develop practical tools that take large amounts of technical information and make it easier for professionals and decision-makers to understand their options and take action.

3. Learning from what's working across Canada. I managed a team that gathered about 200 real-world examples of communities and organizations responding to climate impacts across the country. That meant looking beyond theory to understand what people were actually doing on the ground.

4. Managing complex projects and getting people to the table. Today I lead a national project involving the forestry, mining and energy sectors. A big part of my role is managing the team, budget and workplan, bringing together people with different expertise and perspectives, identifying what's getting in the way of action, and developing practical solutions.

5. Helping people learn from each other. I've built and facilitated networks that connect people from different communities, governments and professions so they can share what's working, what's not, and avoid reinventing the wheel.

The common thread is problem-solving. My job is often to take a complicated issue, understand the evidence, listen to the people affected by it, bring the right people together, figure out what can realistically be done, and then determine whether it worked.

How will you protect parks, trees and green space?

I don't view parks, trees, wetlands, lakes and natural areas as leftover land waiting to be developed. They are community assets—and in many cases, infrastructure.

Trees provide shade and cooling. Wetlands and natural drainage areas store water. Vegetation reduces runoff. Parks and trails support physical and mental health. And places like Ramsey Lake and Bell Park are fundamental to the identity and quality of life of Ward 10.

My background in environmental and climate-risk work means I also look at these spaces through the lens of resilience. Protecting natural systems can sometimes be more cost-effective than trying to engineer our way out of problems later. My professional work has included helping Northern Ontario municipalities identify climate risks and adaptation options.

I support thoughtful growth and recognize that Sudbury needs more housing. But growth and environmental protection shouldn't be treated as mutually exclusive. I would favour concentrating development where infrastructure and services already exist, protecting significant natural features, expanding the urban tree canopy and incorporating green infrastructure into streets and public projects.

When development is proposed, I want Council asking not only what can legally be built here? but also what are we losing, what function does this land currently provide, and can the development be designed better?

Ramsey Lake, Bell Park, Junction Creek, our urban forest and neighbourhood green spaces deserve thoughtful stewardship for the next generation.

How would you approach property taxes and spending?

I recognize that every dollar the City spends ultimately comes from residents and businesses. Fiscal responsibility doesn't necessarily mean spending less on everything; it means spending deliberately, understanding what we're getting for the money, and protecting taxpayers from avoidable future costs.

When considering a major expenditure, I would ask: What problem are we solving? Is this a municipal priority? What evidence supports the investment? What are the capital and ongoing operating costs? Are there alternatives? What will success look like? And how will we know afterward whether the investment delivered what was promised?

I would also distinguish between an expense and an investment that prevents a larger expense later. Deferring infrastructure maintenance, for example, can make the eventual repair more expensive. The same is true of flood prevention, preventative maintenance and interventions that help keep people from falling into homelessness.

I've managed projects, teams, workplans and budgets professionally, so I'm accustomed to balancing objectives with finite resources.

I won't promise that taxes will never increase, because I don't think that is a responsible promise without knowing the financial circumstances Council will face. I will promise to scrutinize spending, ask difficult questions, look for efficiencies and outside funding, and treat affordability for taxpayers as part of every budget decision.

What would you do about Sudbury's roads?

There is no quick fix for Sudbury's roads. We have almost 3,700 lane-kilometres of roads spread across a very large municipality, harsh winters and a significant infrastructure gap. The City is investing heavily—$140.1 million is budgeted for road construction in 2026—so the question isn't simply whether we're spending money; it's whether we're spending it in the right places and getting the best results for residents.

I support the City's move toward using better road-condition data to decide which roads need work, what kind of work they need, and when. Maintaining a road before it seriously deteriorates is much less expensive than waiting until it needs to be completely rebuilt. I would continue that approach while pushing for clearer information for residents about why particular roads are prioritized and when they can expect improvements.

I also support a “dig once” approach. If we're rebuilding a road, that's the time to coordinate water, sewer and drainage work and consider sidewalks, crossings and other improvements rather than tearing up the same street again a few years later. That's better planning and better value for taxpayers.

We also need to build for Sudbury's future conditions. More freeze-thaw cycles, heavy rainfall and drainage problems can shorten the life of infrastructure, so when we're investing millions in something expected to last decades, we should make sure it's designed to do so.

I won't promise that every bad road can be fixed in four years. What I will push for is maintaining roads before they fail, prioritizing the roads that most need investment, getting more value from every construction project, and giving residents a much clearer picture of where their money is going and whether road conditions are actually improving.

Why does so much of our tax bill go toward policing, and what would you do about it?

Public safety is a core municipal responsibility, and I want our police to have the resources they need to respond to crime, violence and situations where a police response is genuinely required. But with $92 million going to Greater Sudbury Police in 2026—and the police increase accounting for 2.3 percentage points of this year's 3.9% property-tax increase—I think residents are entitled to ask what outcomes we're getting for that investment.

My approach would not be to arbitrarily cut police funding. It would be to apply the same scrutiny I would apply to every major City expenditure: What are we trying to accomplish? What's driving the costs? What results are we seeing? And is every service currently being delivered by police best delivered by police?

In particular, we need to look at how much police time is being consumed by homelessness, mental-health crises, addictions and other complex social issues. Police will always have an important role where there is a safety risk, but a police officer isn't necessarily the best—or most cost-effective—response to every situation. Stronger coordination with mental-health professionals, outreach workers, housing providers, paramedics and community organizations can help ensure the right response is sent to the right call.

That is also why I see investments in housing, prevention, mental-health and addiction services as connected to public safety rather than competing with it. If we can prevent someone from repeatedly reaching a crisis that requires police intervention, we can potentially improve that person's outcome, make neighbourhoods safer and reduce pressure on emergency services.

I want a properly resourced police service focused on the work we need police officers to do, alongside stronger prevention and community supports that reduce the number of situations requiring police in the first place.

And with a $92-million budget, I would expect clear performance measures and transparent reporting so Council and residents can understand whether we're actually getting safer communities for the money we're spending.