Our current Council's voting record on several significant policy and or financial decisions has been characterized by a 3:2 split. 

This is not advantageous for residents and taxpayers.

Important decisions merit generous, open-minded discussion among and between Council members. Open-minded discussion facilitates more creative-problem solving and may be evidenced e.g., by motions being seconded, if only to allow discussion, and/or by motions that may be followed by "friendly amendments". 

Thorough and thoughtful discussion of consequential matters would ultimately be evidenced by 4:1 or unanimous voting outcomes.  With a more generous process, local electors could be far better satisfied that key financial and/or policy decisions had been properly vetted, rather than hastily determined via a slim, 3:2 majority.

This is particularly relevant for decisions made regarding the largest capital project and highest debt burden that have ever been contemplated for our small community (1826 taxpayers in 2025).

On several occasions, 3:2 votes have determined the outcome of key decisions for the Firehall replacement project. These votes have:

• Endorsed proceeding with a “preferred” option later estimated to cost $21.3 million

• Endorsed submitting an application to remove land from the ALR

• Supported an application to the UBCM for up to $7 million in grant funding that was directly tied to the $21.3 million “preferred” option

• Supported any level of cost overrun associated with the pursuit of the “preferred option”

• Defeated a motion to secure a project roadmap (plan)

• Defeated a motion to put the Firehall project to a community referendum