Questions from downtown businesses
What was your reaction to the Downtown ARP? Which items do you believe would enhance downtown for our community, increase traffic flow and business viability? Are there portions of the plan you do not support?
In your opinion, are there essential infrastructure projects needed for downtown? Do you support the permanent pedestrianization of Main Street? Why or why not? How do you plan to mitigate the disruption during proposed utility, surfacing, and infrastructure upgrades?
The Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan is a planning document that formalizes a future vision for the downtown's built form and public realm. Council and the community collaborated on this, and the results inform how we move forward with the downtown's future planning.
My reaction is that no matter the result or the outcome, the time we spend engaging our community to help us create a vision for the future is always going to advance us in some way towards our goals. There are always wins to be had, and this plan is a win. Changes were made to it before approval to reflect the input from our community and business owners. That responsiveness is something I am proud of, as I saw changes to the plan that made it possible for me to support it.
This is also a living document. The next council will revisit it for changes and updates, and to address the issues we encounter as we do this work.
One of the first things needed is a new public washroom facility, which is already in the works.
I think we should continue to invest time and effort in improving all the systems that make our downtown a special place, including parking. Council voted in favour of my motion to include language in the plan for a downtown parking structure, and it was made clear that there would be no net loss of public parking lot stalls without first replacing them with either intercept parking or a parkade.
That's a good result. That is what I heard from the community and what I brought to the table.
I fought against the idea of a permanent, year-round, pedestrian zone for Main Street. My vision is that we focus on creating a walkable commercial district that prioritizes accessibility and access by those with mobility issues, the economic viability of local enterprise, and access to local professional services located downtown. I think permanently "pedestrianizing" this space would unintentionally remove these significant populations and business activities from the downtown.
I am inspired by the vision for the 2026 Paralympic bid, which set out to make Canmore the most accessible outdoor winter sport destination in North America. My passion is creating spaces where everyone is welcome. For example, the current benches downtown do not have backs on them, which isn't very accessible. But the accessibility standards are in the Engineering and Design Guidelines, not the downtown ARP. The Rick Hansen Foundation recently released a municipal accessibility policy toolkit that I am excited about.
We are nowhere near the time to go into the road for utility work or redesign the public realm. But when we are, we will need to do the job in advance with business and property owners on how the disruption will be mitigated. This is vital work that needs to be done and requires consultation with you before anything happens.
The Town Master Plan from 25 years ago emphasized the need for a downtown parkade, yet it has never been constructed. Will you prioritize building a parkade for downtown within the next five years? Why or why not?
I will prioritize a parkade as a viable part of our downtown parking management strategy, but I don't believe that is something that will happen in the next five years as a priority. I would rather have intercept parking first.
There is also an upcoming update to the integrated transportation master plan, which is a vital process all downtown business owners should be aware of.
That plan sets the goals for the entire transportation system of our small city. I think it is going to be a very important process for our community to participate in and for the council to make decisions about our future.
Will you uphold the commitment to maintain parking on the existing lots downtown as Council promised prior to the adoption of the downtown ARP?
Yes. We cannot remove our surface parking lot spaces downtown without first replacing them elsewhere.
Do you believe the Town should prioritize redesigning our streets to favor walking and cycling over driving to achieve their mode shift targets (aiming for 40% of people walking, biking, or using transit in the next five years), or do you advocate for a more balanced approach that equally supports all three modes of transportation? Please explain.
This question misses the mark, for me. Our streets are currently designed to prioritize vehicles only. Design standards have always prioritized cars over people. By creating more space for bikes, pedestrians and transit, we are not redesigning our streets to favour them, but to include them and vehicles. This isn't a reversal and rejection of vehicle traffic, but allowing our public transportation infrastructure to work for everyone. People who bike, walk and ride the bus are also taxpayers. Their needs also matter.
We also need to make system-wide decisions for the future populations of Canmore, Calgary, and Alberta. A train from the airport to Banff with a stop in Canmore is also proposed.
The truth is that growth and change are fundamentally uncomfortable. But we need to differentiate between how people feel and making decisions on transportation based on measurable outcomes and objectives. The question suggests a more balanced approach and acknowledges that vehicles comprise 60 percent of our system's target. I don't understand what percentage would be more balanced than that.
Do you support the numerous calming features and crosswalks that have been and will be incorporated into our roadways, such as those at the beginning of Main Street, Bow Valley Trail, and Railway Avenue? Why or why not? What would you prefer to see instead?
I support safe streets, which means we will use traffic calming features. These features must follow engineering and design guidelines and be effective, which means we should measure results.
I have mentioned the Integrated Transportation Master Plan, which is again a really great process to follow to express concerns or ask questions about the objectives of these types of engineered structures.
Traffic calming features were so effective along Palliser Trail that we eliminated a photo radar zone because no more tickets were generated along that road. They can be effective, even if some people do not support them.
Do you support making our streets more intuitive for visitors and residents by ensuring that each downtown intersection provides a consistent experience? Additionally, how would you propose enhancing the clear classification and safety of walking and cycling paths to prevent vehicular traffic from encroaching on them?
I support the community as a whole having these conversations in depth through the public consultation we do for the update to the Integrated Transportation Master Plan.
Should the Town revisit decisions impacting downtown business vitality, such as paid parking and permanent pedestrianization, with the community and/or downtown businesses every two years? Why or why not?
If you disagree with these decisions, revisiting them regularly may be appealing. But that process takes time and energy. I prefer council focus on the next priority; it has to deliver on its objectives strategically during the four-year term.
No, to paid parking specifically. Paid parking is here to stay. Moose Jaw has paid parking as a tourism destination. Communities worldwide have paid parking in their commercial cores for good reason. But what we want to accomplish with paid parking and what we use those revenues for are areas worth looking at regularly.
Town council didn't actually decide to pedestrianize Main Street, so the community will have to revisit this question in the future.
Would you be open to discussing the possibility of making paid parking seasonal with shorter paid hours, as was originally proposed during the initial conversations with the BIA before implementation?
I would like to understand the objectives of these changes first. Parking is a system, and if I understood what the community wants to achieve, I could tell you if I would support these kinds of changes to accomplish it.
I want to consider a visitor management strategy, which could recommend using different systems, like paid parking, to manage visitors and prioritize community needs first.
What is your opinion on the Vacancy Tax? If not in favour, what do you see as an alternative?
The Livability Tax has great potential as a tool to help our community deliver non-market housing solutions. This is housing to support our local businesses and labour market.
But it isn't just what we do that matters; it is how we do it. We need to do more work on how we set that tax rate and the amount of money we determine we need annually from these taxpayers. The property tax task force will look at how we set this tax rate, and the next council should consider establishing a committee to create a 20-year housing plan that makes the annual contribution from the Livability Tax a predictable amount set transparently and accountable.
The Sept. 22, 2025, Mandate Letter from Premier Danielle Smith to the Minister of Municipal Affairs makes it clear that the next council will have to work with the provincial government to determine the future of the Livability Tax program.
We must be open to conversations and collaboration with the minister on solutions.
Do you have any innovative ideas that haven't been explored yet for supporting the workforce of local businesses?
I don't consider my ideas innovative. The best way to support our local workforce is to continue delivering on what we already do.
Vital Homes is a successful non-market housing program; we must continue that work.
We could do more to incentivize accessory dwelling units, including opening duplexes without parking to approvals.
The Safe Park and Affordable Services Program are both really good things, and we should consider expanding the Affordable Services Program to include groceries.
Finally, free local public transit is a priority for achieving these outcomes. We need to find a location for a fleet storage and maintenance facility for Roam Transit in the near future. That is necessary to support our continued growth as a community.
Parking is a significant challenge for regional employees and affects their ability to continue working in our town. If elected, how would you better support regional workers?
People like to ask about supporting regional workers, but I find it challenging because my role as an elected official for the town of Canmore is to work on behalf of my citizens.
Continued intermunicipal collaboration with our neighbouring communities will produce the outcomes people would like to see on this issue.
How do you think we can balance the needs of residents while sharing our home with the world and also stewarding the natural environment?
Regenerative tourism and a visitor management strategy are parts of my platform for a reason: these are the spaces for the outcomes we want as a community.
We cannot stop tourism growth or investment from being attracted to Canmore. We need to do a better job anticipating it, mitigating it and managing it.
This is also why I am passionate about circular economy initiatives: They overlap these spaces. In my opinion, this is a space for economic diversification, value-added innovation, and reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills.
The council supported a motion to include a zero-waste coordinator in the budget, which will lead to a zero-waste strategy.
I am excited for the work to support a regional stewardship council, because human use management is the key to our success as stewards of the natural environment.
The Town has set mode shift targets, including the downtown area, to reduce single-vehicle use by 20% over the next five years. They plan to achieve this by continuing the complete streets application. For example, Railway Avenue will be reduced from four lanes to two, and bike and pedestrian lanes will be expanded on both sides of the avenue. Should this be a priority as outlined in the ITP and downtown ARP, or should our tax dollars be allocated to other priorities?
Regardless of the targets, we need to seriously examine our capital budget planning for the future, our infrastructure needs, and the inflationary pressure we face at this time. The key to a successful delivery of our capital projects is to ensure we are focused on what we need first, leverage grant funding opportunities, and set a fiscally responsible pace, given rising costs.
The Integrated Transportation Master Plan update is the best place for us to have these conversations as a community, and I am committed to making that a priority for the next council.
Do you support prioritizing the rehabilitation of Railway Ave in next year's budget? Should the new Mayor and Council delay or revisit this plan recognizing there is not widespread support for it? If you would prioritize it, would you support making the specific emergency response plan and snow removal plan open for public perusal and debate? Explain.
One of the challenges on this issue is that we have not invested the resources to bring our community along with us as a municipal government, as we create a better future with our transportation system changes. Will we get the delivery 100 percent perfect all the time? No, we will not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn as we go and adjust to accommodate growth.
For this reason, the Public Participation Policy and the Integrated Transportation Master Plan are on my platform. Working on those two things will help us achieve our goals.
How can Canmore better generate and allocate tax revenues based on the demographics served? Specifically, how can visitors contribute to supporting service maintenance and expansion related to tourism, allowing resident tax revenues to be focused on local needs?
Canmore cannot do this. We need the provincial government to take a greater leadership role in tourism policy development that supports municipal service delivery for communities like ours.
I will never stop advocating for resort municipality status, some form of tax revenue, a tax tool, or support from the provincial government.
That is why I have served two terms on the Alberta Municipalities environment and sustainability committee and one term on its governance committee. I also unsuccessfully ran for the board of directors.
Our membership in that organization is one of the best ways to advocate for our needs at the provincial level by building relationships through my committee work and networking with other tourism communities. In fact, at the next convention, there is a resolution asking ABMunis to advocate to the province for a municipal accommodation tax to support tourism services in Alberta towns and cities.
It is easy to be frustrated that this issue has remained unchanged despite decades of lobbying efforts. However, my experience is that sometimes patience pays off. As long as you keep developing your great idea, all you need is the right time and the right people to align.