# Sweating the Assets

An episode of [Rose City Politics](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1247337855), 16 Oct 2026, 1 h 02 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75822968/sweating_the_assets.mp3

Municipal finance is the topic as Pat, Kristen, and Doug are joined by accounting professor Brad Ouellette to discuss taxes, the budget, and campaign promises.

## Transcript

[0:22] Speaker 1: Welcome to Rose City Politics, Windsor's municipal politics podcast, where
[0:27] Speaker 1: we talk about the people, the politics, and the decisions
[0:30] Speaker 1: shaping the city. Before we get to tonight's program, we
[0:33] Speaker 1: want to extend a quick thank you to Liuna Local 625,
[0:37] Speaker 1: whose support helps make Rose City Politics possible. On today's
[0:41] Speaker 1: podcast episode, we're talking money, your money, the city's money,
[0:47] Speaker 1: and the rather inconvenient question of whether the promises in
[0:50] Speaker 1: an election platform add up. We've got two leading mayoral
[0:55] Speaker 1: candidates making some pretty big promises about taxes, infrastructure, growth,
[0:59] Speaker 1: and the future of Windsor. Drew Dilkins wants to keep
[1:03] Speaker 1: property taxes increases at or below inflation. While Fred Francis
[1:08] Speaker 1: is running on a no new taxes commitment. Both sound good,
[1:13] Speaker 1: I guess. Who doesn't like low taxes, I guess. But
[1:16] Speaker 1: Windsor has an infrastructure funding gap. Billions of dollars in
[1:20] Speaker 1: planned capital spending and a whole lot of competing demands
[1:24] Speaker 1: on the public purse. So how do you pay for
[1:27] Speaker 1: the roads, sewers and other infrastructure needs we have without
[1:30] Speaker 1: shifting the bill somewhere else? Can growth really pay its way?
[1:35] Speaker 1: And when we talk about affordability, are we looking only
[1:37] Speaker 1: at property taxes or also at the fees and charges
[1:40] Speaker 1: that can hit some residents a lot harder than others?
[1:43] Speaker 1: So to help us work through all of this, we're
[1:46] Speaker 1: joined by Bradley Ullat, a CPA and CA, a professor
[1:51] Speaker 1: of accounting at Sinclair College and a finance specialist who
[1:54] Speaker 1: works with clients on complex financial and development decisions with
[1:58] Speaker 1: experience in the government and nonprofit sectors. Tonight, with Brad's help,
[2:03] Speaker 1: We're going to scrutinize the candidates' promises and look at
[2:07] Speaker 1: those promises alongside their actual records on council. We've done
[2:10] Speaker 1: a little bit of research for this show. We'll see
[2:13] Speaker 1: how far we get. So I'm Pat Papadias and joining
[2:16] Speaker 1: me are Doug Sertori and Christian Siapas. Hey, Christian.
[2:20] Speaker 2: Hey.
[2:20] Speaker 1: What are you hoping to get out of today's conversation?
[2:25] Speaker 2: I think my biggest question and what I love to
[2:27] Speaker 2: dig in a little bit more on is the misconceptions
[2:31] Speaker 2: that there are around the city budget that, you know,
[2:34] Speaker 2: we always say like, show me your budget and I'll
[2:36] Speaker 2: show you your priorities. But there are certain things that
[2:39] Speaker 2: we have obligations to in the city budget, like certain
[2:42] Speaker 2: increases that are like contractual obligations and certain things that
[2:47] Speaker 2: you kind of have to understand the context of the
[2:49] Speaker 2: history or where that money comes from or how it's
[2:52] Speaker 2: funded in order to understand the you know, how those
[2:55] Speaker 2: those decisions come about. So I love getting into that
[2:58] Speaker 2: a little bit more as we start to explore what
[3:00] Speaker 2: some of the options are to some of these candidates,
[3:02] Speaker 2: what they're offering. And, you know, is this something new
[3:05] Speaker 2: that they're offering or is this something that's just like
[3:07] Speaker 2: the same old, same old? How do we really dig
[3:09] Speaker 2: into that? That's that's what I'm excited about.
[3:11] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting. As I was doing some research, you know,
[3:13] Speaker 1: we've talked even on the show about how they've been
[3:17] Speaker 1: so similar. You know, they've been Fred Francis has been
[3:21] Speaker 1: on council as long as Drew Dilkins has been mayor. And,
[3:24] Speaker 1: you know, they were for many, many years in lockstep
[3:27] Speaker 1: and what's really changed and how different are these? But
[3:30] Speaker 1: I think as I explored it, there are some key
[3:32] Speaker 1: differences and I'm hoping to get to that tonight. Doug,
[3:35] Speaker 1: how are you? And what would convince you that a
[3:38] Speaker 1: candidate's fiscal platform is credible?
[3:41] Speaker 3: I'm doing very well. I don't have the accounting and
[3:47] Speaker 3: number crunching credentials of our guests. So it's not for
[3:51] Speaker 3: me to dig deeply into the financial part of of
[3:55] Speaker 3: a candidate's platform. But what I look for is an
[3:57] Speaker 3: acknowledgement of the reality that budgets require tradeoffs. You know,
[4:03] Speaker 3: I'm very skeptical of platforms like the Everybody Gets a
[4:07] Speaker 3: Pony platform. And I understand that politicians, when they're campaigning,
[4:12] Speaker 3: they want to put their best foot forward. They want
[4:15] Speaker 3: to present the best possible view to the maximum number
[4:18] Speaker 3: of possible voters that they can attract. But it needs
[4:22] Speaker 3: to be rooted in reality. I really like to see
[4:25] Speaker 3: that there are costed plans available. hard numbers, reference to
[4:30] Speaker 3: the actual fiscal realities of the community. Those are the
[4:33] Speaker 3: things that convince me that a candidate is really working
[4:39] Speaker 3: hard to present a credible plan.
[4:42] Speaker 1: All right.
[4:43] Speaker 4: All right.
[4:43] Speaker 1: Let's get into it then. As I said, joining us
[4:46] Speaker 1: to explore these and other questions is Bradley Ouellette. I've
[4:49] Speaker 1: already mentioned Bradley's a CACPA and accounting professor, but I
[4:53] Speaker 1: want to point out that Bradley has also a background
[4:56] Speaker 1: encompassing municipal, corporate, and project finance with extensive experience advising
[5:02] Speaker 1: on large-scale public infrastructure modeling and municipal budgets. Specific highlights
[5:08] Speaker 1: include building the financial plan for Windsor-Essex's largest publicly funded
[5:13] Speaker 1: housing development in decades and helping local housing corporations across
[5:17] Speaker 1: Ontario successfully navigate municipal and provincial policy frameworks. So we're
[5:22] Speaker 1: really happy to have him on the show. Brad, thanks
[5:25] Speaker 1: for joining us. Welcome back to Rose City Politics.
[5:28] Speaker 4: Excited to be here. It's a good topic. It makes
[5:31] Speaker 4: me giddy, people wanting to talk about accounting and finance. Genuinely,
[5:34] Speaker 4: it gets me going.
[5:36] Speaker 1: Well, before we get started, we'll be having some conversation.
[5:40] Speaker 1: We'll be talking about taxes, spending, and infrastructure tonight. But
[5:43] Speaker 1: before we get into the candidates' promises, let's establish where
[5:47] Speaker 1: Windsor actually stands. The city has delivered a 0% tax
[5:52] Speaker 1: levy increase for 2026, but its asset management plan identifies
[5:56] Speaker 1: a substantial annual funding gap. Those two facts can coexist.
[6:02] Speaker 1: So let's unpack what they mean. I know that we're
[6:05] Speaker 1: going to get a little bit more into the AMP
[6:07] Speaker 1: a little bit later, but how do you categorize just
[6:10] Speaker 1: generally Windsor's financial position? Are we managing our obligations sustainably
[6:15] Speaker 1: or are we deferring costs that will eventually come due?
[6:20] Speaker 4: Um, so it's a bit of a, I think a
[6:24] Speaker 4: wrong way to phrase that question, because I think it's
[6:26] Speaker 4: going to be really depending on what you want.
[6:30] Speaker 2: Right.
[6:30] Speaker 4: And I think by and large, and our credit rating
[6:33] Speaker 4: as a municipality would suggest we are managing our financial position, right? We,
[6:37] Speaker 4: we have enough money to afford what we want to
[6:39] Speaker 4: pay for, and we have enough money to commit to
[6:42] Speaker 4: our future obligations. But rather than getting to some finance,
[6:46] Speaker 4: I want to describe how I see this city from
[6:48] Speaker 4: a financial side. And the view that I have of
[6:50] Speaker 4: the city of Windsor is my grandmother. My grandmother grew
[6:53] Speaker 4: up in the Great Depression. She didn't know how to
[6:56] Speaker 4: save or invest money properly. She would be worried. She
[7:00] Speaker 4: wouldn't spend any of her money. And when she passed away,
[7:02] Speaker 4: she left a whole bunch of money and she didn't
[7:03] Speaker 4: know what to do with it. Not that the city
[7:05] Speaker 4: has a whole bunch of money because the city doesn't
[7:07] Speaker 4: necessarily pass away. It continues on. But I kind of
[7:10] Speaker 4: view the city in this light that it's just a
[7:14] Speaker 4: little bit timid to go out and do fun things
[7:18] Speaker 4: or more strong financially minded activities to push our municipality forward.
[7:24] Speaker 4: I view it kind of a little bit stale in
[7:26] Speaker 4: that sense. So do we have enough money to meet
[7:28] Speaker 4: our financial obligations? Yes. And getting into the asset management plan,
[7:33] Speaker 4: you can kind of start to see where over a
[7:35] Speaker 4: long run, it's starting to kind of catch up to us.
[7:40] Speaker 2: Well, it's interesting to me to think about it in
[7:41] Speaker 2: terms of like not just what are our obligations, you know,
[7:45] Speaker 2: are we meeting our obligations? Are we financially in a
[7:48] Speaker 2: position where we're, you know, we're not going to get
[7:50] Speaker 2: in trouble, so to speak, but are we actually getting
[7:53] Speaker 2: everything we want? Like if the infrastructure is, If there
[7:57] Speaker 2: is an infrastructure funding gap at all, are we funding
[8:01] Speaker 2: the desired level of service that we want to offer
[8:05] Speaker 2: our residents? And I think, I mean, obviously that comes
[8:08] Speaker 2: down to what people, in an election moment, what individual
[8:12] Speaker 2: candidates are willing to promise us. But just even as
[8:15] Speaker 2: a city, what does a funding gap like that tell
[8:20] Speaker 2: us about the state of Windsor's infrastructure and the city's
[8:22] Speaker 2: approach to maintaining it? If we promise fewer things, then sure,
[8:26] Speaker 2: we're not going to have to take your grandmother into account, right?
[8:29] Speaker 2: She's like, well, I only buy off-brand butter and I
[8:32] Speaker 2: always have enough money for that, even if it makes
[8:34] Speaker 2: my pies taste terrible or whatever it is. Do we
[8:38] Speaker 2: want terrible pies? Maybe we just want better pies. Are we.
[8:42] Speaker 2: Are we, I guess, able to meet all of the
[8:45] Speaker 2: needs comfortably is a better question. Or do we have
[8:49] Speaker 2: the room to kind of support the infrastructure that we
[8:54] Speaker 2: want to be able to maintain for the city?
[8:56] Speaker 4: That's a great phrasing. Do I want terrible pies? When
[8:59] Speaker 4: I see these kind of promises or suggestions and I
[9:03] Speaker 4: can see the financial statements, to me, what I interpret
[9:06] Speaker 4: it as is we're committing to eating terrible pies. I
[9:09] Speaker 4: don't view this as an ability where we can actually
[9:12] Speaker 4: go out and afford luxury. So if we were to
[9:14] Speaker 4: think about like this hierarchy of needs of the things
[9:16] Speaker 4: that we want, there is below things we actually want
[9:20] Speaker 4: to go out and have a nice quality of life.
[9:22] Speaker 4: Maybe underneath that there's, you know, more smart investments we
[9:25] Speaker 4: can make that are going to make our lives easier.
[9:27] Speaker 4: And just below that we have our basic needs. And
[9:30] Speaker 4: even off the municipality's own asset management plan for our
[9:33] Speaker 4: basic needs, just to keep our roads, sewers, all our,
[9:36] Speaker 4: existing infrastructure. We're not talking about additional swimming pools or,
[9:40] Speaker 4: you know, lights and all those fun things, just our
[9:42] Speaker 4: existing needs. Over 20 years, we're going to be $ 5
[9:45] Speaker 4: billion in the hole. That's a startling number to think about.
[9:48] Speaker 4: So forget all the, you know, nice to haves in
[9:52] Speaker 4: the world. Our own municipality is sitting here and saying,
[9:54] Speaker 4: looking at our own plan, we don't have enough money
[9:57] Speaker 4: to meet that. And looking through the detail, it's kind
[9:59] Speaker 4: of even interesting just looking at the detail of where
[10:01] Speaker 4: they're saying we don't have that money. And I think
[10:03] Speaker 4: it's telling just looking at some of those details.
[10:07] Speaker 3: Tell us more. What details should the electorate be thinking about?
[10:13] Speaker 4: So you hear big numbers, right? And so over 20 years,
[10:17] Speaker 4: we're $ 5 billion deficient in our capital needs. Annually, it's
[10:20] Speaker 4: about $ 114 million we're missing just to meet those core
[10:24] Speaker 4: needs we need to operate our existing infrastructure in a
[10:27] Speaker 4: sustainable way. And breaking those down, I'm fortunate enough, I
[10:31] Speaker 4: was reading through some of our plans and financial statements
[10:34] Speaker 4: just so I'm a little bit prepared here. But what's missing,
[10:37] Speaker 4: what's not missing, I think, is telling. So you can
[10:39] Speaker 4: see something like a little bit more dear and near
[10:42] Speaker 4: to my heart is community housing. The annual needs for
[10:45] Speaker 4: community housing is about $ 11. 2 million, it says. And it
[10:48] Speaker 4: says it's deficient by $ 7. 3 million. So it's almost deficient
[10:51] Speaker 4: by its entire budget each year. And you look at
[10:53] Speaker 4: things like libraries, which our annual budget's $ 10 million, it
[10:56] Speaker 4: says we have zero dollar deficiency in our libraries. Now,
[10:59] Speaker 4: I think it's also interesting just the structure of those
[11:02] Speaker 4: two where a library would have a little bit more
[11:05] Speaker 4: municipally controlled board and directive set in its budgeting process.
[11:09] Speaker 4: And something like a community housing would have a separate
[11:12] Speaker 4: board that is a little bit more autonomous to go
[11:14] Speaker 4: and push the envelope. And so you're seeing these separate
[11:16] Speaker 4: boards having greater needs driving more needs and then you
[11:19] Speaker 4: have these more controlled objectives saying we don't have any needs.
[11:22] Speaker 4: Another one is a line item called fleet and corporate equipment.
[11:26] Speaker 4: There's $ 26 million budgeted annually for fleet and corporate equipment
[11:30] Speaker 4: and of that only $ 200, 000 is deficient. It's also interesting
[11:33] Speaker 4: that internal administration is self-admitting they don't have any deficiency
[11:37] Speaker 4: and they're fully met. Meanwhile, social housing, housing infrastructure for
[11:41] Speaker 4: those in need is actually critically underfunded. So even going
[11:45] Speaker 4: through and parsing through those details, it's It's more eye-opening
[11:48] Speaker 4: about where the money is being prioritized within the asset
[11:52] Speaker 4: management plan itself, not just overall that we are deficient.
[11:55] Speaker 4: We definitely are deficient, self-reported. It's just, to me, interesting
[12:00] Speaker 4: where we actually are deficient in some of the things
[12:02] Speaker 4: that are not necessarily controlled by the municipality. Okay.
[12:07] Speaker 3: I want to dig a little deeper on the asset
[12:09] Speaker 3: management plan because... This is a point of differentiation. Fred
[12:13] Speaker 3: Francis raised this in his platform and on this show
[12:18] Speaker 3: that he wants to bring the asset management funding into
[12:24] Speaker 3: the city's capital tax base, like into the normal capital budget.
[12:30] Speaker 3: And so I'm really interested to hear what you have
[12:33] Speaker 3: to say about this and what you think. Is this
[12:36] Speaker 3: a distinction that matters? Does it matter? um, to move
[12:43] Speaker 3: the asset management dollars into the regular capital budget versus
[12:47] Speaker 3: having a dedicated levy, is that going to make a
[12:50] Speaker 3: substantial difference going forward? Um, and, and if so, what
[12:55] Speaker 3: are the risks and potential benefits of, of the approach
[12:59] Speaker 3: that Fred Francis wants to pursue?
[13:00] Speaker 4: Um, even for me as an accountant, listening to that,
[13:04] Speaker 4: I get lost in the sauce and I can't imagine
[13:07] Speaker 4: people that are financial experts. Um, And breaking it down
[13:11] Speaker 4: maybe for people that aren't financial experts, we have different
[13:14] Speaker 4: ways we can collect money. And you can imagine your
[13:16] Speaker 4: own paycheck comes in. I earn money from my employer.
[13:18] Speaker 4: Maybe I have also some additional income from waiting tables
[13:21] Speaker 4: on the side. So we can imagine that as our
[13:23] Speaker 4: operating budget and our capital budget. However you want to
[13:26] Speaker 4: split it, we need money. And you need money to
[13:30] Speaker 4: fund these items. And the asset management plan is not
[13:32] Speaker 4: necessarily tied to a certain revenue stream. It's just the
[13:35] Speaker 4: needs of the municipality. So whether you want to call
[13:37] Speaker 4: it from your operating budget, your capital budget, or a
[13:40] Speaker 4: separate levy, the money still needs to come in to
[13:42] Speaker 4: fund these items. And so if you want to take
[13:45] Speaker 4: it out of a separate additional revenue stream on the
[13:48] Speaker 4: tax base, so a levy, and put it into your
[13:50] Speaker 4: capital plan, which is funded through property taxes, it's still
[13:55] Speaker 4: someone who is paying a property tax bill, paying money
[13:58] Speaker 4: to the municipality to fund what is needed. Whether you
[14:01] Speaker 4: call it one or the other, I don't think it's,
[14:04] Speaker 4: to me, that important. And maybe I'm missing some nuance
[14:08] Speaker 4: in terms of leveraging dollars from a senior government funding source,
[14:12] Speaker 4: but for the average person sitting at home, that doesn't
[14:15] Speaker 4: really have any big distinction whatsoever.
[14:18] Speaker 3: So it sounds like there's not a big difference. It's
[14:22] Speaker 3: just kind of like whether it has a label, you know,
[14:25] Speaker 3: whether it has a particular label or not. But I'm
[14:29] Speaker 3: interested about what Francis is really proposing. You know, it
[14:33] Speaker 3: seemed to me that if he's proposing 0% tax increases
[14:39] Speaker 3: and moving future asset management needs to the capital budget,
[14:43] Speaker 3: then he's talking about further constraining the capital budget. That's
[14:47] Speaker 3: my understanding of it. And so I find it a
[14:52] Speaker 3: little troubling to think about how you might meet that
[14:58] Speaker 3: shortfall if, you know, as you say, the priorities are
[15:03] Speaker 3: already unbalanced, like what, you know, what's possible if we're
[15:07] Speaker 3: talking about, you know, a point and a half of 1.5%
[15:15] Speaker 3: increases annually in terms of, you know, just funding the
[15:18] Speaker 3: infrastructure maintenance, then what is that going to mean in
[15:23] Speaker 3: fiscal terms to the city to not have that revenue stream?
[15:28] Speaker 4: Yeah, so... regardless of where the money's coming in, we
[15:33] Speaker 4: need that money to pay for certain capital items. And
[15:37] Speaker 4: if the money's not coming in, meaning that we're no
[15:39] Speaker 4: longer having a capital levy or we're no longer having
[15:42] Speaker 4: property taxes to collect those dollars coming in, we don't
[15:46] Speaker 4: have the money to spend on the needs we have.
[15:49] Speaker 4: And so maybe to bring it back to an easy example,
[15:52] Speaker 4: if you have a blender at home and it kind
[15:55] Speaker 4: of works sometimes depending on how it's sitting, Sure, it
[15:58] Speaker 4: still works, but it needs to be replaced. And similarly
[16:00] Speaker 4: for a municipality, that's going to be something more like
[16:03] Speaker 4: your roads. That's going to be something like the playground
[16:06] Speaker 4: at the park where your children play. That may be
[16:09] Speaker 4: something like the skating rink. Is it actually able to
[16:12] Speaker 4: stay cool and be open all season for everyone to access?
[16:17] Speaker 4: And what practically takes place from a budgeting standpoint, like
[16:19] Speaker 4: behind the scenes when a corporation is sitting down to
[16:22] Speaker 4: decide what they're doing, they're sitting saying, how much money
[16:24] Speaker 4: do I have and what's my top priorities? And that's
[16:26] Speaker 4: all I'm funding. And what happens is everything below a
[16:28] Speaker 4: certain threshold gets kicked down the road. And so from
[16:31] Speaker 4: a business standpoint, we call that sweating the assets, where
[16:34] Speaker 4: you have these assets and they're getting older. And rather
[16:37] Speaker 4: than replacing them, they're getting really old and used and tired.
[16:40] Speaker 4: And it introduces a lot of risks. And so it's
[16:44] Speaker 4: kind of this idea of it's called capital rationing in
[16:46] Speaker 4: a true academic sense, where you're going through and saying,
[16:48] Speaker 4: I have less money available. What am I going to
[16:50] Speaker 4: do with this less money? I'm just doing less things.
[16:52] Speaker 4: And so in my mind, hearing That platform, what that
[16:56] Speaker 4: would suggest to me is rather than this being $ 114
[16:59] Speaker 4: million of an annual gap and $ 5 billion in 20 years,
[17:02] Speaker 4: maybe it's like $ 150 million annual gap. And in 20 years,
[17:06] Speaker 4: this is $ 7 or $ 8 billion we're deficient. And we
[17:09] Speaker 4: already kind of feel that, I think, as Windsorites around
[17:12] Speaker 4: our city, that things are just a little bit older
[17:14] Speaker 4: and more stale than maybe other municipalities. And what I
[17:17] Speaker 4: would suggest is that's kind of like going to my
[17:19] Speaker 4: grandmother's house. It's just going to continue to get worse.
[17:21] Speaker 4: It's not getting better. And it's interesting, even the asset
[17:25] Speaker 4: management plan itself published by the city of Windsor lists
[17:28] Speaker 4: all the risks associated with this. And some of them
[17:31] Speaker 4: are pretty startling, yet they continue to do it.
[17:35] Speaker 2: It's interesting because it kind of turns all of those things,
[17:38] Speaker 2: you know, we always talk about those things that are
[17:40] Speaker 2: like nice to haves. And it's like a calculated approach
[17:46] Speaker 2: to treat everything as a nice to have until it
[17:49] Speaker 2: becomes an absolute must, like until the blender is like
[17:52] Speaker 2: completely not usable anymore. And we absolutely have to have it.
[17:58] Speaker 2: In that way, I think that's where we see a
[18:00] Speaker 2: lot of criticism of different platforms. It's not just Frances,
[18:04] Speaker 2: it's not just Dilkens, but other, you know, counselors approaches
[18:07] Speaker 2: over the years as well. But, you know, that approach to, well,
[18:10] Speaker 2: we don't have to do it right now. We'll just
[18:12] Speaker 2: keep kicking the can down the road. And that risk
[18:15] Speaker 2: and the number of places that it's affecting is growing
[18:20] Speaker 2: every year out of necessity if we maintain that 0%.
[18:24] Speaker 2: I also want to talk about this, the platform position
[18:27] Speaker 2: of this keeping taxes down Even if we agree that
[18:34] Speaker 2: taxes should be kept down and we should keep taxes
[18:36] Speaker 2: low and that 0% is really desirable and those nice-to-haves
[18:40] Speaker 2: really are nice-to-haves until they become need-to-haves, whatever, there's still
[18:44] Speaker 2: choices about how we pay for infrastructure in different ways.
[18:48] Speaker 2: Whether it's borrowing or reserves, looking at grants, looking at
[18:52] Speaker 2: capital reprioritization is a little bit what we're talking about.
[18:55] Speaker 2: It all has a role. but none of them becomes
[18:58] Speaker 2: a magic source of money that solves this problem. So
[19:02] Speaker 2: from your perspective, you know, in your role maybe as our,
[19:07] Speaker 2: we'll make you an advisor today, but how, how would
[19:10] Speaker 2: you recommend Windsor balance borrowing versus reserves versus grants versus
[19:16] Speaker 2: existing capital funding? Like, is there, is there a happy
[19:19] Speaker 2: balance of like, well, you should borrow a little because
[19:22] Speaker 2: that helps you to advance a little bit and you
[19:24] Speaker 2: should use reserves a little because that is responsible. Like,
[19:27] Speaker 2: is there, is there a balance between all of those
[19:29] Speaker 2: things that would be the best way to address the
[19:32] Speaker 2: long-term infrastructure needs that we have?
[19:34] Speaker 4: I think oversimplifying it, yeah, there is a much better
[19:37] Speaker 4: balance we can have. The picture I want to paint of,
[19:41] Speaker 4: I think it's difficult for individuals to sit at home
[19:43] Speaker 4: and imagine a massive corporation like this municipality and how
[19:46] Speaker 4: it should borrow money and what it should be doing.
[19:49] Speaker 4: So I want to... to think about your individual home.
[19:51] Speaker 4: You're a young adult. You're starting your career. You're growing.
[19:54] Speaker 4: You're trying to save money and you want to move
[19:56] Speaker 4: into a house. Maybe you're living in an apartment right
[19:58] Speaker 4: now paying for your rent. The pay-as-you-go scenario is that
[20:01] Speaker 4: I'm going to continue to save money in my pocket
[20:04] Speaker 4: until I have enough money to buy a house and
[20:06] Speaker 4: then I don't have any debt. And that's going to
[20:08] Speaker 4: take you a long time. It might take you 20
[20:09] Speaker 4: years to save up for that house. And during that time,
[20:12] Speaker 4: you've missed that quality of life, right? But by the
[20:14] Speaker 4: time you're 20 years down the road, you have this house.
[20:17] Speaker 4: Versus if I was willing to borrow money and get
[20:19] Speaker 4: a mortgage, I can then actually live in that house
[20:22] Speaker 4: and have a higher quality of life. And yes, I'll
[20:24] Speaker 4: pay for it for 25 years. But over that extended
[20:26] Speaker 4: period of time, I'll have a more quality of life.
[20:29] Speaker 4: And so from a municipality, what that more represents is
[20:32] Speaker 4: that I want to go out and actually build a
[20:34] Speaker 4: new highway to service a new subdivision or I think
[20:38] Speaker 4: something's key important for a municipality. I can wait to
[20:42] Speaker 4: make that investment because if I'm paying as I go,
[20:44] Speaker 4: I have to wait for enough money for that. And
[20:45] Speaker 4: that might take 10, 20 years to get that thing
[20:48] Speaker 4: that our city needs. But if I were to go
[20:50] Speaker 4: and find ways to, from a variety of sources, gather money,
[20:53] Speaker 4: including some of that is that I can then pay
[20:55] Speaker 4: for it over time as I use that asset. And
[20:58] Speaker 4: so what does that mean for the municipality of Windsor?
[21:01] Speaker 4: The province sets out a benchmark that no municipality can
[21:04] Speaker 4: be over 25%. of their annual tax base going to
[21:07] Speaker 4: pay for debt. So that is a big number. No
[21:10] Speaker 4: one should go close to that number. In fact, it's
[21:12] Speaker 4: risky if you go anywhere near it. But to talk
[21:15] Speaker 4: about this, we as Windsor are so down there in
[21:19] Speaker 4: terms of what we actually borrow to help pay for
[21:21] Speaker 4: some of this because we are pay-as-you-go. We're less than
[21:24] Speaker 4: half of some of our peer groups in terms of
[21:27] Speaker 4: borrowing costs.
[21:28] Speaker 2: So this is where we see, I actually have to
[21:30] Speaker 2: say shout out to our long-term listeners because four years
[21:33] Speaker 2: ago during the last election cycle, I remember having, I
[21:36] Speaker 2: think this exact conversation with almost this exact analogy when
[21:39] Speaker 2: we were breaking down some of the mayoral platforms at
[21:42] Speaker 2: that time. And that was something that really rang true.
[21:45] Speaker 2: So I love this analogy of like, you know, you're
[21:48] Speaker 2: not going to live in a cardboard box for 20
[21:50] Speaker 2: years because for 20 years you've been saving up to
[21:53] Speaker 2: buy a house. There are ways to balance those out
[21:55] Speaker 2: in terms of what our priorities are. And I have
[21:58] Speaker 2: to say thank you very much for the analogy because
[22:00] Speaker 2: I think it's really important. And I think, you know,
[22:05] Speaker 2: do we see, it sort of raises a question, you know,
[22:08] Speaker 2: when we're living in this, what do we see getting
[22:11] Speaker 2: delayed and getting canceled or getting bumped down the line? Like,
[22:15] Speaker 2: is there, have we seen that at the municipal level,
[22:18] Speaker 2: like what our priorities are? What's the first thing we cut,
[22:21] Speaker 2: I guess?
[22:23] Speaker 4: It's difficult to say what's the first thing you cut
[22:24] Speaker 4: because it becomes purely a political exercise. So at the
[22:27] Speaker 4: end of the year, they're going to sit down and
[22:29] Speaker 4: they're going to say, based off all the needs we have,
[22:32] Speaker 4: where do I as a politician, our elected members of office,
[22:36] Speaker 4: where do they want to ratchet back the spending? And
[22:39] Speaker 4: for the little money left, where do they want us
[22:40] Speaker 4: to make that spending?
[22:42] Speaker 2: Right.
[22:42] Speaker 4: But I think some places we can probably see that
[22:44] Speaker 4: would be some of our public housing infrastructure. If you
[22:48] Speaker 4: were to ever drive by some of our Winsor Eskimos
[22:50] Speaker 4: community housing assets, they are doing a lot better than
[22:53] Speaker 4: they were maybe five or 10 years ago because the
[22:55] Speaker 4: federal government and provincial governments have come in to help
[22:57] Speaker 4: a bit, but they're in a pretty bad place because
[23:00] Speaker 4: we haven't made those investments for a long time. Um,
[23:03] Speaker 4: you can imagine that driving down the road, you see
[23:05] Speaker 4: big potholes. Um, yeah, no, to your point, Kristen, it's,
[23:09] Speaker 4: it's tough times sometimes to feel that you're living in
[23:11] Speaker 4: a cardboard box.
[23:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'll say, yeah, this is it. I mean,
[23:14] Speaker 2: I'll say shout out to, you know, some of the
[23:17] Speaker 2: folks in my circles that are going to say, where's
[23:20] Speaker 2: the arts funding? Where's the transit funding? Where's the, like,
[23:23] Speaker 2: those things that progressives love to talk about that are
[23:27] Speaker 2: always on the nice to have list because we actually,
[23:29] Speaker 2: you know, we need roads and sewers. We need that infrastructure.
[23:32] Speaker 2: That stuff is, I think, the last stuff to get cut.
[23:36] Speaker 2: But we're seeing platforms like, shout out to Fraser Fathers,
[23:41] Speaker 2: who has a housing platform right now that compares our percentage,
[23:45] Speaker 2: our proportional investment in housing and what we do. And
[23:50] Speaker 2: I think, you know, it's like he's got the numbers
[23:52] Speaker 2: broken down on his website, but it's like 16% is
[23:55] Speaker 2: what we contribute at a municipal level to funding versus
[23:59] Speaker 2: some of the other cities, Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton, other places
[24:02] Speaker 2: where they're contributing 25%, 30%. And they get that much
[24:06] Speaker 2: more bang for their buck. So those are places where
[24:09] Speaker 2: we could see that growth if we were making those changes,
[24:13] Speaker 2: I would imagine.
[24:16] Speaker 4: I think so, yeah. And it comes down to the
[24:18] Speaker 4: prioritization of what you actually want as a municipality. It's
[24:22] Speaker 4: hard to make those arguments for frills when your base
[24:27] Speaker 4: needs aren't being met, right? You have your priority of needs.
[24:29] Speaker 4: And if you're cutting, and it's not cutting is the
[24:31] Speaker 4: wrong word, but if you're not choosing something to grow
[24:33] Speaker 4: your municipality as it grows from a revenue standpoint, um,
[24:37] Speaker 4: from its tax base to support the municipality, you won't
[24:40] Speaker 4: have money to keep up with providing that service.
[24:45] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[24:45] Speaker 3: I want to ask actually, um, I, this is something
[24:48] Speaker 3: we've talked about a number of times on this show
[24:50] Speaker 3: over the years, but I think it's always worth reiterating.
[24:53] Speaker 3: And I, so I'm going to ask you the question, Brad, um,
[24:57] Speaker 3: the way that we talk about tax increases, um, in Windsor, uh,
[25:04] Speaker 3: the way that that has been framed and message doesn't
[25:06] Speaker 3: have a lot to do with, um, you know, it
[25:09] Speaker 3: doesn't have a lot to do with the tax rate, right?
[25:11] Speaker 3: The tax rate is something that is totally different. What
[25:15] Speaker 3: we're talking about to my understanding is, um, is the
[25:19] Speaker 3: tax take the dollar amount that the municipality is going
[25:23] Speaker 3: to take. And so I want to ask you, um, I, I,
[25:26] Speaker 3: I'm going to have a follow-up to this, but I
[25:28] Speaker 3: want to initially ask you, um, Is the tax base,
[25:34] Speaker 3: as the tax base does grow, as the municipality grows,
[25:37] Speaker 3: increases in footprint, increases in population, and we have more buildings,
[25:42] Speaker 3: do we take that revenue? Does that growth get reflected
[25:46] Speaker 3: when we talk about a 0% tax increase? Is it
[25:50] Speaker 3: 0% plus also we had this, you know, 200 new
[25:53] Speaker 3: homes and they're paying taxes? Or is it purely just
[25:56] Speaker 3: the amount of revenue that the city takes?
[26:00] Speaker 2: So.
[26:02] Speaker 4: You're hitting on a point that I actually want to
[26:03] Speaker 4: talk about, and I think it's a flawed argument to
[26:05] Speaker 4: assume that we're going to continue to grow. And everyone
[26:07] Speaker 4: has this broad assumption that we in Canada, I mean,
[26:10] Speaker 4: I have data to suggest we're not going to grow.
[26:12] Speaker 4: The federal government says we're not going to grow. There's
[26:13] Speaker 4: a whole bunch of things behind that. But I think
[26:16] Speaker 4: in the, like, sticking to that main point right there
[26:18] Speaker 4: of if we, when we are growing and we have
[26:20] Speaker 4: experienced growth as a municipality, that is net new revenue
[26:23] Speaker 4: to us when we do have housing, commercial properties being
[26:29] Speaker 4: built that is increasing the tax base. That is definitely
[26:32] Speaker 4: additional revenue. The problem is, is that there is associated
[26:35] Speaker 4: costs with that. So it's not only the upfront infrastructure costs,
[26:38] Speaker 4: it's also the ongoing servicing cost. And it's weird to
[26:41] Speaker 4: think about, but typically when you build urban sprawl, urban
[26:46] Speaker 4: sprawl costs a lot more than intensification. And so if
[26:49] Speaker 4: we were to build up our existing corridors, it'd be
[26:53] Speaker 4: much more beneficial than adding additional suburbs or sprawl to
[26:57] Speaker 4: our municipality. So it, it, it would require a massive
[27:01] Speaker 4: financial exercise to properly assess the city of Windsor and
[27:04] Speaker 4: whether it's actually netly from a net standpoint, positively contributed
[27:08] Speaker 4: to the financial statement. I don't know that to be true. Um,
[27:11] Speaker 4: I don't know what to be not true either. And
[27:13] Speaker 4: I think it'd be hard to approve, uh, go back
[27:16] Speaker 4: and do that analysis at this point, but, um, it's
[27:18] Speaker 4: not always the case in it from case studies. It's
[27:21] Speaker 4: usually not the case as you urban sprawl, you actually grow, uh,
[27:26] Speaker 4: from a positive financial standpoint, you actually grow, sometimes grow negatively.
[27:30] Speaker 2: Yeah, this is actually my question, one of the ones
[27:33] Speaker 2: on my list that I really wanted to dig into
[27:35] Speaker 2: today because we talk about growth. We talk about, you know,
[27:40] Speaker 2: we saw it in the mayoral debate that was put
[27:44] Speaker 2: on by the chamber, especially where Drew Dilkin said sandwiched
[27:49] Speaker 2: south like 100 times. And sandwich, so sandwich, so sandwich,
[27:53] Speaker 2: you know, we got to get that development plan on,
[27:54] Speaker 2: we got to get going. And, and I'm not, I
[27:56] Speaker 2: don't want to be seen as completely anti-development, but if
[27:59] Speaker 2: we're putting all of our eggs in that basket, we're
[28:01] Speaker 2: not really, we're acknowledging the growth aspect and the, the, the,
[28:06] Speaker 2: the revenue that we could, we could additionally get from
[28:08] Speaker 2: the development of that area. But how do we crunch
[28:11] Speaker 2: those numbers? Like, how do we find out how much
[28:14] Speaker 2: of that development is going to actually cost us and
[28:17] Speaker 2: the cost of, of creating the infrastructure for that development,
[28:21] Speaker 2: but also maintaining it and the burden of maintaining it. Like,
[28:25] Speaker 2: are we looking at, is there a formula where we
[28:29] Speaker 2: can look at that before we get into that development?
[28:32] Speaker 2: Or is there a necessary part of the process that
[28:35] Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with where we balance out how much
[28:39] Speaker 2: it costs versus how much revenue we're going to get?
[28:40] Speaker 2: Or is this just like the political conceptual, like some
[28:45] Speaker 2: people are pro-density and some people are pro-sprawl?
[28:49] Speaker 4: Um, so first there absolutely is a, not a formula,
[28:52] Speaker 4: but a, an entire financial analysis that does take place
[28:55] Speaker 4: from a technical standpoint. Usually you want to do this
[28:57] Speaker 4: NPV analysis where you're trying to figure out the net
[28:59] Speaker 4: present value of all the different revenue sources coming in
[29:01] Speaker 4: for municipality versus all the expenses are going to have
[29:04] Speaker 4: to make over the life cycle of this entire asset.
[29:07] Speaker 4: And then also factor in things that are going to
[29:09] Speaker 4: increase or decrease in the municipality. Similarly, kind of like
[29:11] Speaker 4: if you add this, it's not just the cost of
[29:13] Speaker 4: the sewers, but what are going to be the additional, uh,
[29:16] Speaker 4: supportive housing, public services, um, childcare providing spots. Like there's
[29:21] Speaker 4: gonna be a whole bunch of other costs associated with
[29:22] Speaker 4: adding this and it should be a holistic lifecycle approach. Now,
[29:25] Speaker 4: I do know the city of Windsor has this budgeting
[29:28] Speaker 4: process and when you do make a proposal, it does
[29:30] Speaker 4: go through that, but there is no hard, no, this
[29:34] Speaker 4: is a bad financial decision. We're not doing it, right?
[29:37] Speaker 4: So there is no mechanism that this is a net
[29:39] Speaker 4: negative financial decision. We shall not do it. I think
[29:43] Speaker 4: we can all think of a lot of examples the
[29:45] Speaker 4: municipalities made where it's a net negative financial decision, they
[29:48] Speaker 4: still do it. It really comes down to more of
[29:50] Speaker 4: a political decision. And that's the same with all the
[29:52] Speaker 4: capital rationing, all the decisions that are made. These are
[29:55] Speaker 4: political decisions made by who we elect. And we have
[29:57] Speaker 4: to have trust in them to make proper decisions.
[30:00] Speaker 2: On our behalf well i mean how do we make
[30:03] Speaker 2: that information more widely available to people too is sort
[30:06] Speaker 2: of my question too at the end of the day
[30:07] Speaker 2: it's like it's so complicated like we talked about earlier
[30:11] Speaker 2: in the show already about talking about getting getting into
[30:14] Speaker 2: the sauce like it it becomes very overwhelming so anyway
[30:17] Speaker 2: i appreciate this is just my accounted appreciation moment thank
[30:21] Speaker 2: you for breaking it down for.
[30:22] Speaker 4: Us it it does get lost in the sauce and
[30:26] Speaker 4: I'm not hard on this, but I think the city
[30:28] Speaker 4: of Windsor received like an F grade recently on one
[30:31] Speaker 4: of the reports, um, on this. And part of my research,
[30:34] Speaker 4: there was the, um, budget issue detail. If you look
[30:37] Speaker 4: that up, it's, it's a 300 page document by the
[30:40] Speaker 4: municipality put out each year on all the budget line items.
[30:43] Speaker 4: And I think it was, I forget the exact number,
[30:45] Speaker 4: but it was over a hundred of those 300 pages
[30:47] Speaker 4: were in camera redacted. So you don't even get to
[30:49] Speaker 4: see what the actual issue was. So, um, even for
[30:53] Speaker 4: us that do want to go and get lost in
[30:54] Speaker 4: the sauce, how, One third of the time we can't
[30:56] Speaker 4: even see the sauce.
[31:00] Speaker 3: Brad, I'm looking at a chart and I think we
[31:03] Speaker 3: shared this chart with you ahead of the show and
[31:09] Speaker 3: our amazing social media team will put it out somehow,
[31:13] Speaker 3: but I'll summarize it. From 2008, this is from the
[31:16] Speaker 3: budget documents, the city's budget documents in 2025. From 2008
[31:19] Speaker 3: to 2025, inflation, cumulative inflation, cumulative CPI increase was 40%
[31:27] Speaker 3: over that 17 year period. And the cumulative tax levy
[31:33] Speaker 3: increase over that same period was 21%. So there's a
[31:37] Speaker 3: 19 point gap between the erosion in the value of
[31:42] Speaker 3: a dollar and the growth in the tax levy. And,
[31:47] Speaker 3: and So I have a let me ask you the
[31:50] Speaker 3: question and you can go in the direction that you
[31:52] Speaker 3: want with it. Number one, is it credible to talk
[31:56] Speaker 3: about going into another four year cycle with and maintaining
[32:03] Speaker 3: the levy below the rate of inflation or even at
[32:05] Speaker 3: zero percent, as Fred Francis has promised? Is that credible?
[32:09] Speaker 3: And how do how does this compare to other municipalities?
[32:13] Speaker 3: You know, I know some other municipalities have had periods
[32:16] Speaker 3: of tax freezes to try to get their house back
[32:19] Speaker 3: in order after, you know, things maybe got out of
[32:22] Speaker 3: hand or whatnot. But in my mind, this is an
[32:26] Speaker 3: unprecedented fiscal gap. And I don't know if that's true
[32:29] Speaker 3: or if that's just in my mind. What do you think?
[32:33] Speaker 4: So on the chart, yeah, I have looked at it.
[32:35] Speaker 4: It's not surprising to me. I thought it would have
[32:37] Speaker 4: been worse, to be quite honest, just based on our
[32:40] Speaker 4: 0% tax increases for so long. But what's practically taking
[32:44] Speaker 4: place is that we have costs go up across the
[32:47] Speaker 4: board and we have to cut back services to maintain
[32:49] Speaker 4: a 0% tax increase. And so as what you suggested,
[32:54] Speaker 4: the platform for the candidates is saying 0% increases or
[32:58] Speaker 4: even reduction in taxes at some point, that would mean
[33:01] Speaker 4: just further cuts to service. And so is it practical?
[33:03] Speaker 4: I forget the exact word you used there for the
[33:06] Speaker 4: platform to be this way. I'm going to go this
[33:09] Speaker 4: way and say, yeah, it is practical. But what the
[33:11] Speaker 4: suggestion is, is that we will be reducing or cutting
[33:14] Speaker 4: back on services or core infrastructure that's provided to our
[33:19] Speaker 4: municipality or what usually takes place. We're going to kick
[33:22] Speaker 4: the can down the road.
[33:23] Speaker 2: Right.
[33:23] Speaker 4: We have this old infrastructure piece that really does need
[33:26] Speaker 4: to be upgraded, maintained. We're going to continue to sweat
[33:29] Speaker 4: that asset. We're going to kick the can down the
[33:30] Speaker 4: road and we're going to grow that future liability. And,
[33:33] Speaker 4: you know, future future people worry about this today. We're
[33:35] Speaker 4: going to live it up. We don't have to worry
[33:37] Speaker 4: about that. In terms of other municipalities, I don't have
[33:40] Speaker 4: the exact data to compare this. I think it'd be
[33:42] Speaker 4: a really cool exercise to look through. But in my
[33:45] Speaker 4: working with other municipalities, I haven't seen other municipalities in
[33:50] Speaker 4: the province have the same intensity around 0% property tax increases.
[33:59] Speaker 4: I haven't had the municipalities I've worked with had the
[34:01] Speaker 4: same intensity around... not increasing services and just maintaining or
[34:09] Speaker 4: reducing what is it we can reduce and cut back further.
[34:12] Speaker 4: Particularly in my area has been more so around real
[34:15] Speaker 4: estate and housing. It's been a little bit different tone
[34:20] Speaker 4: here locally than I've experienced in other regions in the province.
[34:25] Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting because, you know, in having the conversation
[34:28] Speaker 1: about taxes, we often think about what's on our tax bill.
[34:33] Speaker 1: But of course, that's not the whole cost of municipal services.
[34:36] Speaker 1: We also pay for, you know, transit, recreation, utilities, you've
[34:41] Speaker 1: mentioned some of these other services. So a 0% property
[34:45] Speaker 1: tax increase doesn't necessarily mean that the total cost of
[34:47] Speaker 1: dealing with the city has stayed flat. And keeping those
[34:51] Speaker 1: charges down has, you know, financial consequences too, depending on
[34:56] Speaker 1: how you will look at it. But, you know, in
[34:58] Speaker 1: terms of affordability, municipal affordability, how do we measure that
[35:03] Speaker 1: in terms of property tax levies alone, or do we
[35:08] Speaker 1: include the total cost of living in the city, user
[35:12] Speaker 1: fees and other charges? And what does that look like?
[35:15] Speaker 1: It can get so complicated.
[35:17] Speaker 4: It can get complicated. And it's one of the most
[35:20] Speaker 4: frustrating things as an accountant we talk about during election
[35:24] Speaker 4: cycles is everyone comparing tax rates across different places when
[35:27] Speaker 4: we're not talking about the entire tax burden on society.
[35:29] Speaker 4: So if you want to get really nerdy about it,
[35:31] Speaker 4: you can from... countries at least, you can actually look
[35:34] Speaker 4: at the total tax collection as a percentage of your GDP.
[35:37] Speaker 4: And so a lot of times there's, I have students
[35:39] Speaker 4: that are newcomers to Canada and they complain about their
[35:41] Speaker 4: tax base. And I say, well, let's look at our
[35:43] Speaker 4: total tax collection as a country compared to your tax collection,
[35:46] Speaker 4: where you come from. And it's never really that far
[35:50] Speaker 4: off because we do have to provide services at the
[35:52] Speaker 4: end of the day, right? So for our municipality, we
[35:54] Speaker 4: do actually have to pay for basic services. We pay
[35:58] Speaker 4: for police, we pay for fire, we pay for these things.
[36:00] Speaker 4: It's not as though we don't. So where is that
[36:02] Speaker 4: money coming from? And you are right that we have
[36:04] Speaker 4: to look at the total line item. And so for me,
[36:07] Speaker 4: if I were to assess the actual real dollar amount
[36:11] Speaker 4: that we're increasing in this municipality, I'd go back to
[36:14] Speaker 4: our financial statement. So in our statement of operations, so
[36:17] Speaker 4: from 2024 to 2025, it groups all of those together.
[36:21] Speaker 4: So net municipal property taxes and payments in lieu of
[36:24] Speaker 4: property taxes. Below that, there's also a line for user charges.
[36:28] Speaker 4: across the entire municipality. So if we were to look
[36:31] Speaker 4: at the total line, you'd be able to see how
[36:33] Speaker 4: that in total in gross actually grows or contracts over time.
[36:37] Speaker 4: And it was interesting for the budget for 2025 for
[36:39] Speaker 4: user charges, they budgeted $ 202 million of user charges, they
[36:44] Speaker 4: actually collected $ 218 million. So they over collected in the
[36:49] Speaker 4: from the budget than what they even planned on all
[36:50] Speaker 4: those user charges. And that's particularly hits home for people
[36:54] Speaker 4: don't really think about it. But definitely public transit. And
[36:57] Speaker 4: people even think, hey, that's just, you know, getting on
[36:59] Speaker 4: the bus and paying for your monthly fare. That's also
[37:01] Speaker 4: the students. The St. Clair College, the Student Association had
[37:05] Speaker 4: a pretty good agreement with Transit Windsor for our students.
[37:07] Speaker 4: And I think it was roughly $ 300 a month or
[37:10] Speaker 4: $ 300 for the paths for the year. I think that
[37:12] Speaker 4: went up to almost $ 900 in one year, which was
[37:15] Speaker 4: a large impact on a younger non-income earning group of
[37:21] Speaker 4: our society that doesn't that didn't have an ability to
[37:24] Speaker 4: do anything other than just take that hit and so
[37:26] Speaker 4: yeah our property tax didn't hit it but other users
[37:28] Speaker 4: in the city actually did.
[37:30] Speaker 1: Yeah i that's that's really and maybe the answer is
[37:34] Speaker 1: politics but really i think when we say politics at
[37:36] Speaker 1: the end of the day we're saying what are our
[37:38] Speaker 1: priorities and who bears certain burdens right but you know
[37:42] Speaker 1: i guess my question is how should a city determine
[37:45] Speaker 1: Which services recover their costs through fees? And really, what
[37:49] Speaker 1: do we think we need to subsidize as a society,
[37:51] Speaker 1: as a community? So that when the city raises fees
[37:56] Speaker 1: for services such as transit that you mentioned, or whether
[37:59] Speaker 1: it's recreation programs, swimming lessons for our children, you know,
[38:03] Speaker 1: how should the city account for the fact that those
[38:05] Speaker 1: increases will or may fall and often do fall hardest
[38:09] Speaker 1: on the people who can actually least afford them?
[38:12] Speaker 4: Okay. So as an accountant, we account for it by
[38:14] Speaker 4: putting in our financial statements when it's there. So, I mean,
[38:16] Speaker 4: that's a cheeky answer. It is there. It's accounted for.
[38:19] Speaker 4: We can see it all. It's difficult to look at
[38:21] Speaker 4: and read as a normal everyday person. But I really
[38:23] Speaker 4: do think this is more of a political philosophical conversation.
[38:27] Speaker 4: And we have these at a very grand level in
[38:28] Speaker 4: our society. Like, should we be putting taxes on goods
[38:31] Speaker 4: and services, increasing our sales tax, which is a direct taxation?
[38:35] Speaker 4: Or should we be having an income tax on the
[38:37] Speaker 4: broad base income? And I think it gets back to
[38:40] Speaker 4: how we actually collect revenue and how we in our
[38:42] Speaker 4: society want to collect revenue in a way to fund
[38:45] Speaker 4: our society. Do we want to have it on non-voters,
[38:50] Speaker 4: low-income voters where they have to pay to actually get
[38:52] Speaker 4: what they need in society? Or are we going to
[38:55] Speaker 4: share that cost across our tax base? And we as
[38:58] Speaker 4: a society are going to share that burden. And I
[39:00] Speaker 4: think what we've been moving more towards in our municipality
[39:03] Speaker 4: is reducing the shared burden and saying that, hey, You know, student,
[39:09] Speaker 4: you want to get to school, you pay for it yourself, student. Hey,
[39:13] Speaker 4: you know, child care provider, you need child care. You can,
[39:16] Speaker 4: you know, we're not putting more money out there for you.
[39:19] Speaker 4: You got to figure this out and pay more yourself.
[39:21] Speaker 4: So I think we're moved. We have been and will
[39:23] Speaker 4: probably continue based off the platforms move more towards direct
[39:26] Speaker 4: payment from user fees. And that typically is more of
[39:30] Speaker 4: a taxation on lower income individuals.
[39:39] Speaker 3: When we look at the voting record of the two
[39:43] Speaker 3: candidates for mayor, Francis and Dilkins, and I'm talking specifically
[39:48] Speaker 3: now about investments in our downtown. Francis and Dilkins both
[39:53] Speaker 3: have backed the downtown revitalization plan in 2024, but in 25,
[39:59] Speaker 3: there was a pretty significant difference there in, in that
[40:04] Speaker 3: Fred Francis disagreed over the funding for Festival Plaza and, and,
[40:12] Speaker 3: I don't want to pick out that one investment and
[40:14] Speaker 3: say that this is the marker that we should use
[40:19] Speaker 3: to judge the totality of these two platforms and these
[40:23] Speaker 3: two candidates. But I do think it's an interesting kind
[40:27] Speaker 3: of example to cite. So how do we decide when
[40:32] Speaker 3: an investment like that is worth making? You know, you
[40:35] Speaker 3: can always when we're talking about spending new money on
[40:38] Speaker 3: something like Festival Plaza, you can always point to our
[40:43] Speaker 3: infrastructure deficit. Brad, you mentioned it before. You can always
[40:46] Speaker 3: point to the fact that we have roads and sewers
[40:49] Speaker 3: that need repair. But how is it you know, how
[40:52] Speaker 3: should a municipality and therefore how should electors be thinking
[40:55] Speaker 3: about this? Like, how do we decide when we should
[40:58] Speaker 3: make an investment as a community?
[41:01] Speaker 4: That's a tough one. I don't think there is a
[41:04] Speaker 4: sound or like some accounting finance equation or model where
[41:08] Speaker 4: we specifically go and say, you know, this 10% of
[41:10] Speaker 4: our money is going to be allocated to fund and
[41:12] Speaker 4: 90% is going to be allocated genuinely towards what we
[41:15] Speaker 4: need in our society just to maintain. That rule of
[41:20] Speaker 4: thumb doesn't really exist. We're really getting into much more
[41:23] Speaker 4: of this hierarchical of needs, right? Like are our base
[41:26] Speaker 4: needs met? And I think the difficult part or that
[41:29] Speaker 4: sensitive topic here, whether you're going back a long time
[41:31] Speaker 4: with a nice big pool we have or medium turn
[41:34] Speaker 4: to some festival lights or whatever the more recent topic is,
[41:38] Speaker 4: it becomes a pain point for us because we actually
[41:40] Speaker 4: don't have our base needs met. And we drive around
[41:43] Speaker 4: or we're commuting throughout the municipality, we're trying to access
[41:46] Speaker 4: a service and we're not feeling like that base need
[41:49] Speaker 4: is actually met for us. And we might see it
[41:50] Speaker 4: and it becomes a bigger, bigger pain point. And I
[41:53] Speaker 4: think these things pop up because we don't We have
[41:56] Speaker 4: that sensitivity within us and we don't know necessarily how
[41:58] Speaker 4: to articulate it. It just feels wrong that we're maybe
[42:01] Speaker 4: investing more money in something that is a nice to have,
[42:04] Speaker 4: not necessarily a critical thing. But I do think it
[42:06] Speaker 4: is important to have nice things, right? It is important
[42:10] Speaker 4: to do that. The difficult part is that we don't
[42:12] Speaker 4: want to actually collect tax revenue to do those things.
[42:14] Speaker 4: And I think that's, to me, the little bit disingenuous
[42:17] Speaker 4: piece of this is that we're setting out a policy
[42:19] Speaker 4: where we're cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. But hey, we're
[42:22] Speaker 4: going to throw something nice at you just so we
[42:23] Speaker 4: can point at it. So from a structural standpoint, I
[42:28] Speaker 4: don't think there is this nice structural standpoint or nice
[42:31] Speaker 4: measuring stick to say this is what we should spend
[42:33] Speaker 4: on this. It is a bit of a political topic
[42:38] Speaker 4: to choose what you want to do. But I think
[42:40] Speaker 4: when you think of it in terms of when we
[42:42] Speaker 4: have enough of our base needs met, where we feel
[42:44] Speaker 4: comfortable investing more money in things that make us feel happy,
[42:47] Speaker 4: that's probably the right time to get there. And I
[42:49] Speaker 4: don't think we're maybe feeling that way right now. Well,
[42:52] Speaker 4: it really.
[42:52] Speaker 2: Depends on what you consider a base need, because I mean,
[42:57] Speaker 2: to use transit as an example, because I like to
[43:00] Speaker 2: pick on transit, but for transit, getting around the city
[43:04] Speaker 2: is a base need for people, but is it a
[43:06] Speaker 2: base need for enough people who will make enough noise
[43:09] Speaker 2: about it when it's not present for them? And what context,
[43:13] Speaker 2: like what are we comparing this against? So, you know,
[43:19] Speaker 2: it does become a political conversation. It becomes a piece
[43:21] Speaker 2: of like, you know, we should all travel more so
[43:25] Speaker 2: we can see what it's like in other cities. Like
[43:27] Speaker 2: we should all, and really, I mean, I say it
[43:30] Speaker 2: a little bit tongue in cheek, but if we don't
[43:32] Speaker 2: know what we don't know, we don't know what we're missing.
[43:35] Speaker 2: And we don't know, like if you're not a particularly
[43:38] Speaker 2: engaged voter, or you're not a, you know, somebody who's
[43:42] Speaker 2: really interested or invested in municipal politics, you might be
[43:47] Speaker 2: affected by these decisions, without feeling like you have any
[43:51] Speaker 2: real power to change them. So I don't know, that's my,
[43:55] Speaker 2: maybe my political soapbox moment for the show. But I
[43:57] Speaker 2: think everybody's got to, you don't know what you don't know,
[44:01] Speaker 2: you have to get out, you have to see what's
[44:02] Speaker 2: out there. So that becomes your base need, that becomes
[44:06] Speaker 2: the thing that you're not willing to go without like
[44:09] Speaker 2: good transit or like a library hub or like whatever
[44:13] Speaker 2: it is that's been kicked down the road a little bit.
[44:16] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[44:16] Speaker 4: And Kristen, you're absolutely right. I'm going to say that
[44:19] Speaker 4: was the feeling piece of it. And for us finance
[44:21] Speaker 4: accounting piece, we quantify that as the asset management plan.
[44:25] Speaker 4: And so the asset management plan is a quantified number
[44:28] Speaker 4: of what you feel. And so that quantified number is
[44:32] Speaker 4: $ 114 million deficient annually and $ 5 billion over the next
[44:35] Speaker 4: 20 years that we will be behind on those base
[44:38] Speaker 4: needs that we're feeling.
[44:41] Speaker 1: Well, you mentioned quality of life, but quality of life
[44:46] Speaker 1: fits into so many other things. When we support certain things,
[44:53] Speaker 1: you also have increased tourism or you have increased economic activity.
[44:57] Speaker 1: You have people willing to invest. You have people willing
[45:00] Speaker 1: to move here and invest because of quality of life issues.
[45:05] Speaker 1: So these are all sort of interconnected. And it's not
[45:08] Speaker 1: like we can see them all on a balance sheet,
[45:11] Speaker 1: but just recognizing that there's a bigger picture to the
[45:15] Speaker 1: financial choices and decisions we make and what some of those,
[45:19] Speaker 1: you know, implications may be.
[45:22] Speaker 4: Absolutely. And it does come back to this idea that
[45:26] Speaker 4: we do need to make those investments for our future,
[45:28] Speaker 4: no doubt, right? We need to make sure we have
[45:30] Speaker 4: a new access road for some potential new hospital that's
[45:33] Speaker 4: going to really be a spur for our environment or
[45:36] Speaker 4: our local economy. And it's going to be great for
[45:38] Speaker 4: our citizens. But those dollars do come out of something
[45:41] Speaker 4: we actually need to spend today. And that does actually
[45:44] Speaker 4: increase our asset management plan. These things are all genuinely interconnected.
[45:47] Speaker 4: So when we make that investment, it is taking money
[45:49] Speaker 4: out of the other pocket. No doubt.
[45:52] Speaker 2: Now, we're talking a lot about what money we're spending
[45:55] Speaker 2: and where we're spending it, but when we talk about
[45:58] Speaker 2: fiscal responsibility, it's not just about how much we're spending,
[46:01] Speaker 2: it's about, and we've kind of just touched on it,
[46:04] Speaker 2: but who controls the budget, who sets those priorities, and
[46:08] Speaker 2: how those decisions then get scrutinized after the fact. So
[46:11] Speaker 2: we look at Francis wants to eliminate strong mayor budget powers.
[46:15] Speaker 2: Dilkens has used them. They've taken different positions on both
[46:20] Speaker 2: mayoral veto and the hot topic. There's always a group
[46:24] Speaker 2: of people that are dying over the auditor general idea,
[46:27] Speaker 2: additional auditor general funding. So when we look at the
[46:30] Speaker 2: governance of it, what governance arrangements best support responsible municipal spending?
[46:36] Speaker 2: Would it be, you know, Do we look at stronger
[46:39] Speaker 2: mayoral control or that greater collective council authority or stronger
[46:44] Speaker 2: independent oversight?
[46:47] Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a wonderful question. As a finance accounting person,
[46:51] Speaker 4: I don't know probably the best answer on this, but
[46:53] Speaker 4: I can help paint the picture of how we can
[46:55] Speaker 4: think about this and where maybe I land on this topic.
[46:58] Speaker 4: And so if we were to imagine this as a continuum,
[47:00] Speaker 4: a straight line, where on one side we have the
[47:02] Speaker 4: moves fast, break things corporate, you have a single dictator
[47:06] Speaker 4: who's going to make these decisions and And then the
[47:08] Speaker 4: other side, you have this perfect liberal democracy where we
[47:11] Speaker 4: all sing kumbaya and we get together and we get
[47:13] Speaker 4: to have all the proper input and time to digest
[47:15] Speaker 4: and make a relevant decision. I don't personally, I think
[47:21] Speaker 4: probably liberal democracy is a more prudent way. We can
[47:23] Speaker 4: look at a lot of functional governments around the world,
[47:26] Speaker 4: balancing budgets, making prudent financial decisions, having great quality of
[47:30] Speaker 4: life outcomes that are much more on the liberal democracy
[47:33] Speaker 4: side that involves a lot of input and feedback from
[47:36] Speaker 4: the constituent's takes in a lot of consultation, and it
[47:39] Speaker 4: is slower. It is not as quick. It's not as
[47:42] Speaker 4: direct response to political agendas immediately. But I think over
[47:49] Speaker 4: a long term, a lot of those governments probably tend
[47:53] Speaker 4: to do, I mean, appear to do much better. And
[47:55] Speaker 4: I think that's kind of the visualization I'm playing out
[47:57] Speaker 4: is do corporate moves fast break things. I'm an owner manager.
[48:02] Speaker 4: It's my business. It's my way to highway or this,
[48:04] Speaker 4: you know, very perfect utopic liberal democracy. That's kind of
[48:07] Speaker 4: my view when I hear those two platforms. And for me,
[48:11] Speaker 4: just thinking about controls. So in the world of accounting,
[48:14] Speaker 4: we have these controls. We want to make sure we
[48:15] Speaker 4: have policies, procedures in place that we don't make any mistakes.
[48:18] Speaker 4: We're properly evaluating decisions. You know, a more liberal democratic
[48:23] Speaker 4: approach would make a lot more sense to me.
[48:31] Speaker 1: Okay. I'm going to jump in here, I guess, um,
[48:36] Speaker 1: You know, I want to take a look at and
[48:37] Speaker 1: I know that we want to look at some of
[48:39] Speaker 1: the campaign platform differences and even voting records. And we
[48:44] Speaker 1: don't have a lot of time, unfortunately. But, you know,
[48:46] Speaker 1: this one's pretty recent. So maybe that's why it's on
[48:52] Speaker 1: my mind. But the specific example of, you know, campaign promises,
[48:59] Speaker 1: you know, looking at them beyond the headlines. So Fred
[49:01] Speaker 1: Francis has promised to restore. you know, visible police patrols
[49:05] Speaker 1: across Windsor's neighborhoods. His platform talks about reviewing and redistributing resources.
[49:12] Speaker 1: His campaign coverage actually described the commitment as having at
[49:15] Speaker 1: least one patrol unit in every ward at all times,
[49:19] Speaker 1: which I think is actually different and would be costed
[49:22] Speaker 1: out differently, frankly. But they're not necessarily the same thing.
[49:26] Speaker 1: And I guess the distinction will matter ultimately when we
[49:31] Speaker 1: look at what certain costs will be. I also want
[49:33] Speaker 1: to mention that there has been controversy over this proposal
[49:36] Speaker 1: because Cat Pasquatch, another mayoral candidate, has publicly questioned the
[49:40] Speaker 1: reports that Windsor Police actually reviewed his plan, raising questions about,
[49:45] Speaker 1: you know, who requested it, who directed the work, whether
[49:49] Speaker 1: police resources were used and, you know, whether the same
[49:52] Speaker 1: opportunities were available to other candidates. So, you know, first
[49:56] Speaker 1: of all, kudos to her and great job on calling
[49:58] Speaker 1: that out. I think those are all really good questions.
[50:00] Speaker 1: But in terms of the substance and getting back to
[50:03] Speaker 1: the budget overall and the police budget specifically, it's worth
[50:08] Speaker 1: noting that Windsor's approved 2026 net operating budget for police
[50:14] Speaker 1: services is approximately $ 117 million or 23% of the city's
[50:19] Speaker 1: net operating budget. So that's a pretty substantial portion of it.
[50:24] Speaker 1: And any promise to change how policing is delivered... it's
[50:28] Speaker 1: sort of, I was triggered by a little bit by this,
[50:31] Speaker 1: you know, this idea of how we make decisions. First
[50:33] Speaker 1: of all, even the question of, you know, this is
[50:35] Speaker 1: a separate board and what the mayor's role is in
[50:38] Speaker 1: relation to actually the operations of policing. But even besides
[50:43] Speaker 1: all that, you know, looking at, at, you know, how
[50:46] Speaker 1: we understand promises during an election campaign in the context around,
[50:53] Speaker 1: you know, all, all of what it will actually take
[50:59] Speaker 1: to implement. In other words, I think I'm saying, you know,
[51:03] Speaker 1: and you don't have to answer policing specifically, Brad, if
[51:05] Speaker 1: you haven't examined it, but I'm just using it as
[51:07] Speaker 1: an example as what appears to me, at least to
[51:10] Speaker 1: be a gap between, you know, political commitments and campaign
[51:14] Speaker 1: promises and credible plans to deliver them. You know, what
[51:18] Speaker 1: changes when a candidate moves from campaigning to governing? And
[51:21] Speaker 1: this is not exclusive to that particular example. Maybe a
[51:25] Speaker 1: little bit about the politics of all of that and
[51:27] Speaker 1: what's concerning about that.
[51:28] Speaker 4: I think two pieces I want to talk about on
[51:31] Speaker 4: this is one is going to be this environment in
[51:34] Speaker 4: which we centralize power to make decisions.
[51:37] Speaker 2: Right.
[51:37] Speaker 4: And I think another one's going to be the reality
[51:39] Speaker 4: of actually budgeting and part of what I see an
[51:42] Speaker 4: issue with kind of that messaging. So the first is
[51:45] Speaker 4: that in working with municipalities, there is. a lot of
[51:50] Speaker 4: times this worry about controllership. And so controllership in a
[51:54] Speaker 4: business standpoint is going to be the risk that something
[51:57] Speaker 4: takes place that isn't probably best for this municipality or
[52:00] Speaker 4: this corporation. So policies, procedures, things got missed and something
[52:04] Speaker 4: bad happened. And I think it's before my time in
[52:08] Speaker 4: the local political landscape, but there is a certain counselor
[52:12] Speaker 4: who had a credit card and racked up a nice
[52:14] Speaker 4: bill and resulted in a centralization of power and control
[52:18] Speaker 4: to make sure those things don't happen anymore. I think
[52:21] Speaker 4: it was on the library board, if I recall correctly.
[52:24] Speaker 4: And in that centralization of power, it removes a lot
[52:27] Speaker 4: of that autonomy for those in decision-making roles. So say
[52:33] Speaker 4: I'm responsible for delivering a certain service at the municipality
[52:35] Speaker 4: that I get removed, that autonomy is removed for me.
[52:39] Speaker 4: And then it gets centralized. And over time, we can
[52:41] Speaker 4: do that in a corporate governance standpoint. So in our,
[52:44] Speaker 4: you know, business standpoint we can actually design policies and
[52:47] Speaker 4: procedures to remove that individual control and continue to bring
[52:50] Speaker 4: that up under the guise of i am now removing
[52:53] Speaker 4: that control so it's safer but that concentrates power right
[52:57] Speaker 4: and it removes the actual input and autonomy from those
[53:01] Speaker 4: that should be responsible educated and experienced in that work
[53:05] Speaker 4: to remove that ability from them so i do think
[53:07] Speaker 4: some of that's taking place it's not something that i
[53:10] Speaker 4: would necessarily would want um The other piece here is
[53:15] Speaker 4: that election promises, I think, meet this real reality when
[53:21] Speaker 4: you actually have to sit down at the end of
[53:22] Speaker 4: the day and answer to all of those. And what
[53:24] Speaker 4: I'm hearing out of that election promise, because I think
[53:26] Speaker 4: the other side is that we're going to have no
[53:28] Speaker 4: new taxes and potentially decreased taxes, yet we want to
[53:31] Speaker 4: increase policing. In my mind, if those two things are true,
[53:35] Speaker 4: we're cutting a bunch of other things in our budget.
[53:37] Speaker 4: So what else are we cutting to make that happen?
[53:39] Speaker 4: Are we going out and cutting child care? Are we
[53:41] Speaker 4: going out and cutting... long-term care? Are we cutting housing?
[53:46] Speaker 4: Are we cutting actually our roads and sewers? What is
[53:49] Speaker 4: it we're cutting to meet that need is what I
[53:53] Speaker 4: hear as an accountant when I hear that campaign promise, right?
[53:58] Speaker 4: And I don't disagree that we probably could benefit in
[54:01] Speaker 4: our society from a more proactive, more funded police force.
[54:07] Speaker 4: But the reality is, and if the other promise is
[54:09] Speaker 4: we're not increasing our budget, in fact, maybe decreasing our budget, well,
[54:14] Speaker 4: that's just a constraint. Where's the money coming from? So
[54:16] Speaker 4: sitting down, can you actually deliver on that promise? You can,
[54:19] Speaker 4: it's just, you have to cut somewhere else. And that'd
[54:21] Speaker 4: be the question I'd be asking in that if I
[54:22] Speaker 4: were to sit down.
[54:25] Speaker 3: Let's stay on, um, this topic, I think, uh, um,
[54:29] Speaker 3: just in terms of, um, the candidates platforms. Uh, so
[54:33] Speaker 3: we've talked a little bit about the two candidates for
[54:35] Speaker 3: mayor and their platforms tonight. Um, you know, uh, um,
[54:41] Speaker 3: There is definitely a continuity between the two in terms
[54:44] Speaker 3: of being more on the side of arguing and advocating
[54:48] Speaker 3: for fiscal restraint. But I want to ask you for
[54:52] Speaker 3: your judgment, Brad. When you look at these two platforms
[54:57] Speaker 3: and the.
[54:59] Speaker 3: Fiscal approaches, what do you see as the true point
[55:03] Speaker 3: of differentiation between the two candidates for mayor? What is
[55:07] Speaker 3: different in their approach to the city's finance? And where
[55:13] Speaker 3: do you see the gap between how they've conducted themselves
[55:18] Speaker 3: in office so far and what they're talking about in
[55:22] Speaker 3: their platform?
[55:23] Speaker 4: I think from a broad political economic finance perspective, I
[55:27] Speaker 4: think they're kind of in the same camp. I don't
[55:29] Speaker 4: really see this as a decision between a left and
[55:32] Speaker 4: a right. I see this as we both are looking
[55:35] Speaker 4: towards fiscal constraint or retraction. And so it becomes a
[55:41] Speaker 4: little bit of like the shades of within this camp,
[55:44] Speaker 4: what do we actually want to choose? And I think
[55:47] Speaker 4: it's going to come down to for the voters, how
[55:51] Speaker 4: strongly do you see that we should continue to hold
[55:54] Speaker 4: or cut services? And like the oversimplification of this, going
[55:57] Speaker 4: back to my analogy, is my kind of view of
[55:58] Speaker 4: this is like one candidate is like going to my
[56:00] Speaker 4: grandmother's house who just doesn't want to, you know, stuffs
[56:03] Speaker 4: money in the mattress and doesn't want to spend money,
[56:05] Speaker 4: invest in anything new. And the other person is going
[56:09] Speaker 4: and burning the furniture to keep the house warm. So
[56:12] Speaker 4: I don't view them as either productive, long-term, sustainable platforms
[56:18] Speaker 4: from a financial, societal standpoint. I just view them as
[56:22] Speaker 4: incredibly financially fiscally conservative, which seems to play well with
[56:26] Speaker 4: our voter base here.
[56:28] Speaker 2: Can I put a heavy sigh in this part, Doug?
[56:31] Speaker 2: Am I allowed to do that? Okay, I'm done.
[56:38] Speaker 1: Is that all you're going to say, Christian?
[56:41] Speaker 2: I think the people understand where I'm coming from.
[56:44] Speaker 1: Well, I know, oh my gosh, we could go on.
[56:47] Speaker 3: I just.
[56:49] Speaker 1: so much appreciate Brad coming on. I want to give
[56:51] Speaker 1: him the opportunity just sort of, you know, to wrap
[56:53] Speaker 1: it up for us. We've talked about infrastructure gap, candidates,
[56:56] Speaker 1: funding proposals, growth, affordability, their records on council to some extent.
[57:02] Speaker 1: And campaigns are about promises, but governing, and this is
[57:06] Speaker 1: where I was going even earlier, is really about making
[57:08] Speaker 1: choices when the money isn't enough to do everything. And
[57:11] Speaker 1: I think that's been a theme as well. How do
[57:15] Speaker 1: we pull it all together? Brad, if you're sitting down
[57:18] Speaker 1: with whoever's the new mayor on October 27th, what's kind
[57:23] Speaker 1: of some of the either uncomfortable financial reality that you
[57:28] Speaker 1: want to tell them or, you know, the thing that
[57:31] Speaker 1: neither campaign really wants to put a slogan on right now?
[57:37] Speaker 1: And what's, you know, what's the first financial decision you
[57:40] Speaker 1: would want the next mayor or the mayor in the
[57:45] Speaker 1: seat on October 27th to sort of confront?
[57:49] Speaker 4: I think it's looking at our municipality as a long-term
[57:55] Speaker 4: going concern. We so tend to think about election cycles
[57:59] Speaker 4: or even year to year, just because budgets are nice
[58:01] Speaker 4: to think years are nice to think about. And we're
[58:04] Speaker 4: just thinking about next year, what am I going to
[58:06] Speaker 4: be paying for my property taxes? But when we're looking
[58:09] Speaker 4: at what's now forced by the province, this didn't used
[58:12] Speaker 4: to be a requirement to actually do this asset management plan.
[58:15] Speaker 4: It's quite dire. And if you couple that with how
[58:17] Speaker 4: we actually spend our operating dollars and the overall kind
[58:20] Speaker 4: of sentiment, it doesn't paint this happy picture of what
[58:24] Speaker 4: the potential future for Windsor looks like from a purely
[58:28] Speaker 4: financial standpoint, which then replicates and comes into our actual
[58:32] Speaker 4: quality of life and standard of living as residents. And
[58:35] Speaker 4: so what I'd want to talk to is let's sit
[58:37] Speaker 4: down and talk about from the standpoint of your children
[58:39] Speaker 4: and grandchildren, how do you actually see this playing out?
[58:43] Speaker 4: And are the decisions today due, genuinely think that's what's
[58:46] Speaker 4: best for our municipality over the long run because I
[58:50] Speaker 4: genuinely don't feel that's being considered enough in the political
[58:54] Speaker 4: landscape and it's just being an afterthought that I don't
[58:57] Speaker 4: have to really strongly worry about that I just need
[58:59] Speaker 4: to get through this election I just need to get
[59:01] Speaker 4: through this budget I just need to get through this
[59:04] Speaker 4: headline and once I get through that those are all
[59:06] Speaker 4: future problems that I don't really need to worry about
[59:09] Speaker 4: but prudently, and I think from a strong leader, we
[59:12] Speaker 4: would want to have someone stand up and say, we
[59:14] Speaker 4: do need to make this decision for the long run,
[59:16] Speaker 4: because it doesn't seem like that's taking place right now.
[59:19] Speaker 1: Well, we'll leave it at that. And I think you've
[59:21] Speaker 1: given us a lot to think about. And I think
[59:24] Speaker 1: the listeners a lot to think about. And it makes
[59:26] Speaker 1: it even more compelling, how important, you know, voting and
[59:32] Speaker 1: what we want to see as the future of Windsor.
[59:35] Speaker 1: And the conversation obviously won't end on October 26th, but
[59:40] Speaker 1: a chapter will begin where we can talk about, you know,
[59:46] Speaker 1: what we expect and what we want in the future
[59:49] Speaker 1: of our community. Anything from Doug and Kristen before we
[59:53] Speaker 1: take this one out?
[59:54] Speaker 2: I want to say thank you because as clever as
[59:58] Speaker 2: I think I am sometimes, wading into this financial conversation
[1:00:01] Speaker 2: can be really daunting. And I know I speak for
[1:00:05] Speaker 2: a lot of our listeners as well. So I have
[1:00:07] Speaker 2: to say just thank you so much for being here,
[1:00:09] Speaker 2: for breaking it down, and for great analogies. I love
[1:00:12] Speaker 2: a great analogy. Thank you.
[1:00:13] Speaker 3: Appreciate it.
[1:00:16] Speaker 1: Yeah. Brad, thanks for joining us and helping us dig
[1:00:18] Speaker 1: into the details and actually in sort of plain English,
[1:00:22] Speaker 1: sort of setting it up for us and really thinking
[1:00:26] Speaker 1: about the philosophical choices we have at stake as well.
[1:00:29] Speaker 1: So we appreciate it. Thanks also to LiUNA 625 for
[1:00:32] Speaker 1: supporting Rose City Politics. If you're following the campaigns, make sure, listeners,
[1:00:38] Speaker 1: that you check out our one-on-one interviews with candidates. We're
[1:00:41] Speaker 1: giving them the opportunity to tell us directly. what they
[1:00:44] Speaker 1: stand for and what they would do as mayor and candidates.
[1:00:49] Speaker 1: You can find those bonus interviews on Spreaker along with
[1:00:52] Speaker 1: our regular episodes. And if you're enjoying the show, follow us,
[1:00:56] Speaker 1: share the episodes, tell your politically engaged or politically exhausted friends,
[1:01:01] Speaker 1: as it were, where to find us. Campaign promises are free.
[1:01:06] Speaker 1: and actually so are we right now. So for Rose
[1:01:10] Speaker 1: City Politics, I'm Pat Papadais, along with Doug Sartori, Christian Siapis.
[1:01:15] Speaker 1: Thanks so much for Brad for joining us. Thanks for listening,
[1:01:17] Speaker 1: and we'll see you next time.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.