Eryn Koncir

• Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing
• Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas
• Use traffic
• collision and pedestrian/cycling data to identify priority locations
• and coordinate Township and Regional road projects so active transportation improvements can be incorporated efficiently when streets are already being reconstructed.

1. Use transit to shape land use
2. Prioritize expanding coverage area
3. Prioritize maximizing operational efficiency
4. Invest in rapid transit to anchor growth
5. Prioritize lower-cost or incremental transit improvements

No, maintain the current system where property owners clear adjacent sidewalks

Improve existing subsidies and discounts, but maintain fares for most riders

Please describe one criterion or principle that should not be compromised when making transit investment decisions.candidate's own words

Transit investment should be connected to land-use planning and actual community growth. I don’t think transit should be planned in isolation from where people live, work, shop, go to school and access services. New growth should be planned around realistic transportation options, and transit investments should support those planned communities rather than trying to catch up years later. The Region’s Official Plan explicitly links land-use and transportation planning and says infrastructure investment should support the planned community structure. Woolwich’s own business plan similarly says transportation planning should be a priority when evaluating growth and development, including future transit links and Breslau service. For me, the test would be: Does this transit investment meaningfully connect people to where growth and daily activity are actually occurring? If not, we should rethink it.

Please name one specific street, corridor, or project where you would prioritize these changes.candidate's own words

The Maryhill Road and St. Charles Street intersection in Maryhill. Residents have raised repeated concerns about vehicle speeds, stop-sign compliance and pedestrian safety at this intersection and nearby crossings. The Region is already designing a major reconstruction of Maryhill Road from St. Charles Street north to the Waterloo/Wellington boundary, with construction currently planned for 2027–2028. The project includes new and extended sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian improvements. I would use that planned reconstruction as an opportunity to look closely at the intersection itself — including crossing design, visibility, traffic calming, signal or beacon options where warranted, and how people walking and cycling move safely through the village — rather than simply rebuilding the road as it exists today.

1. Develop a local food strategy, including research on how land-use change affects the food system
2. Promote and support low-barrier spaces for local producers to distribute and sell food
3. Partner with other levels of government to develop local food hubs that reduce costs and barriers for small businesses
4. Leave local food livelihoods to the private market
5. Encourage and support local landowners to rent to newcomer farmers

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to strengthen the local food system.candidate's own words

A concrete policy I would support is maintaining a strong Countryside Line and settlement boundary so productive agricultural land is protected from incremental urban expansion. Woolwich’s Official Plan already identifies protecting the Countryside for long-term agricultural use as part of strengthening the local food system, alongside supporting agricultural and farm-related uses, farmers’ markets, and community gardens. The Regional Official Plan makes the same connection, stating that the Countryside Line is intended to protect rural land for long-term agricultural use and support a strong regional food system. I would also support complementary measures that make it easier for local producers to reach consumers — such as temporary farmers’ markets or other low-barrier sales opportunities — but I see protecting the land base itself as foundational. Once productive farmland is converted to urban use, that capacity is very difficult to recover.

1. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
2. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words

I would oppose the current Thomasfield proposal on Victoria Street in Breslau if it proceeds primarily as a conversion of employment land to hundreds of additional homes without first demonstrating how the resulting infrastructure, servicing, employment capacity and complete-community needs will be addressed. I am not opposed to growth or density in Breslau, but I believe major land-use changes should be supported by clear analysis of roads, water/wastewater capacity, commercial services, recreation, employment opportunities and the long-term cost of the infrastructure required. Growth should build a complete community — not just add more houses.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

I would oppose the current proposal to expand development into the Martin Grove area. Woolwich should be very cautious about converting agricultural land and extending development outward while we already face significant infrastructure renewal needs. Before considering expansion, I would want clear evidence that existing settlement areas cannot accommodate the required growth, along with a full accounting of servicing, transportation and long-term infrastructure costs. I also support maintaining a strong Countryside Line or equivalent settlement boundary to provide long-term certainty about where urban development ends and the countryside begins. Where growth can be accommodated within existing settlement areas and make better use of infrastructure we already have, that should be prioritized.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words

I support growth, but I believe the conversation needs to be about more than housing numbers. Growth should build complete communities — with infrastructure, employment, commercial services, recreation, transportation and other community needs developing alongside new homes. In Woolwich, that also means being realistic about long-term costs. New development can create immediate infrastructure requirements as well as future operating, maintenance and replacement obligations. Before approving major growth or boundary expansion, Council should understand those lifecycle costs, the available servicing capacity, and how required upgrades will be funded. Growth should pay for growth where reasonably possible, while recognizing that development charges do not necessarily cover every future municipal cost. I also believe residents should have a meaningful role in shaping how growth occurs. Local opposition should not automatically stop appropriate density, but concerns about traffic, servicing, design, recreation, commercial amenities and community character should be taken seriously and tested against evidence. My approach is simple: get the information, ask the hard questions, and then make the decision.

What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words

Woolwich currently tracks vacant and available development lands, particularly employment lands, but I would like to explore whether that tracking could be expanded to identify development-ready land that remains vacant for extended periods and whether existing planning and servicing tools can encourage approved projects to move forward.

It should be more transparent and accessible

Please describe one concrete example of a trade-off you would support (or oppose) when costs rise faster than revenues.candidate's own words

If costs were rising faster than revenues, I would support deferring or cancelling a lower-priority capital expansion project before reducing core services or accepting a large tax increase. I would first want to understand the project’s full lifecycle cost, whether it is genuinely needed now, and what value it delivers compared with maintaining existing infrastructure. If the return is weak or the project creates significant future operating and replacement costs, deferral may be the more responsible choice.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on budgets?candidate's own words

My approach to municipal budgeting is to protect core services, maintain the infrastructure we already own, and make sure new spending is financially sustainable over the long term. Before asking taxpayers for more, Council should understand where the money is going, identify efficiencies, review lower-priority or discretionary spending, and make sure programs and capital projects are delivering value. I do not support arbitrary tax freezes or across-the-board cuts. Where additional revenue is genuinely necessary, increases should be transparent, predictable and clearly justified. I also believe Council should pay closer attention to lifecycle costs, reserve pressures and future replacement obligations so today’s decisions do not simply create larger costs for future taxpayers.

If you chose "It should be more transparent and accessible", please describe how.candidate's own words

Municipal financial information should be easier for residents to find, understand and connect to the decisions Council is making. I would support clearer public reporting that shows where tax dollars are going, how spending is changing over time, what major capital projects cost, how they are funded, and what future operating and replacement costs they create. Residents should also be able to see how investment and service levels differ across communities, where that information is available, rather than having to piece it together from multiple reports.