Tammy Gaudun Gies

Please describe one concrete policy, program, or decision you would support to address both encampments and permanent housing.candidate's own words

I would support strengthening the Region’s existing housing stability approach by creating a clear pathway from encampment outreach and interim supports into permanent or supportive housing, with measurable targets for housing placements and follow-up supports. The Region is already investing significantly in this area, including its transition of A Better Tent City into the regional housing system and its work to move people from homelessness into permanent housing. I would support building on that work rather than simply creating another program. The important piece for me is making sure that outreach, emergency shelter, supportive housing and permanent housing are connected. We should not simply clear an encampment and move people somewhere else without a realistic pathway to stable housing. At the same time, public spaces need to remain safe and accessible, and there need to be clear standards around sanitation, safety and outreach. I would also want this approach to recognize the differences between communities. Wilmot should not be expected to replicate an urban encampment response, but people experiencing housing insecurity in Wilmot should not be invisible within the Regional system either. We should understand the local need, work with local service providers, and determine whether there are appropriate opportunities for supportive or deeply affordable housing within our community. Most importantly, I would want the Region to publicly report outcomes—not just how much money is being spent, but how many people are moving from homelessness to appropriate, stable housing and whether those placements are being sustained

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

I think we need to stop measuring success by how well we manage the immediate problem and start measuring it by whether people are actually moving toward stable housing. That requires building clear, connected pathways through the housing system—not a series of short-term fixes that leave people cycling between shelters, temporary housing and the street. I would support investments that address the gaps between those stages and create a realistic path to long-term stability. For me, the question isn't simply, “Where do we put someone tonight?” It’s, “What does this person need to get to a place where they no longer need the system?”

• Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing
• Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas, Make better use of existing corridors by adding wider paved, multi-use paths where appropriate, including through existing boulevard space and hydro corridors, to create safe connections for walking, cycling and rolling without unnecessarily taking road lanes away from vehicles.

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

Yes, sidewalks should be cleared alongside roads as part of regular winter maintenance

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

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

I support improving transportation options for Wilmot residents, particularly where they can make a meaningful difference for families, seniors and youth, but I am also mindful of the cost to taxpayers. I would rather see us make practical, targeted improvements using infrastructure and corridors we already have, while focusing investment on areas where there is a clear safety or accessibility need. Before committing to major transportation projects, I would want to understand the cost, expected benefit and long-term impact on our community.

If you selected "Yes, for specific groups" above, which groups?candidate's own words

Seniors (ex. extend Older Adult Day Pass pilot), People with disabilities, Low-income residents

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

Transit investments should be based on demonstrated community need and measurable benefit—not simply on where growth is planned. We should be able to show that an investment will meaningfully improve access to employment, education, services and daily life for the people who live in the community.

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

I would prioritize a safe, separated multi-use connection along Snyder’s Road West from Baden through the Sir Adam Beck and Waterloo-Oxford school area and toward the Nafziger Road intersection, with the longer-term goal of extending that connection into New Hamburg. There is currently a small sidewalk along part of this stretch, but it is not designed to accommodate two-way cycling or other active transportation, and the volume of vehicle traffic makes the area particularly challenging and dangerous during school pick-up and drop-off times. Two schools are located along this stretch, and students travelling to Waterloo-Oxford from New Hamburg should have a safe way to make that trip without having to share busy roads with vehicles. I would look at connecting existing trails and using available boulevard or other existing corridor space to create a safer, more practical route, while addressing the particularly difficult Waterloo-Oxford/Nafziger intersection.

Describe one concrete policy, incentive, or decision you would prioritize to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Where possible, explain how it balances environmental goals with fiscal responsibility.candidate's own words

I would prioritize higher energy-efficiency standards for new municipal buildings and affordable housing, with the goal of reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and long-term operating costs. Where higher standards have an upfront cost, I would want decisions to be based on lifecycle costs and demonstrated energy savings rather than simply choosing the lowest construction price. Environmental improvements should be financially responsible and should not result in unreasonable costs being shifted onto existing residents and taxpayers.

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

With significant growth being directed toward our communities, I believe sustainability needs to be part of how we decide what development belongs here and how it should happen. Future development should be planned with the long-term health of our farmland, groundwater, drainage systems and natural environment in mind, while also respecting the character and capacity of the communities that already exist. To me, sustainability also means being financially responsible. We should be making decisions that serve residents for decades, not creating infrastructure or environmental problems that future taxpayers will have to fix. Growth is coming, but we have an opportunity to make sure it is thoughtful, responsible and aligned with the community we want to leave to our children.

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

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

I would support developing a local food and agricultural land strategy that identifies and protects the farmland, water resources and agricultural infrastructure that are critical to Wilmot’s long-term food system. As development pressure increases, we should understand the impact of land-use decisions on our ability to grow and produce food before that land is lost. I would also look for practical ways to support local farmers in getting their products to local schools, institutions, markets and families.

1. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
2. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
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 support completing a comprehensive secondary plan for the Baden–New Hamburg growth corridor before approving further significant increases in density. That plan should identify where higher density is appropriate and ensure that roads, water and wastewater capacity, stormwater management, schools, parks, recreation, transit and active transportation are planned alongside the housing. I support growth, but I don't believe we should approve density first and then try to catch up with the infrastructure and services afterward. Wilmot's growth should create complete, connected communities that work for the people who live here, while protecting farmland, water resources and the small-town character that makes people want to live here in the first place.

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 support phasing major growth in the Baden–New Hamburg area around what the community actually needs. New development should include the infrastructure and services to create complete communities—things like grocery stores, local businesses, coffee shops, recreation and other everyday amenities—so residents aren't simply commuting elsewhere for everything they need. Housing should also reflect the character and needs of Wilmot. I would support primarily family-oriented housing that gives people an opportunity to live and put down roots here, rather than high-density housing that functions primarily as commuter housing. Before significant expansion, I would want a clear understanding of the full lifecycle costs for roads, water, wastewater, drainage, emergency services and recreation, with growth appropriately contributing to the costs it creates. Growth should add to the community we have, not simply increase the number of people living here.

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

I understand that growth is coming to Wilmot, and I am not opposed to responsible growth. My concern is the pace, scale and form of that growth, and whether it is actually building the community we want to live in. Wilmot's appeal is rooted in its small-town character, agricultural community and quality of life. New development should respect those qualities while providing what residents actually need—family-oriented housing, local businesses, grocery options, recreation and other everyday amenities. It should be supported by the roads, water, wastewater, drainage, schools, parks and other infrastructure required to make a community function. Most importantly, I believe we need to think beyond the initial approval of a development and consider its long-term environmental, financial and community impacts. Growth should contribute fairly to the infrastructure it requires and should strengthen the communities of Baden, New Hamburg and rural Wilmot—not simply turn them into commuter communities.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Ensure new development is appropriate to the character, scale and needs of the community, not simply financially and technically feasible.

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

Municipalities should have stronger tools to discourage speculative land banking, particularly where land has already received approvals or infrastructure investment. I would support a vacant land registry and, where appropriate, holding charges or servicing agreements with reasonable timelines for development. The goal should not be to force development for its own sake, but to ensure that land benefiting from public investment contributes to the community rather than simply being held for future profit.

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 project rather than automatically increasing taxes to fund it. Essential services and maintenance of existing infrastructure should come first. Before asking residents to pay more, I would want Council to demonstrate that the project is necessary, that more cost-effective alternatives have been considered, and that the long-term benefit justifies the expense. For growth-related infrastructure, I would also expect new development to contribute an appropriate share of the costs it creates, rather than shifting those costs onto existing taxpayers.

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

I believe taxpayers deserve both responsible spending and transparency about how their money is being used. Council should look for efficiencies and outside funding, prioritize essential services and the maintenance of existing infrastructure, and ensure new growth pays a fair share of the costs it creates. When tax increases or major new spending are necessary, residents should be given clear information about the costs, benefits and alternatives early enough to meaningfully participate in the decision. Transparency should not come after the decision is made—it should be part of how the decision is made.

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

Transparency needs to mean more than publishing information after decisions are largely settled. Residents should have access to meaningful information about major proposals, their costs and long-term implications early enough to ask questions and provide input. Confidentiality and NDAs may sometimes be necessary for legitimate reasons, but they should not become a way to keep residents in the dark or prevent public scrutiny and opposition to decisions that will significantly affect the community. Taxpayers deserve to understand what is being considered, why it is being considered, what it will cost, and what alternatives were evaluated before major commitments are made.