Scoring methodology
Candidate responses to this questionnaire can optionally be displayed with traffic lights to better help voters filter and navigate. These traffic lights are assigned using the following scoring methodology agreed upon by the organizations that developed this questionnaire, in alignment with their organizational values.
Traffic lights are displayed for each candidate per topic and per question:
- 🟢 Green — candidate response(s) for the topic/question strongly align with values of Strong Towns WR, WRYIMBY, and VisionWR
- 🟡 Yellow — candidate response(s) for the topic/question partially align with values of Strong Towns WR, WRYIMBY, and VisionWR
- 🔴 Red — candidate response(s) for the topic/question do not align with values of Strong Towns WR, WRYIMBY, and VisionWR
- ⚪ Grey — candidate did not provide response for key questions to topic / specific question
Traffic lights do not apply to open-ended responses in the candidate's own words.
Question-Level Scoring
Questions with traffic light display have three formats: select-up-to-N options, rank options from highest to lowest, and select single option.
Options for each question are classified by the developing organizations. Each question contains at least one “opposing” option.
| Classification | Description |
|---|---|
| Strong | A concrete, specific commitment aligned with values |
| Moderate | Hedging, ambiguous, or partial commitment |
| Opposing | Status quo or counter to values |
| Neutral | Process or contextual (e.g. “commission a study”); neither credit nor penalty |
Select-up-to-N scoring
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 🟢 Green | Selected one or more strong options AND no opposing options |
| 🟡 Yellow | Selected only moderate options; OR one or more strong + one or more opposing; OR only neutral options |
| 🔴 Red | Selected one or more opposing options AND no strong options |
| ⚪ Grey | Did not answer this question |
Rank scoring
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 🟢 Green | Rank 1 or 2 is strong AND no opposing option appears in the top 3 (4 for select questions) |
| 🟡 Yellow | No strong in the top 2, but no opposing in the top 2 either (e.g. moderate or neutral options ranked first); OR strong in top 2 with an opposing at rank 3 |
| 🔴 Red | An opposing option is ranked 1 or 2 |
| ⚪ Grey | No options selected |
Single select scoring
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 🟢 Green | Selected option classified strong |
| 🟡 Yellow | Selected option classified moderate or neutral |
| 🔴 Red | Selected option classified opposing |
| ⚪ Grey | No options selected |
Topic-Level Scoring
Each topic designates certain questions as key questions (most directly measuring alignment) and others as supporting questions (context that can modify but not override the section score). Questions within a topic roll up to an overall score.
| Key question scores | Supporting scores | Section score |
|---|---|---|
| All green | Any (no red) | 🟢 Green |
| Green + yellow, no red | Any | 🟡 Yellow |
| All yellow, no red | Any | 🟡 Yellow |
| Any red | Any | 🔴 Red |
| All green | Red in supporting | 🟡 Yellow |
| All grey | All grey | ⚪ Grey |
| All grey | Green or yellow supporting | ⚪ Grey: did not answer the questions that matter most |
| All grey | Red supporting | 🔴 Red: responded to something, and it was red |
| Green or yellow | Grey supporting | Keep key question score: grey does not penalize |
Key questions per Topic
| Topic | Key questions |
|---|---|
| Housing & Homelessness | Pathways to permanent housing Interim management of encampments |
| Transit & Transportation | Street infrastructure priorities Transit investment priorities |
| Climate & Sustainability | Perspective on climate change Building and development standards |
| Food Systems & Security | Access to food |
| Growth & Planning | Planning and zoning tools Lifecycle costs |
| Budget & Taxes | Revenue approaches Growth and cost recovery |
| Regional Water Supply | Water supply approach |
Option classifications per question (105 options)
Every checkbox option and its classification, published for audit:
| Question | Option | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal and regional costs have generally risen faster than revenues restricted by property tax rules and limited local revenue tools. How would you balance tax increases against maintaining service levels and long-term financial sustainability? A. Revenue approaches | Moderate, predictable tax increases to maintain service levels | strong |
| Prioritize not increaseing taxes and service fees | opposing | |
| Increased cost recovery by increasing user fees (e.g. recreation programs, parking, transit fares) | moderate | |
| Area-specific levies where residents in a defined area receive or request a distinct level of service | moderate | |
| Actively pursue provincial and federal transfer funding and grants | moderate | |
| Exploring new local revenue tools where permitted by provincial legislation | strong | |
| B. Service levels | Maintain current service levels, even if taxes rise | moderate |
| Adjust service delivery models to reduce costs without reducing access | strong | |
| Reduce discretionary programs to protect core services | moderate | |
| C. Capital & infrastructure | Prioritize maintenance and state-of-good-repair over expansion | strong |
| Require lifecycle cost analysis before approving any new infrastructure | moderate | |
| Defer or cancel capital projects with low long-term return on investment | moderate | |
| D. Growth & cost recovery | Ensure new development pays a greater share of long-term infrastructure costs | strong |
| Re-evaluate development incentives or subsidies that create long-term liabilities | moderate | |
| Maintain current growth and cost-sharing approaches | opposing | |
| Do you think the Region's or municipality's budget process should be more transparent and accessible to residents? | It is already sufficiently transparent and accessible | opposing |
| It should be more transparent and accessible (Please specify how) | strong | |
| How should municipalities and the Region incorporate climate and sustainability into policy, including development and infrastructure decisions? A. Perspective on climate change | Climate change is an urgent and defining crisis of our time; reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be a primary consideration across municipal decision-making | strong |
| Climate change needs action and local governments can contribute in a few areas, but this is an issue better addressed at provincial and federal levels | moderate | |
| Addressing climate change is not a priority at this time, given other more urgent issues facing local governments | opposing | |
| Commitments passed by previous councils, like the 50x30 pledge or declarations of climate emergencies, should guide current council decision making | strong | |
| Our local and regional governments need to renew coordinated action towards implementing the Transform Waterloo Region strategy. | strong | |
| B. Building and development standards | Where possible, require or incentivize energy efficiency standards in new development, beyond current provincial minimums | strong |
| Create financial incentives for low-carbon construction (e.g. development charge reductions, expedited approvals, density bonuses) | strong | |
| Require green infrastructure as part of development approvals (e.g. stormwater management, tree canopy, permeable surfaces) | strong | |
| Use development agreements to require climate sustainability measures as a condition of approval | moderate | |
| Maintain current standards: additional requirements are best set at the provincial or federal level | opposing | |
| C. Infrastructure and capital planning | Climate analysis should not be a required step in capital decisions due to added costs and delay | opposing |
| Require climate risk and lifecycle cost analysis in major capital decisions | strong | |
| Prioritize active transportation and transit investment | moderate | |
| Require climate change mitigation and adaptation impact assessments for large growth decisions (greenfield expansions, settlement boundary changes) | strong | |
| Require an assessment of impacts on aquifer recharge | strong | |
| Align municipal operations (fleet, facilities, procurement) with regional climate commitments | moderate | |
| How should municipalities and the Region approach food insecurity and affordability? A. Access to food | Public access to food is primarily a provincial/federal and charitable-sector responsibility | opposing |
| Partner with local charities, non-profits, and other organizations to strengthen access to food and redistribution of surplus food and produce for low-income residents | moderate | |
| Support the development of community buying clubs or municipal grocery stores | strong | |
| Support local food procurement for school food programs, including processing/preparation infrastructure, food literacy, and youth learning opportunities | strong | |
| Support programs to prepare food for those who are unhoused or unable to cook | strong | |
| B. Access to land for growing food | Make public lands (Regional and municipal) available for sustenance food provisioning, including in urban and peri-urban spaces as cities expand | strong |
| Enable access to land and resources for local people who want to grow their own food (e.g. the community-garden model) | strong | |
| Encourage and support private landowners to make lots available for food provisioning | moderate | |
| Leave food production to the rural agricultural sector and the private market | opposing | |
| In the context of growing pressure for economic development and the connected loss of farmland, what role do municipalities and the Region hold in promoting local food livelihoods, production, and processing? | Partner with other levels of government to develop local food hubs that reduce costs and barriers for small businesses | moderate |
| In the context of growing pressure for economic development and the connected loss of farmland, what role do municipalities and the Region hold in promoting local food livelihoods, production, and processing? | Develop a local food strategy, including research on how land-use change affects the food system | strong |
| In the context of growing pressure for economic development and the connected loss of farmland, what role do municipalities and the Region hold in promoting local food livelihoods, production, and processing? | Encourage and support local landowners to rent to newcomer farmers | moderate |
| In the context of growing pressure for economic development and the connected loss of farmland, what role do municipalities and the Region hold in promoting local food livelihoods, production, and processing? | Leave local food livelihoods to the private market | opposing |
| In the context of growing pressure for economic development and the connected loss of farmland, what role do municipalities and the Region hold in promoting local food livelihoods, production, and processing? | Promote and support low-barrier spaces for local producers to distribute and sell food | strong |
| How should councils balance provincial and regional mandates for increased housing density with neighbourhood opposition and local infrastructure constraints? A. Planning & zoning tools | Expand as-of-right zoning to reduce case-by-case political decisions on housing forms | strong |
| Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas | moderate | |
| Allow small-scale housing forms city-wide as-of-right (e.g. up to four units per lot) | strong | |
| Require area-specific planning studies before permitting additional density | moderate | |
| Maintain existing zoning; manage density primarily through new growth areas | opposing | |
| Eliminate parking minimum requirements | strong | |
| B. Managing neighbourhood opposition | Proceed with adopted plans even when facing local opposition | strong |
| Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density | strong | |
| Defer to neighbourhood opposition and reduce or stop contested density | opposing | |
| Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity | moderate | |
| Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts | moderate | |
| C. Infrastructure & servicing | Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists | strong |
| Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades | strong | |
| Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades | moderate | |
| Delay density until infrastructure is expanded | opposing | |
| Accept short-term constraints in order to meet housing demand | strong | |
| How should councils weigh the long-term cost of maintaining existing infrastructure when making decisions about outward growth and expansion? | Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving boundary expansion | strong |
| How should councils weigh the long-term cost of maintaining existing infrastructure when making decisions about outward growth and expansion? | Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity | strong |
| How should councils weigh the long-term cost of maintaining existing infrastructure when making decisions about outward growth and expansion? | Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure already exists | strong |
| How should councils weigh the long-term cost of maintaining existing infrastructure when making decisions about outward growth and expansion? | Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure costs are covered | moderate |
| How should councils weigh the long-term cost of maintaining existing infrastructure when making decisions about outward growth and expansion? | Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply | opposing |
| How should municipalities and the Region balance providing permanent housing with the management of encampments in public spaces? A. Pathways to permanent housing | Prioritize rapid acquisition or conversion of existing buildings | strong |
| Partner with non-profit and supportive housing providers | moderate | |
| Use publicly owned land for permanent or interim housing | strong | |
| Increase funding for deeply affordable and supportive housing | strong | |
| Focus primarily on market housing to reduce overall pressure | opposing | |
| B. Interim management of encampments | Establish and maintain clear minimum standards (sanitation, safety, outreach) | strong |
| Expand the hours and capacity of extreme-weather shelter protections beyond current levels | strong | |
| Require that enforcement actions be linked to the availability of adequate indoor alternatives | strong | |
| Prioritize clearing encampments to maintain public access to shared spaces | opposing | |
| Allow temporary encampments to persist while permanent housing options are actively being developed | moderate | |
| C. Accountability and collaboration between levels of government | Establish clear regional leadership with coordinated municipal roles | moderate |
| Assign clear municipal responsibility for public-space management | moderate | |
| Current coordination between levels is adequate; no new accountability mechanisms are needed | opposing | |
| Actively advocate to the province for defined funding triggers and program supports | strong | |
| Publish ongoing performance metrics (e.g. housing placements, shelter bed access) | strong | |
| Do you support expanding fare-free transit for the Region? | Yes, for all residents | strong |
| Yes, for specific groups: (select up to 3)Seniors (ex. extend Older Adult Day Pass pilot)People with disabilitiesLow-income residentsYouth (age 12 and under)Post-secondary students | strong | |
| Improve existing subsidies and discounts, but maintain fares for most riders | moderate | |
| No, maintain the current fare structure | opposing | |
| What role should public transit play in regional growth, and how should future transit investments be prioritized? | Prioritize expanding coverage area | moderate |
| What role should public transit play in regional growth, and how should future transit investments be prioritized? | Prioritize lower-cost or incremental transit improvements | strong |
| What role should public transit play in regional growth, and how should future transit investments be prioritized? | Prioritize maximizing operational efficiency | opposing |
| What role should public transit play in regional growth, and how should future transit investments be prioritized? | Invest in rapid transit to anchor growth | strong |
| What role should public transit play in regional growth, and how should future transit investments be prioritized? | Use transit to shape land use and new development | strong |
| Do you support the municipality taking responsibility for snow removal from sidewalks adjacent to private properties? | Yes, sidewalks should be cleared alongside roads as part of regular winter maintenance | strong |
| Yes, but roads should take priority; sidewalks cleared after | moderate | |
| No, maintain the current system where property owners clear adjacent sidewalks | opposing | |
| How should municipalities use existing street infrastructure to better prioritize walking, cycling, and public transit? | Reallocate space on selected streets (e.g. road diets, transit lanes, protected bike lanes) | strong |
| Maintain current street design standards | opposing | |
| Adjust signal timing, curb use, or intersection design | moderate | |
| Prioritize active transportation improvements during routine resurfacing | strong | |
| Focus improvements around schools, transit corridors, and commercial areas | strong | |
| The Region of Waterloo's long-term water supply is under growing pressure. Water capacity in the Mannheim Service Area serving Kitchener, Waterloo, and parts of Cambridge, Wilmot, and Woolwich, is limited in supporting new development approvals. While additional supplies were found for easing immediate needs, what long term approach should the Region take? (rank from highest to lowest in importance) | Accelerate exploration of alternative water sources (wells, treated wastewater reuse, inter-municipal supply) | strong |
| The Region of Waterloo's long-term water supply is under growing pressure. Water capacity in the Mannheim Service Area serving Kitchener, Waterloo, and parts of Cambridge, Wilmot, and Woolwich, is limited in supporting new development approvals. While additional supplies were found for easing immediate needs, what long term approach should the Region take? (rank from highest to lowest in importance) | Approve developments now and resolve water supply constraints in the future | opposing |
| The Region of Waterloo's long-term water supply is under growing pressure. Water capacity in the Mannheim Service Area serving Kitchener, Waterloo, and parts of Cambridge, Wilmot, and Woolwich, is limited in supporting new development approvals. While additional supplies were found for easing immediate needs, what long term approach should the Region take? (rank from highest to lowest in importance) | Prioritize immediate investment in water conservation programs and demand management | strong |
| The Region of Waterloo's long-term water supply is under growing pressure. Water capacity in the Mannheim Service Area serving Kitchener, Waterloo, and parts of Cambridge, Wilmot, and Woolwich, is limited in supporting new development approvals. While additional supplies were found for easing immediate needs, what long term approach should the Region take? (rank from highest to lowest in importance) | Pursue a Lake Erie pipeline connection with provincial and federal cost-sharing | moderate |
| The Region of Waterloo's long-term water supply is under growing pressure. Water capacity in the Mannheim Service Area serving Kitchener, Waterloo, and parts of Cambridge, Wilmot, and Woolwich, is limited in supporting new development approvals. While additional supplies were found for easing immediate needs, what long term approach should the Region take? (rank from highest to lowest in importance) | Commission an independent technical review of all options before committing to major new infrastructure | moderate |