Position Statement — September 3, 2026
Springfield needs reliable and sustainable water infrastructure for Dugald and Oakbank. I support that objective. What I will not support is asking Springfield taxpayers to write a blank cheque for DOWS without a comprehensive and publicly accountable examination of the project, its financing, its long-term costs, and every reasonable alternative.
The central question is not simply whether water infrastructure is needed. It is how the cost should be fairly allocated among existing serviced residents, the broader municipality, developers, future development, and others who directly benefit from expanded municipal servicing. Where reasonably possible, existing infrastructure needs should also be distinguished from additional capacity required primarily to accommodate future growth. As a general principle, infrastructure costs should be allocated as fairly as practical according to who benefits, who creates the need for additional capacity, and whether there is a broader municipal benefit that justifies contribution by taxpayers as a whole.
A comprehensive review should not begin with the assumption that there is only one way to finance DOWS. Options worthy of public examination include a Local Improvement District or other appropriately apportioned assessment, appropriate utility or user-rate funding, a greater contribution from properties receiving the direct benefit of municipal servicing, fair participation by developers and future development, and alternative partnerships, intergovernmental arrangements and funding structures that could reduce the burden on Springfield taxpayers.
Development brings new residents, housing, investment, employment, assessment and services to Springfield. It can also provide existing residents with greater access to local businesses and services, reducing the need to travel longer distances and improving everyday convenience. Developers and businesses are important community stakeholders and should be treated fairly and predictably.
At the same time, development can create additional demands for municipal infrastructure. Meeting those demands should not place an unreasonable burden on development, nor should the benefits to the community be undermined by shifting disproportionate infrastructure costs onto existing taxpayers through higher taxes and long-term debt.
Growth and convenience are benefits — but not at the expense of affordability.
Growth should contribute fairly to the infrastructure required to support that growth, while recognizing the investments developers make in extending municipal services that may later benefit other development.
Contributions could be staged or scaled according to the servicing benefit and timing of development. Where one developer finances infrastructure extending beyond its immediate needs, future development that connects to, uses or benefits from that infrastructure should contribute its fair share through an appropriate cost-sharing or reimbursement arrangement. This helps ensure that the first developer does not unfairly carry infrastructure costs for development that follows.
Springfield should also examine whether infrastructure can be developed in stages, with additional capacity brought online as population and development actually require it. The public should be able to distinguish infrastructure required to address today's needs from capacity intended primarily for anticipated future growth, and to examine whether phased or modular approaches could reduce the amount today's taxpayers are required to finance upfront.
The longer-term governance and servicing options for Oakbank should also be open to informed public discussion, including whether a Local Urban District or, if residents ultimately wished to examine it, separate municipal incorporation could provide greater local control over servicing decisions and the costs associated with them. These are options for examination and public discussion — not predetermined conclusions.
Many rural Springfield residents have already invested substantial amounts of their own money in wells, septic fields and the ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement of those private systems. Their concern is legitimate: why should they also be expected to carry an unlimited share of infrastructure primarily serving urban growth?
That does not mean rural Springfield has no responsibility for the municipality as a whole. We all contribute to shared municipal services and infrastructure. But there is a difference between sharing reasonable municipal responsibilities and transferring disproportionate development or servicing costs onto taxpayers who receive little or no direct benefit.
Before Springfield taxpayers are committed to major long-term borrowing or capital costs, residents deserve a clear accounting of the total project cost, available reserves, grants and other funding, anticipated borrowing, repayment terms, operating costs, and the effect on future municipal taxes and utility rates.
A project of this magnitude should not proceed simply because one financing structure has been presented. Council should be prepared to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been examined, that costs are allocated fairly among those who benefit, and that the final approach represents responsible value for Springfield taxpayers.
Reliable water infrastructure matters. So does affordability and responsible stewardship of Springfield's own water resources. Springfield should pursue these objectives together. The test should not be whether we can find a way to finance a project, but whether the project, its scale, its timing and its financing represent the best reasonable course for the municipality and the people who ultimately pay for it.
My position is therefore straightforward: no blank cheque. Put the facts on the table, examine the reasonable options, determine who benefits and who should fairly pay, and make the decision openly and accountably in the best interests of Springfield as a whole.
Good government begins by listening.
You have my ear.
Together, let us roll up our sleeves.
It begins with your vote at the ballot box.