to ask your democratically elected representatives in the municipal electoral process.
As municipalities in Ontario, BC, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island hold local elections this fall for mayors, councils, and other local government and economic representatives, now is a great time to bring a discussion around community wealth building into town halls and to the kitchen table. Community wealth building, at its essence, is the practice of building local economies that keep ownership, investment, jobs, spending, and capital close to home, so the wealth an economy generates stays in the community that generates it. Community wealth building asks simple questions: whose economy? Whose wealth? And it seeks answers that put people, not just capital, in charge of the local economy.
These ten questions are structured around the five pillars of community wealth building and offer a way to create a dialogue that imagines new pathways toward communities that work for everyone. As an engagement tool of the Community Wealth Building Lab, 10C has sent these questions out to the candidates in our local election here in Guelph, Ontario. We encourage you to adapt these to your context.
Community Wealth Building TOWN HALL
On Wednesday, October 14th (6:00-8:00pm), 10C invited community members and all local electoral candidates who are interested in discussing community wealth building to a dialogue hosted at 10C Shared Space (42 Carden St., Guelph). Approximately 40 people attended, including a few people online.
It was clear that people wanted to learn more about community wealth building, and many of the candidates could connect the thread through to decisions that were within the realm of the municipal government. 10C looks forward to hosting more community workshops as the new council comes into effect, as it’s vital to increase community engagement in these themes, in order to push for change to policies and practices. While municipalities have a big role in community wealth building, this is an all of community approach.
These are the written responses received from candidates.
1. Inclusive and democratic enterprise
Why this matters: How businesses are owned shapes whether value can stay in a community. Economies dominated by extractive, absentee-owned businesses leak wealth out of the community. Co-operatives, non-profit social enterprises, and employee-owned businesses keep value circulating locally. 10C is itself an example: a non-profit that owns and stewards real estate as social infrastructure, built on the premise that ownership should serve the community, not just private return.
Q1. Would you expand the community grants envelope to invest more capital in non-profit social enterprise activity that adds local economic value?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – As a candidate committed to rigorous budget scrutiny, I would not immediately commit to expanding the tax-funded grants envelope. The Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, Section 106(1) generally prohibits municipalities from providing direct bonusing to commercial enterprises, though exceptions exist for community-focused non-profits under a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Rather than immediately expanding subsidies, my systems-thinking approach informed by my work with Proto Makerspace and the Guelph Indigenous Community Council focuses on optimizing existing resources, reducing administrative red tape, and facilitating partnerships so non-profits can thrive without triggering tax hikes.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I would not commit to expanding the community grants envelope given the City’s financial pressures. I would support reviewing existing grants to ensure they deliver measurable community value and considering eligible social enterprise projects within available funding. The City can also help through clearer approvals, better coordination and connections with potential partners and funders.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I support using our existing community grants envelope, but at this time, I cannot commit new property tax dollars to expand it.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Absolutely.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I support the objective of strengthening Guelph’s local economy and recognize the value that non-profit social enterprises can contribute. I would not, however, commit to expanding the community grants envelope in isolation from the City’s other priorities and financial pressures.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I already believe the Community Grants program should have two clearer streams: one focused on arts and culture and another focused on social and community programs. If additional funding becomes available, I would be open to expanding support for non-profit and social enterprise activity. However, I would also like to see City funding used to leverage other sources of investment wherever possible; and possibly a linkage with the JF Wood Centre and The Hub at the University of Guelph. A City contribution can often have greater impact when it helps attract community, private, philanthropic or other government funding rather than carrying the full cost itself.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – I won’t promise a bigger grants envelope before I’ve seen the 2027 budget. Non-profit social enterprises should be able to compete for City grants on the same footing as charities, judged on what they deliver. What I will back now costs very little: fee waivers, City space and quicker permits.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes to more capital, with a change in what it is used for. Most of the community grants envelope currently funds operating costs on an annual cycle. That keeps good organizations alive, and it also has them applying every year for the same money. A grant that pays this year’s rent produces nothing that exists next year. A grant that helps a non-profit put a down payment on a building, or pay for the feasibility study and drawings it needs to apply for larger funding, produces something the community owns for thirty years. Pre-development funding in particular is cheap and almost nobody provides it. A study, an appraisal and an architectural concept cost tens of thousands of dollars, and they are the precondition for every bigger funding application a non-profit will ever make. I will be clear about the tension. I am running on restraint in the operating budget, and I will not argue for restraint in one meeting and a larger recurring grant line in the next. If the envelope grows, I want the growth going into one-time investments that build something I can point to. There is also a set of things the City can do here that cost nothing: faster approvals, zoning that lets community uses open without a rezoning, and making City-owned space available. Sometimes the most useful thing the City can do for a social enterprise is get out of its way.
Q2. Would you support the city building the data capacity to track business ownership types (non-profits, charities, co-operatives, employee- and community-owned enterprises), as steps towards offering future incentives?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – Yes. My professional background in IT and systems administration underscores the necessity of robust data infrastructure. Tracking business ownership types provides the empirical evidence required to make informed, strategic decisions about our local economy. Any future municipal incentives must be backed by transparent, measurable data to ensure they deliver genuine community value.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I would first want to understand what decisions this information would inform and the cost of collecting and maintaining it. Where useful, we could work with existing economic development resources and community partners. My focus would be on outcomes such as jobs, investment and community benefit. Ownership structure alone should not determine eligibility for municipal incentives.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I would support the City tracking business ownership types if it can be accommodated within our existing staff capacity.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Yes.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I would first want to understand what decisions this additional data would inform and what would be involved in collecting and maintaining it. I would not assume that particular ownership structures should receive preferential incentives unless Council first considers and approves a clearly defined mechanism for doing so.
Ward 5 – James Doran – Yes. This seems like a natural extension of the economic data the City already collects. I would first determine what information is already available through the City’s employment and economic development data (Open Data), Statistics Canada, the Chamber of Commerce and other partners before creating a new system. But the principle is simple, if we want to strengthen locally owned, non-profit, co-operative and employee-owned enterprises, we need to understand what is here and be able to measure whether our efforts are working.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Yes, if it’s done cheaply. Add a question about ownership type to the grant and incentive applications the City already takes in, instead of building a new database. Then we know what we’re working with before anyone designs an incentive.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes. This is the cheapest thing on the list. My one condition is that it ride along on something the City already does rather than becoming its own project. Guelph already touches most local businesses through licensing, through Economic Development’s business surveys, and through procurement vendor registration. Ownership type is a field on a form, not a research program. What I would resist is a standalone data initiative with a consultant attached, producing a report. If the City cannot add one field to a form it is already processing, the problem is not data capacity. The reason it matters: you cannot design an incentive for something you cannot count. If someone proposes a co-op incentive in 2028, the first question at council will be how many businesses it applies to, and right now nobody can answer that.
2. Fair Employment
Why this matters: Community wealth building treats “good jobs” as an economic development outcome, not a side effect of it. Living wages, job security, and progression pathways determine whether growth actually reduces local inequality. 10C is a Living Wage employer, and its entrepreneur programs create pathways to stable employment and business ownership for people facing barriers. In 2015, the City of Cambridge became Ontario’s first Living Wage municipality. Today, Cambridge and Waterloo Region are both certified at the Ontario Living Wage Network’s highest tier, meaning full-time, part-time, and contracted staff all earn at least a living wage.
Q1. Would you commit the City of Guelph to pursuing certified Living Wage Employer status? The current $5.40 gap between Ontario’s minimum wage ($17.60) and the local Living Wage ($23.00) is significant, especially at a time when approximately 25% of households in our community, and across Canada, face food insecurity.
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – While workforce development and addressing local affordability are critical, a formal commitment to certified Living Wage Employer status requires a comprehensive audit of the municipal budget. Fiscal stewardship demands that we analyze the multi-million dollar impact of such a change to ensure it does not place an undue burden on Guelph taxpayers. We must balance fair compensation with our mandate to deliver cost-effective core services.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I support fair compensation, but would not commit to certification without a full assessment of its financial and operational implications. That includes part-time and seasonal employees, contracted services and procurement costs. The hourly difference has a cumulative impact across employees and hours worked. Council needs to understand the total ongoing cost and how it would be funded before making a commitment.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – Yes, absolutely.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Yes.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I support fair compensation for employees, but I would not commit the City to Living Wage Employer certification without first understanding the full financial and operational implications. That would include the impact on City employees, including part-time and seasonal staff, as well as contracted services and procurement costs. Before making such a commitment, I would want those consequences clearly identified and quantified.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I support the principle of a Living Wage, although I would want to understand the financial and contractual implications of formal certification before committing the City to it. More broadly, I think the City’s strongest role is to help create the economic conditions that allow employers to pay better wages. That means supporting business growth, entrepreneurship, tourism and investment while also promoting the benefits of Living Wage employment where appropriate.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Yes to the goal, and yes to costing out certification now, the same answer I gave the Labour Council in August. Cambridge shows it can be done. Council should see the full cost, contracted work included, before it votes.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes. I would want it done in a sequence that gets us there instead of stalling. Certify direct City employees first, publish what it cost, and get it done early in the term rather than studying it for two years. Then move to the top tier, which covers part-time and contracted staff, with a costed plan in front of council before the commitment is made. I want to be honest about where the money is, since a promise made without a number is a promise that gets broken. Most City positions likely already pay above $23.00, so the direct-employee piece is probably modest. The real cost is in contracted services: cleaning, security, food service, some recreation and maintenance work. Those costs show up in the tax levy at contract renewal. I am prepared to pay that and defend it. I am not prepared to pretend it is free. The part that gets missed is how the living wage is calculated. It is built from local costs, and the biggest one by far is rent. Guelph’s living wage is $23.00 largely because rent in Guelph is what it is. If we do nothing about housing, that number keeps climbing and the wage floor chases it forever. Every home we get built lowers the wage people need to live here. I want to close that gap from both sides. For what it is worth, the gap we are talking about is not small. $5.40 an hour is about $11,200 a year for someone working full time. For a household in Ward 5 paying market rent, that is the difference between covering the month and not.
Q2. How would you work with City of Guelph service suppliers, local employers and training partners to increase Living Wage adoption locally?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – I view the role of Mayor as a facilitator. By leading through consensus-building, I will actively engage the Chamber of Commerce, local labor organizations, and training partners to demonstrate the systemic benefits of fair wages, such as lower turnover and increased local spending, relying on strong partnerships rather than punitive mandates.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – The City can share information, convene employers and training partners, and support pathways into stable employment. I would encourage voluntary participation while respecting that employers have different operating circumstances. My economic priorities include protecting existing jobs, attracting employers offering good wages, and making it easier for local businesses to invest and grow. Predictable approvals and better coordination at City Hall are practical contributions to that work.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I am very supportive of the Living Wage and would gladly use my platform to encourage local employers to adopt it. I would also support updating our procurement bylaw to require that training partners and City suppliers also adopt living wages.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. Implementing a procurement policy that requires the City to deal with Living Wage employers whenever possible. Public recognition and promotion campaigns.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – This is a complex question. First and foremost this needs to be reviewed by our Economic Development and other staff to determine the resources needed. In principle, I support this, but to state without equivocation that the City can do this presumes majority council support for this and City resources necessary to implement it.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I think the City can share information and participate in discussions with employers, service suppliers and training partners about Living Wage principles. I would be cautious, however, about the City attempting to direct private employers on how they structure compensation. Those decisions need to take into account each employer’s operating costs, workforce needs and competitiveness.
Ward 5 – James Doran – The City can encourage and promote Living Wage practices, but we also need to recognize the economic realities facing employers. I would include Living Wage practices as one consideration where appropriate in City procurement and partnership decisions, while using our Economic Development and Tourism activities to help businesses grow, become more productive and create better-paying jobs. We can also use City communications and partnerships to highlight employers that demonstrate strong employment practices.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Cities can’t legally tie business approvals to wages. That power sits with the province. Where the City hands out its own incentive money, wage commitments are a fair part of the conversation. With suppliers, I’d start by asking bidders whether they pay a living wage and reporting the totals. With employers and training partners, the City can promote certification and point to the local employers who’ve done it.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – A council seat gives me no authority to set private sector wages, so I will not promise what the office cannot deliver. What the City does have is purchasing power, convening power, and a set of approvals it controls. On purchasing, below the trade agreement thresholds the City has real flexibility in how it scores bids, and living wage certification can be part of that scoring. That is where I would start, since it is legal and immediate. On convening, the City can keep and publicize a list of certified local employers. One business cannot make certification look normal. A city going first can. On training partners, the University of Guelph and Conestoga place thousands of students into local employers every year through co-op and work-study. Those placements are a lever worth using. Guelph trains excellent people and then watches them leave, and what keeps them here is a good job and a place to live they can afford. What I would not support is a licensing condition or anything that works as a municipal wage mandate on small employers. It would get challenged, the City would likely lose, and the fight would set the whole effort back years.
3. Progressive Procurement
Why this matters: Municipalities are major purchasers, and where that spending goes shapes the local economy as much as any single policy. While there is opportunity for innovation, municipal procurement exists in a complex and often conflicting mesh of international, national and provincial regulation. For example, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) prohibits municipalities from applying geographic local preference or domestic content requirements on procurements over $368,000 for goods and services, or $9,200,000 for construction, while under the Buy Ontario Act, municipalities are legally mandated to prioritize Ontario-made and Canadian-sourced goods.
Progressive procurement redirects public dollars toward locally based businesses and social-purpose suppliers, keeping the value of those contracts circulating locally. At the hyper-local level, 10C prioritizes local suppliers through its vendor ecosystem, connecting local producers and buyers through the Nourish Market Kitchen and the Guelph Farmers’ Market, keeping spending circulating in the community.
Q1. As Guelph has recently passed a new Procurement Bylaw (2026), where do you see opportunities for innovation in Guelph’s purchasing process to steer more of that spending toward local businesses, social enterprises, and co-operative and employee-owned suppliers?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – While we must comply with trade agreements like CETA and the Buy Ontario Act, we can innovate by restructuring how we issue tenders. Drawing from my IT vendor management experience, breaking large municipal contracts into smaller, manageable scopes allows local co-operatives and smaller enterprises to realistically compete. We can implement social
procurement frameworks similar to the City of Toronto’s Social Procurement Program to legally prioritize community benefits within our bidding process.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I would focus on making procurement more accessible: clear tender documents, reasonable requirements, supplier information sessions and timely payment. Where practical, appropriately sized contracts can help smaller businesses compete. I am open to considering local economic and community benefits where legally permitted. Any approach must use transparent criteria and account for quality, reliability and total cost. Council should understand any additional cost before approving a preference.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I support finding opportunities within our new Procurement Bylaw to prioritize local businesses and social enterprises – and if that’s not possible, I would support a motion giving direction for staff to include a further amendment to the new procurement bylaw.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Identify which services/supplies are not available locally and work towards creating local services/suppliers to fill those gaps.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – As with the question above, I would need to rely upon both Council support and Staff capacity to address this. However, we, as a Council cannot endorse something without standing behind it. That sends weak messages to the Community and leads to cynicism.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I see opportunities in lower-value procurements and in procurement categories where legislation and trade agreements allow greater flexibility to consider local economic benefit. That could include designing procurement processes so smaller firms can compete where appropriate, and considering whether local economic value should form part of the evaluation where legally permitted. I would be open to examining those opportunities, but I would want any preference to have clear limits and for Council to understand the additional cost, if any, associated with retaining more of that spending in the local economy.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I would like to see more City purchasing stay within Guelph and the surrounding region whenever possible. Where the City has discretion in evaluating suppliers, I would support looking beyond price alone and considering factors such as community economic benefit, employment practices, sustainability and whether an employer pays a Living Wage. The objective should be to get good value for taxpayers while recognizing that where we spend public dollars can also contribute to the strength of our local economy.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – The new by-law, in effect since September 1, raised the medium-value limit to $139,000 and lets staff use invitational procurement for those purchases. That’s the room. Staff told council in June that a broad local preference can conflict with the trade agreements, and that invitational procurement and Buy Ontario are tools that still work. So make sure local businesses, social enterprises and co-ops are on those invite lists, and that getting on them is simple.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Five things, in order of how much they would actually change. Break big contracts into smaller pieces. The biggest barrier to a local firm winning City work is contract size. A six-person Guelph landscaping company cannot bid a bundled multi-site, multi-year maintenance contract, so it does not bid at all and the work leaves town. Sizing contracts so a small local firm can realistically perform them changes who is in the room, and it requires no exemption from any trade agreement. Use the space below the thresholds on purpose. Most City purchases are under $368,000, which is where local preference is fully legal. My impression is the City has been treating its entire procurement practice as though the ceiling applied everywhere. Mapping how much annual spend sits below the thresholds, and writing local preference into that tier, is probably the single biggest available change. Make it possible to bid without a bid writer. Many small suppliers never bid because the paperwork assumes a dedicated staff person. Simplified documents for smaller contracts, a published calendar of upcoming procurements so suppliers can prepare, and information sessions for first-time bidders would all help. Pay on time. Cash flow kills small bidders more often than price does. Enforced net-30 and progress payments on longer jobs cost the City nothing and change who can afford to compete. Tell losing local bidders why they lost. A small firm that loses and never finds out why does not bid again. On the limits, I will say what I think some candidates will not. Above the thresholds, particularly the $9.2 million construction ceiling, local preference is not available, and no amount of municipal willingness changes that. Anyone promising to buy local on major capital projects is promising something they cannot deliver. The real gains are in the small and mid-sized contracts, which is most of the contracts even if it is not most of the dollars.
Q2. Would you support setting public reporting requirements on spending toward local businesses, non-profits, social enterprises, and co-operative and employee-owned suppliers, so the City of Guelph can track how much of its procurement stays local and benefits the community?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – Absolutely. Open government and transparency are foundational to the “Change to Grow” platform. Implementing public reporting on procurement spending builds trust and allows residents to clearly see how their tax dollars are circulating locally and providing value.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I would support useful reporting that helps identify opportunities for local suppliers and can be delivered at a reasonable cost through existing systems. Before adding requirements, we should establish what information Council can act on and how it will improve purchasing decisions. Reporting should support better outcomes and accountability without creating unnecessary administrative work.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I support establishing public reporting requirements, to track how much of our municipal tax dollars are spent locally, and by type of organization/supplier.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Again, this is a staff capacity question that must be carefully assessed. In principle yes.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I would first want to understand how Council could use this information to influence procurement outcomes within the legal and trade requirements that apply. If the reporting would help identify practical opportunities to improve local participation or inform advocacy for greater municipal flexibility, it could have value. I would be reluctant to create an additional reporting requirement simply to collect information that Council has limited ability to act upon.
Ward 5 – James Doran – Yes. I think this would be valuable information. If supporting local economic development is one of our objectives, we should be able to measure how much City procurement is staying within the community and how much is going to local businesses, non-profits, social enterprises and other community-based suppliers. Tracking the information would also allow Council to see trends over time and determine whether procurement policies are actually producing the outcomes we want.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Yes. Publish once a year how much the City spent with local businesses, non-profits, social enterprises and co-ops, as a share of the total.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes, as a standing annual report to council rather than a one-time exercise. Residents deserve to know where their money goes, and this is also the only way council finds out whether any of the other changes are working. Two things have to be right for the number to mean anything. Define local in advance and in writing. Otherwise it gets managed. A national firm with a branch office and a Guelph mailing address is not local spend in any sense a resident would recognize. I would define it by where the work gets performed and where the employees live, not by where the invoice comes from. Report against the contracts where a local option actually exists. Transit buses, specialized software and insurance are not winnable, and counting them makes every target look like a failure and gives council a reason to ignore the report. Set a baseline in year one and a target in year two. Measurement without a target is just a document.
4. Democratic Finance
Why this matters: Community wealth building asks municipalities to use their financial levers deliberately, loan guarantees, direct loans, and debenture financing among them, to strengthen local organizations that are engaged in providing community benefit services, rather than defaulting to conventional markets that often overlook co-operatives, non-profits, charities, and social enterprises. The City of Toronto runs an ongoing program of capital loan guarantees backing local non-profit organizations, and in 2020, issued Canada’s first municipal social debenture (demonstrating ESG-driven demand and favourable pricing relative to conventional debt) to fund its own affordable housing and infrastructure. 10C’s own Harvest Impact community lending fund and community bond investment program show what locally-rooted capital looks like here, routing investment into local businesses, social enterprises, and non-profits.
Q1. Would you support the City of Guelph establishing a loan guarantee or direct community loan program, similar to the City of Toronto’s guarantee portfolio for non-profits, to help local non-profits and social enterprises access capital for infrastructure builds and community benefit project delivery?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – I am open to exploring loan guarantees, provided they are backed by stringent risk assessments and professional staff advice. The City of Toronto successfully utilizes capital loan guarantees for non-profit cultural and community entities to help them acquire or upgrade facilities, carefully capping the municipal exposure limit. Any program in Guelph must prioritize the protection of the city’s financial health above all else.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I would not support establishing a municipal community loan or loan-guarantee program. Guarantees expose taxpayers to potential losses even when there is no upfront expenditure. My priority is managing the City’s existing financial obligations and delivering reliable municipal services. I would support connecting organizations with community lenders, financial institutions and provincial or federal funding opportunities, and exploring practical municipal support within our mandate.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – Yes – I think it’s worth exploring how we can leverage the City’s financial capacity to support local organizations, as long as the financial risk to the property tax payer was adequately managed.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Should Guelph have the financial ability to do so, yes. I need to rely upon our financial staff to assess and make recommendations on how this can be implemented.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I would first want to understand how Council could use this information to influence procurement outcomes within the legal and trade requirements that apply. If the reporting would help identify practical opportunities to improve local participation or inform advocacy for greater municipal flexibility, it could have value. I would be reluctant to create an additional reporting requirement simply to collect information that Council has limited ability to act upon.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I think this is worth exploring. I was involved with the Elevator Project, which demonstrated how relatively modest investments could leverage community contributions and other funding to make worthwhile projects happen. I think there may be an opportunity to revisit that basic concept through a community financing model. For example, community organizations could assemble funding from their own resources, fundraising, grants and community contributions, with a community loan or other financing mechanism helping to close a remaining gap for projects with a clear public benefit. I would want to understand the financial risk to the City, eligibility criteria and how such a program would be administered before determining what model makes the most sense.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Case by case, yes, for non-profits and where the Municipal Act allows it. A standing program, not yet. A loan guarantee is a debt the taxpayer carries if the project fails, so each one should come to council in public with the risk written out in dollars, and there should be a cap on the total.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes, starting as a pilot, and I would start it deliberately small. Here is how I would think about it. There are non-profit and co-op projects in this city that a bank will not finance, not because the project is bad, but because the borrower does not look like what a bank underwrites. The City can take on risk a bank will not. What I would want is to do that first at a size where being wrong costs us an amount we can absorb. Starting small does two things, and both of them are the real point. It builds a track record on the borrower side. Organizations that complete a project on budget and pay the money back have a record, and a record is what gets them conventional financing next time without needing us at all. It builds a track record on our side. The City learns what to look for by underwriting real projects, not by commissioning a report about underwriting. The first few will teach us more about what our criteria should be than any consultant will. A string of small successes is also what makes a future council comfortable approving something large. Nobody approves a major guarantee out of nowhere. They approve it when there is five years of evidence that the program works. The structure I would want: a hard cap on total exposure set by council, every guarantee approved case by case rather than delegated to staff, security on the building so the City is not in an unsecured position, and capital projects only, never operating shortfalls. A guarantee against a building leaves the City holding a building if things go wrong. A guarantee against an operating deficit leaves us holding nothing. I would prioritize non-profit housing, where the community benefit is clearest and the need is largest. I have run the numbers on small missing-middle projects, and the usual reason they do not get built is not zoning or demand. It is that the financing does not close. A municipal guarantee is one of the few tools that fixes that without a permanent subsidy. The risk is real and I will name it. This is taxpayer exposure, even though it does not show up as spending. It only works if council is willing to turn down weak applications, including from organizations with real community support behind them. A program where everyone gets approved is a grant program with extra steps, and eventually a loss on the tax bill.
Q2. Would you support directing City of Guelph staff to build understanding of the social finance landscape, track and pursue innovative community finance tools, and identify opportunities for municipal involvement?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – Yes. Good governance requires equipping staff with the best possible information. Directing staff to research the social finance landscape including municipal social debentures aligns perfectly with my commitment to using data-driven, forward-thinking strategies to fund municipal priorities without automatically resorting to property tax increases.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I expect finance staff to stay informed about relevant financing tools and advise Council when there is a practical opportunity for the City. I would not support a separate, open-ended initiative without a defined purpose. A specific proposal should identify the public benefit, staff resources required, financial exposure and how success would be measured.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I fully support directing City staff to build their understanding of the social finance landscape and explore innovative tools.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Should Guelph have the financial ability to do so, yes. I need to rely upon our financial staff to assess and make recommendations on how this can be implemented.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – City finance staff are already responsible for maintaining their professional accreditation and knowledge, identifying emerging financial issues and opportunities, and advising Council on matters that could improve the City’s financial position. I would expect that to include relevant developments in social finance. I don’t believe a separate Council direction is necessary unless there is a specific proposal or policy objective that Council wants staff to investigate.
Ward 5 – James Doran – Yes, particularly if we decide to explore tools such as community loans, guarantees or other financing mechanisms. Social finance can potentially allow relatively small amounts of public capital to help unlock much larger community investments. The key is designing these tools carefully, understanding the risks and ensuring that the community benefit justifies the City’s involvement.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Yes, within the finance and economic development staff we already have. I’d ask them to report on whether Guelph could use something like Toronto’s social debenture for its own housing and infrastructure borrowing.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes, with a deliverable and a date attached. Direction to build understanding, on its own, produces a report that arrives late in the term and gets received for information. I would want the motion to assign it to existing Finance and Economic Development staff rather than create a position, and to require a report back within the first year naming two or three specific tools worth trying here, each with a cost and a candidate project. Toronto’s 2020 social debenture is the obvious one to look at, specifically the pricing claim. If labelling debt as social got Toronto a better rate than conventional borrowing, that is a decision with no downside for us. Guelph issues debentures already. The question is whether structuring some of that against housing and community infrastructure gets us a lower rate on money we are borrowing anyway. That is a finance question with a numerical answer, and we should go get the answer instead of studying it indefinitely.
5. Land & Asset Use
Why this matters: Land and public buildings are long-term community assets, not just balance-sheet items to be sold to the highest bidder. Used deliberately, they can anchor community ownership, affordable space, and support local enterprise for decades. Municipalities, non-profits, charities and co-operatives have tools to support more community control over land and assets and reduce external land speculation and displacement. 10C’s building at 42 Carden Street is itself a case study, a shared, community-owned space designed to serve non-profits, charities, local enterprises, and the community at large, rather than maximize private return.
Q1. Would you support the City of Guelph to fund (or seek funding for) a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) stream to help non-profits acquire or renovate community-serving spaces, such as arts, cultural, or food hubs, similar to how the current Affordable Housing CIP (funded by the federal Housing Accelerator Fund) supports affordable housing projects?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – While Section 28 of the Ontario Planning Act permits municipalities to use CIPs for community economic development, my platform advocates for a more proactive structural solution. I propose establishing a city-owned Municipal Development Corporation (MDC) similar to Toronto’s CreateTO authorized under Section 203 of the Municipal Act, 2001. This allows the
city to directly manage development on city-owned land, accelerating housing and community space construction while retaining long-term public ownership of the asset.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – I am open to considering a targeted CIP stream where provincial or federal funding opportunities make it feasible. Before committing municipal funds, we would need to understand the cost, eligibility, expected community benefits and priority relative to other City needs. Projects should have a credible operating plan and demonstrate lasting community access and benefit. The City should also help viable projects navigate planning, permits and inspections efficiently.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – Yes, I fully support the City of Guelph looking for grants to fund a CIP stream to help non-profits aquire or renovate community-serving spaces.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. As an externally endorsed Community Wealth Candidate I strongly support Guelph adopting successful Community Wealth Building practices and policies.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – Yes
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I would be open to considering such a proposal, but I would not commit to creating a new CIP funding stream without understanding the cost, eligibility criteria, expected outcomes and how it would rank against other City priorities. Seeking outside funding may make a proposal more feasible, but any ongoing municipal financial commitment would still need to be considered through the City’s broader budget process.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I would like to explore the idea further, but my first instinct would be to look at how the City can help community organizations access external funding before creating a large new municipally funded program. There are provincial, federal, foundation and agency programs, including organizations such as the Ontario Trillium Foundation, that support community facilities and programming. The City can sometimes have a powerful role as a partner, contributor or supporter of those applications. A CIP may also have potential, but I would want to understand where it provides an advantage over these other approaches and how City investment could be used to leverage significantly more outside funding.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Seeking outside money for it, yes. Funding it from the property tax should compete in the budget like any other ask. The non-financial side I can promise now: fee waivers, City space and simpler permits.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – Yes, and I would include acquisition, not just renovation. The reason a CIP is such a useful tool gets overlooked. A CIP lets the City forgive charges it levies itself: development charges, permit fees, planning application fees, and property tax increases. Waiving your own fee is much cheaper than writing a cheque, since a good share of that money would never have been collected if the project had not gone ahead. The Affordable Housing CIP works on exactly that logic, and I would model a community space stream on it. On funding, I will flag the constraint instead of skipping it. The Affordable Housing CIP runs on Housing Accelerator Fund money, HAF is time-limited, and a new stream cannot assume that source. I would want it designed either to be paid for out of the new property tax the project itself generates, which makes it close to self-financing, or funded from outside dollars. I would rather build it around a funding source that exists than announce a stream that quietly never gets funded. On acquisition: renovation money helps an organization that already owns its building. Acquisition money is what takes a building off the speculative market for good and turns a tenant organization into an owner. Guelph has lost community-serving space to redevelopment and to rent increases, and once a building is gone it does not come back at a price a non-profit can pay. Alongside the money, I would push zoning that allows community uses like food hubs and cultural space as of right in more places, so non-profits are not spending scarce dollars on a rezoning before they can even start.
Q2. The City of Guelph owns land and buildings that could serve community wealth building goals. How would you make sure public land and buildings (including stranded or surplus assets) benefit the community rather than the highest bidder, through options like community ownership transfers, long-term community use agreements, community land trusts, charitable REIT structures, and non-profit/public partnerships?
Mayoral Candidate – Evaristo Ramos, Jr. – Public assets must serve the community, not just balance sheets. As demonstrated by my advocacy for the Ontario Reformatory Lands where I support a national urban park grounded in ongoing Indigenous consultation I prioritize collaborative land use. By utilizing long-term community use agreements (such as 99-year land leases) and partnering with non-profits, we can ensure surplus assets meet long-term community goals and protect green spaces from unchecked urban intensification, rather than executing short-sighted sell-offs.
Mayoral Candidate – Ken Yee Chew – The highest offer should be one consideration alongside future municipal needs, community benefit and long-term financial value. I would consider long-term leases, shared-use agreements, community land trusts and non-profit partnerships where they make sense for a particular property. Each proposal should clearly identify the value of the public contribution, responsibility for maintenance and the benefits residents will receive. Discounted land or space must come with clear commitments. Across these questions, my approach is to support local initiatives, remove unnecessary barriers, build effective partnerships and be accountable for public spending. Bringing forward standing committees would provide greater opportunities for examining these proposals and their results throughout the year.
Ward 1 – Dave Williams – Due to the cost that would be involved with some of the programs, I would not be able to answer those questions.
Ward 2 – Rodrigo Goller – I have successfully championed the City keeping its surplus land to build city-owned affordable rental housing. I strongly agree that public land and stranded assets should be used for community benefit, rather than simply being sold to the highest bidder.
Ward 3 – Kevin Bowman – Yes. I wish to see the City adopt a policy of selling land/buildings to the private, for-profit sector only as a last resort after exhausting other options.
Ward 3 – Phil Allt – As with many of the above questions, this relies upon Council willingness and staff capacity. I have been in favour of this for a few decades (which reveals my age). To implement this we must have Council earnestly support and provide the financial support for this. That might not be easy as we must prioritize our financial and city building goals.
Ward 4 – Derek McCaughan – I would be open to considering such a proposal, but I would not commit to creating a new CIP funding stream without understanding the cost, eligibility criteria, expected outcomes and how it would rank against other City priorities. Seeking outside funding may make a proposal more feasible, but any ongoing municipal financial commitment would still need to be considered through the City’s broader budget process.
Ward 5 – James Doran – I think this idea has significant potential. I would first like to see a clear inventory of City-owned properties, including surplus or underused land and buildings, so Council and the community can understand what assets we actually have. From there, I would be interested in exploring options such as long-term leases, community ownership arrangements, land trusts, partnerships with non-profits and other models where there is a compelling community benefit. This could also connect to a broader community finance strategy. In some cases, the City may not need to give an asset away or fund an entire project. Providing access to land, offering a long-term lease, participating in a financing arrangement or helping leverage outside investment may be enough to make a strong community project possible.
Ward 5 – Jon Christensen – Before the City sells surplus land or buildings, offer them first to non-profits and community groups for housing or community use, and put the difference from market price in the staff report so council can see exactly what it’s choosing. Long-term leases and land trusts can work too. For housing, I’ve said the City should build on its own land and have non-profits run it with supports attached. And the Yorklands, which the province owns, should stay public land, as a national urban park.
Ward 5 – Michael Agueci – This is the question I care most about on this list, so I will be specific. Start with an inventory. The City does not publish a usable public list of its surplus, stranded and underused land and buildings. The information sits in pieces across different departments, and there is no single document a councillor or a community group can look at. Nothing else here is possible without it. I would move for a public inventory with location, size, current designation and a staff assessment of community-use potential, updated every year. Change the default on disposal. Right now surplus land is treated as a revenue item and the process is built to find the highest bid. I would want a policy that requires council to consider community use before any property goes to market, with a written reason on the record if it is sold instead. That one procedural change does more than any single transaction, since it turns community use from something an advocate has to fight for into something staff have to address. Lease instead of selling. A long-term lease, in the ninety-nine year range, keeps the land in public hands permanently and still gives the partner something a lender will finance against. We give up a one-time sale price and keep the asset. Use a community land trust for anything meant to stay affordable. A land trust holds land out of the market permanently, which is the only mechanism I know of that keeps a building affordable without a new public subsidy every decade. Every other approach depends on the next council, and the one after that, continuing to pay. If Guelph does not have a land trust with the capacity to take land on, helping get one established is itself worth doing. Treat land as the piece that makes the project work. Land is usually twenty to thirty percent of a project’s cost, and for non-market housing that is often the exact gap between a project that works on paper and one that does not. Contributing City land can make a project viable with no ongoing operating subsidy at all. One parcel can do more than years of grant funding, and it does it once instead of every year. I will name the tradeoff. Every parcel we do not sell is revenue we do not get, and that money would otherwise go to infrastructure people are already waiting on. My position is that a sale gives you money once, while a land lease plus a permanently affordable building gives you housing for fifty years and keeps the asset on our books. That is the trade I would make, and I would rather argue for it openly than suggest public land is free. On charitable REIT structures, I do not know enough about how they have performed in a Canadian municipal context to commit to one, and I would rather say that than nod along. I would want to see it work somewhere comparable first. Land transfers, long-term use agreements and land trusts I am ready to commit to now.
A group gathered to discuss community weealth building at 10C in 2026.