Where the candidates stand on property taxes and spending

• Daniel Deal (for mayor) Strongly agrees

  “Having a moratorium on property tax doesn't mean having to cut services. With proper budgeting, private- public cooperation and focusing on the critical services. We can succeed without putting more stress on the locals of Squamish.”

• Sean Easton (for mayor) Strongly agrees

  “I've pledged to freeze property taxes for 2027 after years of huge increases. Government needs to be forced to use our funds more effectively rather than putting greater pressure on residents.”

• Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees

  “I won't pretend tax increases haven't been real. But a hard cap that costs us services or safety isn't discipline, it's deferral. What I'll commit to is zero-based budgeting, where every dollar is justified from zero.”

• Ian Brown In the middle

  “I expect responsible financial management from district council.”

• Sean Goodwin In the middle

  “I think a freeze would help everyone catch their breath while we explore potential external revenue sources. If they are to increase again, there needs to be clear communication to the taxpayers as to what that money will be going in to.”

• Andrew Hamilton Strongly disagrees

  “As a property taxpayer, I'd appreciate it if increases stayed at or below inflation. However, the cost of providing municipal services has risen faster than inflation in most BC communities. Over the last 10 years, the average amount of property tax per capita has increased by about 4% (data from www.bcmunicipaldata.org), while inflation has averaged about 2.5% (data from Bank of Canada). If we capped municipal taxes at inflation, we would see a deterioration in services. That doesn't mean delaying projects; it means not doing them. This isn't just a Squamish challenge; it's more systemic.”

• A. John Lowe Strongly agrees

  “We have to get our house in order. Determine our priorities as a community and establish a plan going forward. although we are growing we must keep our house in order and have those who are adding development to our community be held accountable for all the associated cost with their proposals to the District”

• Luc Perreault Strongly disagrees

  “Core infrastructure is my passion, and I know firsthand how expensive it is when a community falls behind on maintaining it. For me, the priority is clear. Without reliable drinking water, sewer and storm systems, roads, and flood protection, nothing else works. We can build homes, attract businesses, and plan for growth, but if the infrastructure underneath it can't support that growth, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Our infrastructure is aging, and we need to be honest about that. I will push to maintain and replace these critical assets in the most cost-effective way possible. These systems don't generate revenue. They cost money to build, operate, and maintain, but they are essential to public safety and quality of life. I believe Council has a responsibility to stretch every taxpayer dollar as far as possible. That means better asset management, long-term planning, prioritizing maintenance before emergency repairs, and constantly looking for grants, partnerships, and efficiencies before turning to taxpayers for more money. Keeping tax increases affordable is important, but I don't believe an arbitrary commitment to keeping taxes below inflation should come at the expense of critical infrastructure or public safety. Delaying necessary investments often costs more in the long run. My approach will be to look for savings first, improve efficiency wherever possible, and make sure every dollar is spent wisely. If additional funding is truly necessary to protect essential infrastructure or public safety, then I believe we need to have an honest conversation with residents about why it's needed and what benefits it will deliver. At the end of the day, my goal is simple: protect the infrastructure that keeps our community safe, spend taxpayer money responsibly, and leave Squamish in better condition than we found it.”

• Laura Prosko In the middle

  “I believe property owners need real tax relief. My proposal is a two-year municipal property tax freeze for 2027 and 2028, supported by responsible spending, new revenue opportunities but not cutting municipal projects and services.”

• Chris Ryan In the middle

  “We need to stop neglecting regular maintane that end up costing more in the long term, not maintain weed growth on sidewalks and curb deteriate these structures. Downtown road structures are being destroyed by all of the trucks with really heavy steel loads. The port cargo was intended to be put on rail, not downtown with 1 artury in and out”

• Shaun Veltkamp In the middle

  “First, we need to immediately look far and wide to find the best possible CAO to replace the outgoing CAO. We need an immediate revamp of the OCP, and we absolutely need to push the federal government for infrastructure funding for both a new community centre, municipal hall and several other key projects. Otherwise our facilities will age more and therefore cost more, forcing a raise in property taxes.”

Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.

• Sean Easton (for mayor) Strongly disagrees

  “I called on the current Council to reject this deal so a new Council could negotiate one that actually delivers for Squamish, including a real recreation centre.”

• Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Strongly disagrees

  “I moved the motion to decline it. The payments wouldn't rise with inflation, which shifts rising costs onto local taxpayers, and we had no projects ready to build - so we'd have locked in a fixed amount against costs that keep climbing.”

• Sean Goodwin In the middle

  “I supported taking the current deal mainly because it would nice to get something going for the community, rather than more time going by with nothing. There are definitely pros and cons to taking and declining the deal.”

• A. John Lowe Strongly disagrees

  “I believe with any of this type of negotiations there are pluses and minuses that don't often show up. It is important to not just look at the cold hard facts but as a community we need to consider the fringe areas and negotiate to our satisfaction as well as co-operate. In the end it has to be a mutually beneficial agreement. Just don't rule out the possible side benefits”

• Anders Ourom Didn’t pick an answer

  “This question is now dated, but a stable, long term solution is clearly needed.”

• Luc Perreault Strongly agrees

  “Based on the information available, I would have supported the agreement. For me, this is less about whether someone supports or opposes the project and more about responsible financial management on behalf of taxpayers. The District has the authority to set its industrial tax rate, but the fact remains that we are currently involved in litigation. At some point, the courts will provide direction on what is reasonable, and future tax rates will likely need to reflect that outcome. If the District is successful, that's great. If not, we could face significant costs, uncertainty, and the challenge of establishing a new tax rate framework moving forward. I also recognize that litigation is expensive. The longer disputes continue, the more uncertainty exists for both the District and Woodfibre LNG. As someone who believes in long-term planning, I see value in reducing uncertainty whenever possible. One of the things that appealed to me about the agreement was the predictability. A guaranteed revenue stream over ten years would have provided certainty for financial planning, infrastructure investment, and asset management. When you're managing major infrastructure projects, predictable funding allows you to plan better, prioritize work, and often save money over the long term. I also understand that tax agreements between governments and large industrial projects are not uncommon. They can provide stability for both parties and help establish a workable long-term relationship. That doesn't mean we leave money on the table without asking questions. The District has a responsibility to negotiate in the best interests of residents. But given the certainty of the proposed revenue, the cost and uncertainty of ongoing litigation, and the importance of maintaining a productive relationship with one of the largest taxpayers in the community, I would have supported the agreement. At the end of the day, my responsibility is to look at long-term financial sustainability. Pre”

• Laura Prosko Strongly disagrees

  “I proposed a different deal in my Five Point Plan.”

• Chris Ryan Strongly agrees

  “Perhaps, instead of fighting, negotiate and work with them to help with a legacy project like Brennen Park. Could we create a enviromental fee for natural gas flaring as we do with water and beer bottles?”

• Shaun Veltkamp In the middle

  “This needs to be negotiated based on data with comparables across the province and country. I would consider it a win if we could structure it as a more up-front payment to allow the DOS some leverage to start on some infrastructure projects faster.”

Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.

• Daniel Deal (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees

  “We should not have to borrow to make these improvements, this is something we can try and solve through private-public cooperation, as well as more fiscal responsible choices.”

• Sean Easton (for mayor) Somewhat agrees

  “Brennan Park's real needs — a bigger pool, a second sheet of ice, better change rooms — have to get fixed, and I'll aim to fund it through a fair deal with industry instead of debt that pushes up costs for locals.”

• Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Strongly agrees

  “Borrowing is a legitimate tool when it's paired with grants and a plan to pay it back. What I won't do is start without knowing how it gets finished.”

• Sean Goodwin Somewhat agrees

  “Brennan Park needs to be rebuilt sooner than later, and the project isn't going to happen over night, depending on the terms and conditions of how and how much we borrow. I think it's time to get on with it.”

• Andrew Hamilton Somewhat agrees

  “There is no question that the District will need to borrow to expand Brennan Park. The District will need to borrow for any major capital investment. The District is currently close to its debt-servicing limit. Debt-servicing is the percentage of annual municipal revenue required to pay principal and interest on debt. We are currently at 17% (as of the 2026 budget), and we have a self-imposed policy limit of 20%. The provincial limit is 25%. We could increase our self-imposed limit, but that may limit our ability to manage any emergency borrowing in an unforeseen event.”

• A. John Lowe Somewhat disagrees

  “There are options to getting an additional civic center that should not cost funding. funds can be raised by many other means. The responsibility for the District is to provide a land base and connect with a group of the willing to get it done. We have grown from a small community of 15000 to 30,000 plus and still have old outdated facilities which in the past we built by a group of the willing then. We can do this with cooperation from the province, our first nations partners and the community at large”

• Luc Perreault In the middle

  “We absolutely need a new recreation centre. We need another pool, more ice time, and additional recreation space to support a growing community. Recreation is important on many levels. It keeps people active, teaches our kids essential skills like swimming, supports physical and mental health, and provides the quality of life that residents expect. The challenge is how we pay for it. I know the community has been waiting a long time for improvements to Brennan Park, but I am cautious about taking on significant new debt given the financial pressures the District is already facing. Before borrowing tens of millions of dollars, I want to make sure we have explored every available option. I would like to see the District get creative and investigate partnerships with private industry, senior levels of government, community organizations, and potentially neighbouring communities. Other municipalities have successfully used partnership models to help deliver recreation facilities, and I think those examples are worth exploring. My goal would be to deliver these amenities sooner rather than later while minimizing the financial burden on taxpayers. If we can find a way to share costs, reduce risk, and accelerate delivery, that's a conversation worth having. I support investing in recreation, but I also believe we need to be responsible with public finances. We all want these facilities, but we need a plan that the community can afford. At the end of the day, doing nothing isn't an option. Squamish has outgrown its existing recreation facilities. The question isn't whether we need more recreation infrastructure. The question is how we deliver it in a way that is financially responsible and sustainable for future generations.”

• Laura Prosko In the middle

  “I think Brennan Park should go ahead and we won't have to borrow if we are fiscally responsible.”

• Chris Ryan Somewhat agrees

  “We need to approach a certain corporation to be a financial partner in a legacy community project.”

• Shaun Veltkamp In the middle

  “This is a critical piece and priority needed for the entire community. I believe we should realign and direct the DOS Major Projects department to work with the province and federal government to leverage their current relationships due to the LNG project and find funding for several major projects, primarily a new community centre, new regional hospital, and several other infrastructure projects.”

Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.

• Sean Easton (for mayor) In the middle

  “I agree that the public should have a say in major projects, but I plan to build more effective community engagement throughout project development, not wait until the last minute to hold a referendum.”

• Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees

  “Long-term borrowing already requires elector approval under provincial law, so there's a check in place. Adding a referendum to every large project adds months and cost to work we've often already waited too long for. Engagement should shape a project, not just hold a referendum vote on it at the end.”

• A. John Lowe Strongly agrees

  “The community should be involved in major costs its their money”

• Anders Ourom Somewhat agrees

  “Any major borrowing must probably be approved by referendum under the Community Charter.”

• Laura Prosko Somewhat disagrees

  “Council should have their budget managed well so we are fiscally responsible and not above budgets.”

• Chris Ryan Strongly agrees

  “Prime example, the proposed 2 storey restaraunt to be build along the new boardwalk in the waterway in the blind Chanel. This project is being changed from residential to industrial use, and its all a closed door desicion.”

• Shaun Veltkamp In the middle

  “Council is elected to represent the people of Squamish to make these decisions. We need a sensible, business first approach (cost effectiveness) from council for all of these decisions. Capital projects are usually critical to the overall wellness of a community... we need to plan for them far enough in advance so we are prepared, not react last minute every time. We need a new OCP ASAP.”

Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.

• Sean Easton (for mayor) In the middle

  “Renewing Brennan Park is a huge priority, but it should be paid for by a fair deal with industry, not more public debt that will increase costs to residents in the long term.”

• Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Strongly agrees

  “Waiting means paying tomorrow's prices for a facility this community needed yesterday. I'd want the grants and the plan lined up, but I'm not prepared to tell families to wait another decade.”

• Sarah Ellis Somewhat agrees

  “The District is limited in its borrowing authority by legislation. Even if we borrow, we will still need reserves and grants to pay for a Brennan park renewal.”

• Andrew Hamilton Somewhat agrees

  “This question assumes Brennan Park is the next facility on the capital projects list. That decision has not been made. If the question is asking whether I think borrowing is generally appropriate for capital project funding, then the answer is absolutely yes.”

• A. John Lowe Strongly disagrees

  “We need a plan to right the ship with input on what is the best plan of action. With assistance with a group of the willing we may be able to get what we want within a budget we can afford There are times when spending now and paying interest works over the long haul but i don't believe this is that time. Taxpayers are stretched to the limit and we need to find options.”

• Anders Ourom Strongly agrees

  “Renewal of at Brennan Park should include full arts and cultural facilities. Consideration should be given as to whether some facilities could be added in the Brackendale and Valleycliffe areas.”

• Laura Prosko Strongly disagrees

  “No, we should find the budget efficiences and start in 2027.”

• Chris Ryan Strongly agrees

  “If we do borrow money,Brennen Park needs to largely increase its services to help pay for, air domes for tennis and pickle ball, an area a that can generate revenue from live shows, exebitions and events, as well as hockey, basketball. Water park. Give a reason for the millions of people who just drive throu squamish”

• Shaun Veltkamp In the middle

  “We need a NEW, purpose built community centre that fits the community population in 15 years and beyond, not our current population. This should have been in the pipeline years ago as our community has already drastically outgrown BPCC. 12-14,000 new residents in the next 15 years is the outlook. Heavy Industry mill rates, federal infrastrucure funding and grants should be heavily leaned upon to fund this immediately.”

Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.