Election Survey 2025 - Council Candidates

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I have a degree in Space Systems Engineering and a private sector career that has spanned various roles including industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, project leadership, and mentoring students and new hires. More recently, I've become involved in several local community organizations, including serving on the boards of two non-profits. You can read my full bio at: www.kaitte.ca/biography You can find my full career history at: www.linkedin.com/in/kaitte/

Kelti Baird: I have been working with City Hall on various projects for over a decade through volunteering my time with Boards, Commissions, and Committees to bring fresh perspectives and solutions to issues facing the people of Lethbridge. As a small business owner I am used to making tough decisions and thinking outside of the box to find solutions to challenges. I have been volunteering with many community grouos over the years, learning about the needs of people in Lethbridge and how best we can grow the city into a place we are all proud to call home.

Al Beeber: I've been covering as a journalist our community since 1987 and have covered city council for the past four years. Through my work, I have a well-rounded understanding of our community and communities as well as how civic governance works.

Mark Campbell: I'm a 2-term councillor. Before that I was in media for 40 years and gathered a lot of information in building relationshsip and understanding the process of municipal government.

Belinda Crowson: • I have served eight years on council. While on council I have served on numerous committees including Lethbridge Police Commission, City County Intermunicipal Committee, Community Futures Lethbridge Region, Audit Committee, Governance Standing Policy Committee, chair of Housing Strategy committee and many more. Before my time on Council, I sat on a variety of boards and committees and have worked on municipal issues for the last few decades. Throughout my board work and on council I have worked with a wide range of people and on various topics. I always do more homework and come prepared and knowledgeable to all meetings. • As a historian, I can research and review issues from multiple perspectives. I understand the background to topics and can look at topics in several ways. When I do my research, I have the same values as when I do politics – include everyone, know everyone’s stories, represent everyone. • As a teacher, I know how to present information to a wide range of audiences and believe in educating, informing and working with members of the public. • I have a wide variety of skills. I work hard at everything I do and am dedicated to this community and to public service. I understand governance, financial oversight, and policy development and ensure that issues are thoroughly debated and understood before I make a decision.

Rajko Dodic: Councillor for a number of years as well as Mayor from 2010 to 2013. I have been a lawyer since 1981 and that has been extremely helpful in terms of asking questions and analyzing information that is submitted whether from Administration or other presenters. I tend to cross-examine presenters if I feel they are hedging or deflecting their answers.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I bring experience in accounting and finance, as a former business owner, and now in a leadership role with Lethbridge Housing Authority. Those roles taught me how to manage budgets responsibly, make tough decisions, and stay accountable to the people I serve. Combined with my community advocacy work, I bring a practical, problem-solving perspective—focused on transparency, fiscal responsibility, and making sure Council decisions truly reflect the needs of residents.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I am a small business owner/operator. I’ve gained firsthand perspective as an everyday citizen navigating the challenges our community faces on a daily basis. That perspective keeps me grounded and focused on practical solutions, compassion, and a strict diet of common sense. In my opinion, incumbents, career politicians, and administrators of large institutions/organizations perpetuate governance as an exclusive arena for the chosen few. It is no such thing - it is a fallacy. Anyone with determination and dedication can navigate and provide public service. The skills I bring—clear communication, truth, accountability, collaboration, and the ability to think creatively about solutions—will help me ensure council decisions are transparent, community-focused, and forward-looking. Things are quickly changing that are profoundly reshaping our lives. I am not here to support the old, I AM HERE TO BUILD THE NEW.

John Middleton-Hope: I have 35 years of police experience, many as a police leader and chief of police. I also taught for several universities between 1990-2021 and I have worked as a international consultant with the UN in eastern Europe on police reform and cities across western Canada. I am very acquainted with leadership, managing a large organization, budgeting and governance. All these skills are based on experience and expertise that I have been effectively used as a member of council over the last 4 years.

Ryan Parker: With years of experience on Lethbridge City Council, I bring proven leadership, deep knowledge of our community, and a track record of making balanced decisions on budgets, growth, and public safety. My experience has taught me how to listen, ask the tough questions, and find solutions that work for both residents and businesses. These skills—along with my commitment to accountability and common-sense leadership—are what I will continue to bring to the role.

Tom Roulston: As a journalist in this community I've had the opportunity to follow the business of City Hall for many years, and not just the decision making itself, but the community impact and broader response. I understand the weight of city decisions and want to make sure the impacts on all sides are clear before taking action. My most recent journalism roles, prior to running for city councillor were in positions of leadership. I'm proud of my record in these roles. I always brought a positive can-do approach to working with my teams, I always had their backs and I would always lead with compassion and understanding. City Council is a team like any other. I want to be part of a group that feels empowered to collaborate, that celebrates its wins together, takes ownership of its mistakes, and puts the people of our city first.

Gerry Saguin: I’ve never worked in politics before, and I think that’s one of my strengths. My background is rooted in community and business. I’ve organized large-scale events that brought people together, which taught me how to plan carefully, manage resources, and deliver results that matter to others. I also worked as a salesperson at Honda, where I learned the importance of listening closely, treating people with respect, and finding practical solutions to meet their needs. These experiences gave me the ability to connect with people, work hard under pressure, and build trust — skills I believe are just as important in City Hall as they are in everyday life. I come to this role not as a career politician, but as a resident who wants to serve his community with humility, common sense, and accountability.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: I’ve governed, I’ve built things, and I’ve had to make payroll. I’ve served on (and led) multiple boards – Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Lethbridge, Allied Arts Council, Magazines Canada, and the Premier’s Advisory Task Force on Ukraine (to name a few) – and sat on quasi-judicial bodies like the Subdivision & Development Appeal Board. I also owned, published, and edited Lethbridge living magazine, have been a partner in several quick-serve franchises located in Alberta and BC, and currently co-own a communications/marketing group where I do contract work. This mix of governance, small-business, and community work means I understand fiduciary duty, how to read a balance sheet, and how policies land in the real world. I’ve translated my commitments into results over this past term on Council: advancing a Long-Term Financial Sustainability Framework; strengthening economic development; supporting key housing projects across the spectrum; serving on (and helping develop) the Police Commission Strategic Plan; and pushing practical improvements in transit, accessibility, and public engagement. That’s the combination – good governance + delivery – and that’s what I’ll bring to the table. My record on council speaks for itself. Over the past four years, I’ve proven that I listen, ask the hard questions, and do the work. I come to meetings prepared, and I’m out in the community, meeting with and hearing what residents and community organizations have to say. That will continue.

Mike Schmidtler: I've recently retired after a 39 year career, 29 years with Lafarge, 23 of those running businesses for them in Calgary and the last 15 years running the Southern Alberta business from here in Lethbridge that also included Medicine Hat and Brooks. Prior to Lafarge I spent 10 years as a water and wastewater engineer in Calgary. I received my BSc in Civil Engineering from the University of Calgary in 1986. Running businesses for Lafarge taught me how to get things done in a large organization and I left every business I ran much better than the way I found it.

Suketu Shah: I have over a decade of experience as a financial planner, and I currently work as a mortgage and insurance broker. My background in private industry has given me a strong understanding of financial management, risk assessment, and resource allocation. These skills translate directly to municipal governance, where careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars, practical budgeting, and strategic planning are essential. I bring a perspective focused on fiscal responsibility, efficiency, and finding smart, practical solutions that support the community while ensuring long-term sustainability.

Ryan Wolfe: Going way back, my degree focused on political economics. I have previously served with the Southgrow Regional Initiative. Professionally, I am a mortgage broker. My formal education provides a great foundation and I am familiar with how councils work and the need to listen and to be collaborative and assertive. My job requires me to be a great listener and I solve problems every day in order to get the best results for my deserving clients. My work allows me to rub shoulders with people from all income brackets, education levels and backgrounds. Serving on council will definitely be a lager scale, but the fundamentals are the same: listen, overcome obstacles and implement solutions.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I've been talking with people all over Lethbridge, and everywhere I go, I hear the same things. I hear that our city has become unaffordable, I hear that traffic is terrible, I hear that our local communities are struggling, and I hear that workers, who are the backbone of our society, pay too much tax while the rich pay too little. Fortunately for us, there are solutions to these problems. We can enact a progressive populist platform that will empower us to: > Solve the Housing Crisis, > Embrace Transportation Freedom, > Support Community Sustainability, > And, Tax the Rich. This is all achievable through zoning, land use, and tax reform reform combined with direct municipal investment into housing, public transit, and infrastructure. We can make housing affordable, eliminate traffic congestion, create real spaces for community, and we can do all this while lowering municipal taxes on renters, workers, middle income families, and small businesses by taxing the rich. There are very real problems that are making life increasingly miserable and unaffordable, and we can fix them. We can make Lethbridge better for everyone 🙂. Please explore my website at www.kaitte.ca to learn more about my platform.

Kelti Baird: We have several major issues that need to be addressed. The first is the affordability crisis: life is getting more and more expensive, pushing people further into debt and insolvency and putting them at risk of becoming unhoused or not having access to services. City Council must implement policies as quickly as possible that will allow developers the ability to build out badly needed housing in Lethbridge. By focusing on building out the housing continuum and incentivizing more development in the city we can catch the folks falling through the cracks and prevent more people becoming homeless. Additionally, smart advocacy and investments must be made in updating and growing our current infrastructure to accommodate the people who will move here as the city continues to grow. Long-term planning and policies need to be in place so the City does not amass technical debt that will create challenges for future generations. By making smart, well informed decisions now we can alleviate a lot of struggle in the future.

Al Beeber: Property taxes and housing costs are the biggest issues I'm hearing about. To address taxes, like other municipalities we need to work to develop strategies that will bring new business, new industry and new residents to this city to spur economic growth and housing developments which will increase the tax base and hopefully ease the burden on existing residents who are telling me they are getting taxed out as well as commercial/industrial interests. I agree with the need to densify but with consideration to the impacts on existing neighbourhoods, including when it comes to parking. Developers have told me they need less red tape to speed up the process of creating multi-family housing in new and existing properties. Clearly, crime is still a problem and we need to support our police by ensuring they have enough boots on the ground to deal with the drug situation and advocate for the federal government to change the catch and release bail system which is handcuffing law enforcement across our country. We also need to look at the ongoing costs of the organizations formerly known as the Lethbridge and District Exhibition. What kind of tax burden are the new entities going to put on residents - if any - and how can those burdens be balanced by increasing revenue?

Mark Campbell: We hear over and over again about affordability and taxes in the city. While we still have to maintain our police force, our Fire & EMS, parks, facilities and utilities we'll have to take a serious look at the upcoming budget and see what is important and what is something we can put a pause on. Making Lethbridge a destination for new business and also liveability are important aspects of attracting industry and helping to ease the tax burden.

Belinda Crowson: Lethbridge, like so many other places, is facing numerous issues. Among these are: • Affordability and poverty • Lack of housing and housing affordability • Transportation and transit • Infrastructure needs (Water and wastewater being some of the most important but many infrastructure requirements.) • Physician recruitment and shortage in medical personnel • Homelessness, mental health, substance use and public safety • The need to grow the local economy and support local businesses, particularly in these uncertain economic times. It is necessary to work through all these issues strategically and systematically, in partnership with other organizations, and by advocating to other orders of government when an issue is not under our jurisdiction. This work is underway. Some examples of this work being done is that in the past term of council, I was able to bring forward an Asset Management Policy which was adopted by Council. Councillor Carlson brought forward an expansion of the Pay As You Go policy, which was also adopted by council. These will help focus the city on maintaining the assets already in place and ensuring that there are prudent mechanisms to pay for them. In the next term of Council, I propose bringing forward a Service Level policy. I brought up this policy at the last Governance Standing Policy Committee and know it will assist the city in helping provide the transparency and accountability both required and desired by the public. The work around service levels starts with a policy and then would involve creating a program whereby each department would define their current service levels linked to their current budget. This information would be used by Council to determine whether to maintain or change those service levels. At the same time, a service level agreement would be created between departments and Council/the public. This would set out what each department would achieve within their budget and provide metrics for measuring their success (or not). While that internal work is being done, Council would also need to during their strategic planning, set the community vision. This vision would then be used to help develop the community’s strategies, such as the economic strategy, and would support the implementation of plans such as the housing strategy. This is where I believe we need to start on this issue. I would continue to bring the same strategic ability to the other Lethbridge issues.

Rajko Dodic: Ensuring that our infrastructure is maintained and, in particular our water and wastewater system. Our residents I am sure are concerned about safety and, in particular, the proliferation of addicts, the unhoused and the homeless that we now constantly are exposed to in the City. The resolution of that problem is going to require a stepped a Police intervention, less catch and release from the Court System and much more Provincial and Federal support those who want and can benefit from assistance to escape the lifestyle they find themselves in. Part of the problem is we concentrate on the unfortunates but don't take into account the citizens who through no fault of their own find themselves feeling unsafe in their own City.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: The biggest issues facing Lethbridge right now are community safety, affordability, and accountability at City Hall. On safety, residents need to feel secure in their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods. I will support strong policing while also pushing for community-based solutions that address root causes. On affordability, rising taxes and cost overruns—like what we saw with Exhibition Park—are hurting families. My background in finance means I will hold Council accountable for every dollar spent and push for smarter, more transparent budgeting. And on accountability, City Council needs to do a far better job of being open and honest with residents. Decisions that impact taxpayers should never be made behind closed doors. My approach is practical: ask the hard questions, demand transparency, and focus on solutions that keep Lethbridge safe, affordable, and sustainable.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: -No trust in government leadership -Rising taxes -Old infrastructure -Declining services -Ejecting unwanted parties and harmful influence - UN Simply put - needs over wants for our city. Move our attention to these urgent items immediately. That means focusing our resources first on what keeps our city running—roads, utilities, emergency services, and community well-being—before funding extras. MY STARTING POINT: Each department starts with zero dollars (not an automatic increase from last year). Every department director must defend their budget. We then review the budget with a critical eye, cut unnecessary spending, and redirect funds where they matter most. BOTTOM LINE: prioritize and economize.

John Middleton-Hope: My three pillars are public safety, measured growth and development (we call smart growth) and accountability and accessibility. Investing in public safety, crisis response and partnerships to address crime and social challenges are critical to the wellness of our citizens and city. I am committed to pursuing business opportunities, housing and advancing infrastructure projects and partnerships with local industry and levels of government to ensure Lethbridge takes its place as a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship in Alberta. And lastly, promoting transparency, fiscal responsibility, and citizen engagement, I will continue to ensure the City of Lethbridge and partner agencies are held to the highest standards of business professionalism.

Ryan Parker: The biggest issues facing Lethbridge are public safety, the strength of our local economy, and the need for smart growth that keeps our city affordable. To address these, I will continue to prioritize resources for policing and community safety, support local businesses and job creation, and make responsible budget decisions that respect taxpayers. My approach is always practical and community-focused—listening to residents and working toward solutions that keep Lethbridge a safe, vibrant, and affordable place to live.

Tom Roulston: Infrastructure & the economy - We need to be thinking medium to long term. We need to prioritize the infrastructure projects that are going to help attract more jobs and more economic investment. We also need to ensure civic projects are creating and supporting local jobs whenever possible, and not awarding the work to companies that are going to bring in outside labour from other centres. On the issue of a 3rd Bridge (because I know everyone is wondering), this needs to be a conversation about how we're going to do it and when. While I don't believe this is something the city needs right now, I believe we are going to need it in the decades to come, and we need to effectively plan now. That means advocating on behalf of our city to the provincial and federal levels of government, doing so persistently, and not accepting 'no' for an answer. This also means being open to different visions and routing options for a third bridge. It's clear most taxpayers don't want to see a third bridge built solely on their property taxes - so let's work together on creative solutions to make it happen! Community safety - We need to continue to strive to achieve balance on this issue. We need to ensure our police service has adequate resources, we need to continue to support community safety initiatives like The Watch and we need to throw our full support behind the social agencies in our city that work with the vulnerable so that resources are available to help individuals break the cycle of homelessness and addiction. Taxes & affordability - We need to respect the taxpayer. If elected, I will work with my councillor colleagues to get the most out of your tax dollars and will always treat the prospect of any tax increase as an absolute last resort.

Gerry Saguin: The biggest issues facing Lethbridge are public safety, affordability, and restoring trust in City Hall. Many residents feel that safety in our city has declined, particularly in public spaces, and that their concerns are not being taken seriously. I would work to support proactive policing and ensure that our officers and first responders have the resources and training they need to do their jobs well. At the same time, I believe we must also strengthen recovery and rehabilitation services so that people struggling with addiction are given a path to rebuild their lives. On affordability, the rising cost of living is the single greatest concern for families and businesses. That is why I have committed to freezing property taxes for my full term — because the City must learn to live within its means before asking taxpayers for more. Finally, there is a sense of frustration and distrust in how City Hall spends money. I will push for more transparency, stricter oversight of city-funded organizations, and a back-to-basics approach that focuses on core services and clear results for residents.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: The top issues I hear from residents are: • affordability • transit • safety and social disorder • housing and homelessness • workforce and employment • healthcare/mental healthcare capacity and access • fiscal responsibility My approach is evidence-based and partnership-driven. I am committed to continuing to: • work on a review of transit services • align Council decisions with the Municipal Housing Strategy and Encampment Strategy • ensure front-line responders are resourced and accountable • support coordinated social efforts and supports • focus on doctor recruitment and zoning for medical facilities • strengthen our workforce and support local business while attracting new investment • run City finances against clear service levels and sustainability principles

Mike Schmidtler: I've personally door knocked almost 3000 doors myself and with volunteers, nearly 12,000. What I hear most is that taxes are too high and that people are tired of pet projects like bike lanes that serve only a few dozen people....what they really want is a 3rd bridge. Homelessness and addiction, ExPark also come up, all of which I've addressed specifically below. On taxes, one thing I've pointed out is how much higher business taxes are here than almost any other Alberta municipality and much higher than Southern Alberta municipalities. Lethbridge is driving away business with its high taxes. Why this is a big problem should be obvious....the less businesses we have the more the burden of high City costs will be borne by residential taxpayers. I became acutely aware of this when in 2017, as President of BILD, we presented a study to City council pointing out this exact problem. 8 years on and the problem is so bad that a developer actually has up a sign on the County side 43rd St N which asks "Why did the chicken cross the road?....for lower taxes". I display this sign prominently on my website and its the topic of many of my social media posts and interviews.

Suketu Shah: In speaking with residents at the door, the issues I hear most often are property taxes and the need for a third bridge. I believe Lethbridge must remain affordable for families and seniors, so I would focus on finding more efficient ways to use taxpayer dollars and ensure long-term financial responsibility. At the same time, I recognize the importance of infrastructure that supports our growing city. I would approach these issues by listening to residents, prioritizing practical solutions, and making decisions that balance affordability with smart, sustainable development.

Ryan Wolfe: Cost of living. Stop wasteful spending. Full stop. As we eliminate waste, we won't have to pass on unreasonable tax hikes. Encourage investment: I will work to repair the fractured relationship between the city and the county. We need to collaborate and work with the county. I will also work to make doing business in Lethbridge easier. Opening a business in Lethbridge is too cumbersome and complicated. We need to facilitate investment. We have a growing homeless population in Lethbridge. I will continue the good work that is going on. However, we have many agencies in city that receive tax funds to help those in need. We need to make sure these agencies are effective. If they are not, then they should not receive funds from municipal coffers.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: Municipal governments are directly responsible for all the things that directly impact our day-to-day life. Our policies for housing, transportation, utilities, recreation, emergency services, and more, are all directly set by our municipal government. This is why it is so incredibly important to have a city council that will proactively address problems as they arise, and that will invest in our future to ensure our continued sustainability as we grow. With this in mind, I think that past city councils have failed to address a number of systemic problems that are now causing us major problems. I will point to the housing crisis as an example; decades of NIMBYism, restrictive zoning, and urban sprawl have left us with a structural housing deficit that is causing housing costs to increase by double digit amounts every year. It is also stressing our municipal budget because it is incredibly expensive to build infrastructure and maintain services over such a large area. The way to deal with these systemic problems isn't to continue ignoring them, or to start hacking away at our municipal budgets. We need to directly address the root causes through zoning, land use, tax reform, and investment into public infrastructure. We also need to recognize that these problems have been festering for decades, so they will require time and continuous effort to resolve.

Kelti Baird: I believe it is the duty of local government to establish and maintain a foundation that allows people in the city to thrive. We can do this through policy frameworks that entices development and private investment, by providing high quality public services that benefit residents.

Al Beeber: Civic government's role is a diverse one including policy development and making decisions on behalf of residents on matters ranging from bylaws to budgets. When you look at their defined role, it seems to the public that governance is the main element in its wheelhouse. But I feel council needs l to focus on priorities - matters like covering the costs of essential services and upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant - spend judiciously during these difficult economic times - and on matters outside its scope advocate strongly for funding from other levels of government for such things as social programs and housing supports.

Mark Campbell: We are stewards of the city. We have an obilgation to understand what works and what doesn't work. We have to determine what or what isn't sustainable. We have to listen to what our citizens want. It's hard to quantify are we doing too much or not enough. We deal with issues as they arise.

Belinda Crowson: The role of municipal government is to provide good governance and deliver essential local services to their community. When we do surveys, we find that roughly half of the public think we’re doing too much, and half wish we were doing more. This suggests to me that we’ve found the sweet spot of the number of services we’re offering, though we always must re-evaluate.

Rajko Dodic: Too often we stray into the Provincial and Federal lanes and the minute we do that we 'own it'. We should all be required to study the Municipal Government Act which details what our mandate is.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: The role of municipal government is to provide core services that residents rely on every day—things like safe roads, clean water, waste management, community safety, and well-planned infrastructure. Municipal government should focus on doing those things well, with transparency and fiscal responsibility. Right now, I believe the City is trying to do too much in some areas while failing to get the basics right. We’ve seen poor oversight on major projects like Exhibition Park, which left taxpayers with the bill, while at the same time residents feel frustrated with issues like crime, affordability, and infrastructure delays (3rd bridge and water treatment specifically)

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: The role and responsibility of the government should be clear and constrained: Promote a safe, stable, healthy community with reliable infrastructure, services, economic opportunity, and strong leadership that directly improves , not impedes, the quality of life for ALL. The ever-expanding city scope has extended its scope of influence to the detriment of Lethbridge. In addition, our current leadership has turned a deaf ear to the demands of people and basic common sense, time and time again. The Ag /Ex debacle, the bike lane burdens, our ongoing bridge crossing woes - goodbye and good riddance. 3 big strikes and you are all out. Not a single current member of our city leadership will get my vote. Not one. EMPOWER YOURSELF AND VOTE IN NEW LEADERS in 2025. Share your information with everyone you meet until Election Day. Educate, educate, educate. -> Change starts with you at the grassroots level.

John Middleton-Hope: The municipal government is mandated by the Government of Alberta through the Municipal Governments Act. Our role is both pragmatic (taxation, infrastructure, policing, fire/EMS, housing as examples) and advocacy to various levels of government. There are many expectations of council that are operational but our primary function is governance and providing direction to administration through the city manager. For many it is a full time job, although it is supposed to be part time, I take this job very seriously as our constituent's representative.

Ryan Parker: The role of municipal government is to focus on the basics—public safety, roads, parks, and services people rely on every day—while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. I believe the City should stick to its core responsibilities and deliver them well, rather than trying to do too much. When we stay focused, we can provide high-quality services, keep costs under control, and build trust with residents.

Tom Roulston: I believe the City of Lethbridge is hitting the right amount. Municipal government needs to ensure its citizens and community at large are represented and listened to. Core services like policing, utilities and roads are properly funded and managed. That planning for the future is done in a sustainable way that engages with citizens and key stakeholder groups. Municipal government works for the people and it needs to listen.

Gerry Saguin: The role of municipal government is to focus on the essentials — providing police and fire protection, maintaining roads and infrastructure, delivering reliable water and waste services, and ensuring public spaces are safe and well-kept. Over time, Lethbridge City Hall has taken on too many projects that are beyond its mandate. This has stretched budgets and created unnecessary burdens on taxpayers. My view is that City Hall should get back to basics. We do not need to be everything to everyone — we need to provide the services residents rely on every single day and do them well, efficiently, and with accountability.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: Under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, the job of Council is to maintain a safe, viable municipality and deliver core services – reliably, transparently, and at value. The City should continually re-test “what we do and how we do it,” set explicit service levels, and sunset or redesign programs that aren’t meeting outcomes. That’s my lens: core first, measure what matters, and adjust.

Mike Schmidtler: There is a a lot of need out there, so I'm not in favour of cutting services, I am in favour of delivering them in a far more efficiently than we currently do. An example I bring up often is that the City does a great job very cost effectively contracting out sidewalk replacement and yet for some reason decides only City employees operating City equipment can pave. Intuitively most people know there is no way the City can do this work more efficiently (just observe a City crew) than the private sector, and yet it continues. This is just one area I have personal experience with, I'm certain there are many more contracting out opportunities.

Suketu Shah: I believe the primary role of municipal government is to provide essential services that residents rely on, as outlined in the Municipal Government Act. In my view, our city currently takes on too many responsibilities beyond that core mandate. I would like to focus on getting back to the basics—prioritizing essential services, improving efficiency, and keeping Lethbridge affordable for families and seniors.

Ryan Wolfe: We do too may things. Many citizens misunderstand the role of the city and council in particular. For example, a city funded organization recently asked me what I was going to do to encourage more business downtown. This thinking is backwards. If that agency is receiving municipal money to help the downtown businesses then it is THEIR job to come to council with ideas and solutions so that we can debate and implement implementable strategies. It is not the job of council to find solutions to every issue. We need to receive input and work together to find solution. Overall, there are many redundancies that need to be eliminated.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I would like to abolish our current system of property taxes and replace them with something called a Land Value Tax [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax ]. A Land Value Tax will shift the tax burden away from renters, workers middle income families, small businesses, and onto people who own lots of high value land (the rich). I also want to make middle density, mixed use zoning the default throughout the city while actively working to achieve densification. This will improve the average tax density in the city, meaning each individual will need to pay less taxes on average. Low density sprawl is incredibly expensive to build and maintain and is a major contributor to high municipal taxes, so lowering taxes in a structurally sustainable way requires an end to sprawl. Ultimately, my strategy for lowering taxes involves fixing the major structural problems, such as urban sprawl, which keep taxes high. This will likely require upfront investment in the short term to ultimately achieve sustainable long term tax reductions, but I plan to place that tax burden on the rich while giving the rest of us a tax break.

Kelti Baird: Property taxes are a challenge. At the moment our development pattern of curvilinear designed single family home neighbourhoods do not generate enough property tax revenue to pay for the long-term maintenance and replacement costs of associated infrastructure. This means more dense, older developed neighbourhoods are left behind as their tax dollars go to subsidize this inefficient new development. To get the best bang for our buck property-tax wise we need systemic changes to ensure long-term financial stability. With the provincial government mandating policies that have additional expenses, but cutting municipal funding to cover those costs, managing the shortfall will take insight and bold action. My aim is to keep property taxes stable for the time being with eventual goals to minimize the pressure on our revenues by encouraging more dense, walkable neighbourhoods to keep costs to residents low.

Al Beeber: The answer depends upon who you talk to - young families and seniors have both told me they're struggling with them. I've heard from residents who have come here from other communities and felt their taxes are fine for the type of home they have and the services they get in Lethbridge. I don't know, however, if anyone could say taxes are too low. The City this summer posted a pair of graphics on its website that showed taxes and utilities are higher elsewhere but that's no consolation to people who have lived their entire lives here and are afraid of losing their homes, people who don't want to - and shouldn't have to - leave. That is no consolation to younger people with good jobs who want to raise their children here.

Mark Campbell: We are in the middle when it comes to what other cities pay in the province. We have to understand that 8 out of our top 10 businesses in the city are tax exempt. We manage to provide services that are the envy of many municipalities. The question I often ask is what services can you do without to lower taxes. That can be a tough question to answer for many people.

Belinda Crowson: The reality in Lethbridge is that 19% of the property in our city is property tax free. While these properties provide invaluable services to the community, this does place a burden onto the other the 81% of the properties to cover the full tax bill. Fortunately, this imbalance is aided in that Lethbridge has one of the lowest water rates in the province. On average, Lethbridge is generally in the middle of the pack when it comes to overall expenses. However, even within this reality, it is very difficult for some people to afford housing costs, food and all the other expenses of life. We need to do what we can to reduce overall costs and one way the city can do this is by planning our community better, which would reduce costs for new roads, utilities, etc.. Done well, the Land Use Bylaw renewal project can help reduce individual property taxes. When combined with a service level policy and plan (and service level agreement with each department), we will have a much better idea of, and control over, how money is spent and the returns for residents and can make appropriate adjustments.

Rajko Dodic: Of course they are too high but the question of what to cut to reduce those taxes can not receive consensus. You will find councillors who want to concentrate on social issues, others on policing and protective services and everything in between. The only way you are going to get real change regarding taxes is when we learn to stay in our lane of authority.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: Mill Rates are too high on residential and commercial properties

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: Property taxes are too high and will continue to rise unless there is significant intervention BY THE PUBLIC. Taxes go up, services go down. That is the current model. Completely unacceptable to me. More disconcerting is this: There is no clear, simple explanation from the city on the formula used to calculate these taxes. It is a muddy for a reason: to keep you in the dark. When in doubt, always follow the money. My job will be to do that and to deliver a clear, factual formula to citizens that is understandable and logical - not tax expert required. This should LOWER taxes. This city holds no accountability. That stops right now by electing me. I am on it.

John Middleton-Hope: We are 8th from the top and 12th from the bottom of cities in Alberta. No one likes taxes but they pay for infrastructure and services our citizens expect. The 5.1% increase in each of the last 4 years had to make up for the previous 4 years where no increases occurred. The cost of everything has increased dramatically and yet the expectation is our service levels will be maintained. I agree and advocate for a 0 based budget approach in which every area of the corporation starts with 0 and builds their budget rather than simply adding on to an existing budget.

Ryan Parker: I believe property taxes in Lethbridge are about right. The key is making sure we’re delivering good value for what people pay. My focus will always be on keeping taxes stable, investing in core services like safety and infrastructure, and ensuring residents feel they’re getting strong returns on their tax dollars.

Tom Roulston: Too high.

Gerry Saguin: Property taxes in Lethbridge are already too high for the value that residents feel they are getting in return. Families are struggling to make ends meet, and small businesses are stretched thin. That is why I have committed to freezing property tax increases for my entire term on council. The City needs to make better use of what it already has and find efficiencies in how it operates. Taxpayers should not be the first place council looks when it needs money; instead, the City should tighten its belt the same way residents have had to tighten theirs.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: Residents need to feel they’re getting value for what they pay. We’re facing some real pressures (public safety, aging infrastructure, growth demands). My stance: tie taxes to clearly defined service levels and show residents the value chain from dollar to outcome and invest where critical outcomes are at risk (e.g., first responders, water/wastewater infrastructure).

Mike Schmidtler: Too high and that's not just me saying it, most doors I knock on say the same thing. I've discussed how to address it above.

Suketu Shah: I believe property taxes in Lethbridge are too high. My focus as a city councillor would be to explore ways to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently and keep our city affordable, especially for families and seniors.

Ryan Wolfe: They are too high.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I am firmly against short sighted under-investment and tax-axing as those strategies always lead to structural deficits which cost us more in the long run. I believe that we are best off when we pay what it takes to make Lethbridge a great place to live.

Kelti Baird: That is a very tough question. Cities are not allowed to run deficits, so if our citizens mandate expenditures (like building a 3rd bridge) we will need to spend more. We also need major water infrastructure upgrades to avoid going into technical debt in the future, so some spending is required.

Al Beeber: Council, before making any decisions, needs to make sure it understands clearly what impact inflation is going to have on operations and development. The City's chief financial officer has made clear to council the sobering impact of the current economic situation on Lethbridge finances If council is going to increase spending, it needs to be able to justify it to those residents who are already concerned about taxes. Is it justified? For essential services like Fire/EMS and policing, it's a clear yes if they need more funding to provide the safety residents deserve and need. But council need to prioritize expenditures. What truly is needed for this city to function and to attract new residents and business?

Mark Campbell: It's a difficult question to answer. While it would be ideal to spend less we don't necessarily know what's around the corner and what opportunities might make sense to invest. I have faith in our Financial Manager who keeps an eye what fiscal responsibilities should be undertaken. Suggestions come forward. Council debates and hopefully a proper decision can be made.

Belinda Crowson: I think the real question we must ask is are people getting the best possible return for their money and is their money well spent. Currently, though, it is difficult to objectively provide this information. Which is why at the last Governance Standing Policy Committee meeting I recommended that the Governance SPC do a gap analysis of policies in the new term and that one of the first policies that should be discussed is a Service Level Policy and Plan. After the services provided by each department are listed and the levels set, then a service level agreement would be created between each department and Council/the public. These agreements would then be used to evaluate whether the goals and levels are achieved and meet the public’s expectations and needs. All that information would help Council, and the public, be able to judge if money was spent achieving the returns the community needed. As well, Council would then know where to make adjustments in budgets – where to cut and where to invest.

Rajko Dodic: Since the City has to purchase materials and equipment in the general market place they are having to pay the same as others purchasing the same products. The same things applies to contracts for services and labour. So the easy answer would be we should spend less in absolute terms but since we buy in the market we have to do so by paying market prices so the likely correct answer is increase spending by the inflation rate and accounting for population growth.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I believe the City needs to be fiscally responsible and ensure that every dollar is spent wisely. That means we should prioritize essential services and critical infrastructure while avoiding unnecessary spending. Over the next four years, I would support increasing the budget by no more than the rate of inflation and population growth, ensuring the City keeps up with demand without placing an undue burden on taxpayers. That said we need to find the money in existing over spends in each department. The Tax payer can't afford the rate in which the taxes are increasing especially those on fixed incomes, such as seniors. It’s not about cutting services we rely on—it’s about smarter spending, accountability, and transparency so residents know their money is being used effectively

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: My approach is to spend less in absolute terms. NEEDS are always paramount in my mind. Prioritize and economize.

John Middleton-Hope: Really none of the above. Taxes will be based on our needs and how we are able to pay for these priorities. Grants and transfer payments play a part while budgeting for major infrastructure is going to be critical. We have a $500m upgrade to our water and waste water treatment facility that requires immediate (2025-2030) upgrades. This is critical and there are other issues such as public safety, fire/EMS that will require consideration. We are also going into a budget realignment between operating and capital in 2026 which means 2027 will be what is known as a "stub year" in which there will be very little increase during this time and then we will need to ensure our strategic plan aligns with our budget for the next 4 years. Again with a greater focus on needs vs wants.

Ryan Parker: Over the next four years, the City should aim to keep spending in line with inflation and population growth. That’s the responsible balance—making sure we can maintain core services and invest where needed, without putting extra pressure on taxpayers. My goal is stability: controlled spending, strong value for money, and a focus on essentials like safety, infrastructure, and affordability.

Tom Roulston: This is a tough question to answer, but I fall somewhere between less than the rate of inflation versus the rate of inflation. I think its unrealistic to keep what we have and spend less, and I don't see an appetite to cut core city services (in fact I'm hearing some need to be supported better). On the other side of the equation it's also not sustainable, nor beneficial to a community long term to spend money at an unsustainable rate.

Gerry Saguin: Over the next four years, I believe City spending must be kept below the combined rate of inflation and population growth. That means council must take a disciplined approach to budgeting. Families across Lethbridge are already making difficult financial decisions, and City Hall should be no different. Finding efficiencies, cutting duplication, and delaying non-essential projects will be necessary so that we can live within our means. Responsible fiscal management will allow us to keep taxes stable while still protecting the services people rely on most.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: Within inflation + population growth, with a clear emphasis on critical infrastructure and safety needs. We also require a review against service levels, which means defining what service levels are and communicating that out to the public. That’s something I’d like to see the City work on over the next four years.

Mike Schmidtler: Absolutely spend less. This mantra that budgets have to increase by the rate of inflation plus population growth completely ignores that there are always more efficient ways to do things. When governments increase spending by more than the rate of inflation then they are one of the main drivers of inflation. It happens at all levels of government but one of the best examples is carbon taxes. Why people want to blame the grocery store for the high cost of food but can't seem to understand those taxes have to be passed onto the consumer. High property taxes are no different.

Suketu Shah: Given the rapid population growth Lethbridge has experienced, our city services are under pressure, and it takes time for tax revenues to catch up with new residents. My approach would be to first focus on finding efficiencies in how we deliver services. After that, I would support increasing spending, but by less than the combined rate of inflation and population growth, carefully monitoring service levels to ensure residents continue to receive high-quality services without placing undue burden on taxpayers.

Ryan Wolfe: I do not have a four year answer. The problem is that the current council pegs all their decisions on the "3 year plan"... This means we cannot be nimble and pivot when necessary. My efforts will focus on reducing wasteful spending so that we can avoid large tax hikes. We need to be more efficient and reduce spending.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: We need to maintain an adequate reserve fund to handle emergencies as they arise, such as a trucker striking the girders underneath Whoop-up. It would short sighted and financially reckless to drain our reserve. Surpluses should be reinvested into the city to continue making Lethbridge a better place to live. Tax revenue should only be reduced if we wind up with sustained structural surpluses that surpass our needs for new municipal investment.

Kelti Baird: I am inclined to bank the funds for future capital projects or to pay down debt. Administering a rebate program for citizens, while likely politically popular, would be costly and financially inefficient.

Al Beeber: I'm inclined to feel the Municipal Revenue Stabilization Reserve shouldn't be utilized on anything except essential services. The chief financial officer has stated on more than one occasion his concerns about depleting that fund - which council has ignored - which needs to be maintained at a level which can provide funding for emergency matters that directly impact the ability of essential services to be provided. Before budget deliberations begin, council needs to demand administration do a deep dive into every department's expenses to see if there can be potential savings or efficiencies. I've heard it stated repeatedly that the City is operating highly efficiently, that it's cut numerous staff and managers are putting in extra hours to compensate. If that's true the City should be commended - after council gets the necessary information to make decisions when setting budgets. The proof is in the pudding.

Mark Campbell: My first impulse is that when we can, we should save it like a rainy-day fund. Giving tax rebates I think can be a slippery slope and difficult to manage.

Belinda Crowson: To provide stability to the City, there needs to be enough money in the reserves so that funding is available during emergencies. The question is, what is enough for the reserves? In the last council term Council set MRSR (Municipal Revenue Stabilization Reserve) minimum balance as: “after commitments should be at 5% of operating budget (general fund tax-supported).” This means that at this time, there should also be at least a minimum of $14 million in this reserve to be able to deal with unexpected problems, unexpected revenue losses, etc. It would be both inadvisable and reckless to reduce the MRSR below that amount, especially with so many uncertainties facing municipalities. When the MRSR gets larger than that amount, it does provide the opportunity to address some of the needs of the city (many of the needs I outlined in question 1). If it gets too large, should some of that money be returned in rebates? I would definitely like to talk more about this idea. I think at this time, with such a long list of concerns and issues facing the community, it may be better spent addressing those but I would definitely consider rebates at some time in the future.

Rajko Dodic: If this question would have been asked a couple of years ago the answer would have been different. Let me explain. When I was Mayor from 2010 to 2013, I crafted a Resolution that limited the City's contribution to a $75 million project being proposed. The Resolution stated that 2/3 would have to be in hand from the Province or the Federal Government before the City contributed anything. I leave for 8 years and I find out my Resolution was changed to such an extent that the Exhibition essentially the Exhibition would be contributing but by way of having the City co-sign a loan. The Exhibition defaulted and the City was on the hook for the loan. So instead of the City being a 1/3 contributor they became much more. And to top things off the Exhibition needs $4,000-$5,000 a day to cover their ongoing operational costs. To cover the shortfall in operational costs, the City used their reserves to do so. Of course, if something unforeseen happens, our reserves have been severely depleted. We don't have much left as a rainy day fund. If we didn't have the reserves to fund the Exhibition shortfall we would have had to revise the budget and add to the tax increase. The bottom line is that the Resolution should never have been changed. As an aside, one of my colleagues used the Exhibition Resolution as a template with respect to a performing arts centre such that, before any City money is spent, 2/3 would have to come from other sources. So there were guardrails that were in place but they were removed.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I believe taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability for every dollar. If the City has money left over at the end of the year, it shouldn’t just be shuffled into a reserve to be spent later on projects that may not have been planned or approved. Ideally, leftover funds should either be returned to taxpayers or clearly earmarked for specific, necessary projects with full disclosure. Reserves are important for emergencies or long-term infrastructure planning, but they shouldn’t be used as a way to hide spending or avoid tough decisions. Residents need to know how their money is being used—and that means honest reporting and real accountability

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I am against rebates as it demonstrates poor money management. Money at the end of a financial year should be invested in LOCAL ASSETS.

John Middleton-Hope: Both are done by the city. This is the benefit of 4 year budgets where every area of the corporation accrues surpluses and deficits. As mentioned above, I believe every area of the city should go through a periodic process of starting at zero and demonstrating what budget they require. Surpluses are used for events that "come over the wall" and are unexpected which happens with every city and almost every large budget. This is necessary as we cannot run a deficit (by law) and events that are sometimes beyond our control, require funding that is not budgeted for. It is our job and that of the CFO to create a budget and adhere as closely as possible to that which is approved.

Ryan Parker: I believe if there are savings, they should first go toward reducing pressure on taxpayers. At the same time, reserves are important for long-term stability and to handle emergencies without sudden tax hikes. The right balance is key: keep reserves healthy for the future, but when there’s extra, return it to taxpayers rather than creating new spending commitments.

Tom Roulston: I think this money is best kept saved up, granted that it is spent effectively in other areas based on city needs. Transparency on what exactly is done with said funds is crucial. And I would argue most citizens would be in favour of said funds being put towards something the community can benefit from as a whole, especially if the sum of a prospective refund was small.

Gerry Saguin: When the City ends up with surpluses, those funds should not simply be stored away in reserves to be spent later without accountability. Reserves have their place, but they should not become a slush fund. My approach would be to first ensure the City’s reserve policies are met and then use extra dollars to pay down debt, which reduces interest costs for the long term. If there is still a surplus after that, the money should be returned to taxpayers, either through direct rebates or through lower tax rates in the following year. This approach keeps council accountable and ensures taxpayers see real value when the City is in a better financial position.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: Both. We need to set transparent reserve targets (lifecycle, risk, capital replacement). Surpluses fund those up to target; any excess over policy goes to tax stabilization. That protects long-term assets and keeps faith with taxpayers. The point is to codify it in the City’s financial sustainability framework.

Mike Schmidtler: I think it should be returned because the natural tendency with reserves is to spend them

Suketu Shah: I don’t believe leftover funds should be spent on other areas without careful planning. Instead, I would like to see the city set those dollars aside in reserve to support future capital projects, such as building a third bridge, ensuring that these funds are used strategically and responsibly for long-term community needs.

Ryan Wolfe: For the near future, we need to save what we can so that we can help with some pressing needs like water infrastructure for example. The amount that we could actually rebate would likely be ......unremarkable.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: Traditionally, affordable housing meant spending less than 25% of your post tax income on housing. We have gotten so far from this benchmark that we are now in a housing crisis of historic scale. Housing is becoming unaffordable for everyone, so we need policies that lower housing costs for everyone. My entire platform is aimed at lowering housing costs through zoning, land use, tax reform, and investment into public infrastructure.

Kelti Baird: Affordable housing includes various different types of housing along the housing continuum. It can mean housing zoned at various densities, with various levels of social assistance built in. By ensuring policies related to development result in more varied housing projects to meet the needs of more people in Lethbridge, we can incentivize development that will best suit the growing diversity of needs in the city. Ideally, all neighbourhoods would include a mixture of densities and social assistance living to ensure equitable access to amenities. This also allows seniors who have built a community among their neighbours for decades can age in place and not have to leave their neighbourhoods when they want to downsize into a smaller property.

Al Beeber: The CMHC defines housing as being affordable when a household is spending less than 30 per cent of their pre-tax income on it. But for someone making a six-figure income, "affordable" is going to have an entirely different meaning than someone making a low five-figure income. It's a head-scratcher in a way because many of us struggled with high interest rates in the 1980s and early 1990s and know how tough it was to pay for even modestly-priced homes. I really believe we need to advocate with other levels of government to provide financial supports for those struggling to pay for housing while also keeping property tax rates at a level that is palatable for residents. And creating multi-family dwellings, duplexes and four-plexes as well as apartments, could provide more affordable housing. But such projects need to take into consideration matters I mentioned earlier such as sufficient parking, as well as access to transit services.

Mark Campbell: I suppoprt affordable housing and supportive housing. We just saw the opening of the first ever permanent supportive housing complex for 30 units. Having a home is the first step in turning a person's life around. The Federal government is talking about billions of dollars in grants. We need to get our share of that money. We own a lot of buildings that could be transitioned into affordable housing. Keeping the cost of housing down isn't something, in my opinion that a municipal government can control. It's a market based business. We have great organizations in this city who are securing grants to help with building more houses and I fully support their efforts.

Belinda Crowson: To me, there are two definitions of affordable housing. There is the official definition of the Government of Alberta, where housing is defined as affordable if it costs 30% or less than your pre-tax income. For families and individuals, it is much more of a gut check than that – can we afford housing and all other necessities without going into debt, without living in stress, without facing an uncertain future? Can we just simply make it through and create a better future for ourselves and our families? With housing, one of the things we must focus on is the simple economic reality of supply and demand. If we can ensure that building houses is made easier to do by decreasing the barriers and regulations, we can help increase the supply of houses and help lower the cost of housing for everyone. But it’s not simply a matter of building more houses. It’s how and where those houses are built. Unfortunately, north Americans (and municipal governments) were sold the unsupported concept that growth pays for growth. This has proven to be false. Urban sprawl has a cost associated with it with the need for more roads, more parks and more infrastructure and the ongoing operational costs associated with them. Research shows that suburban growth is subsidized by older areas of the community. By ensuring that we grow in a denser manner, we can help raise the amount of taxes collected and keep down operational and capital costs (by not requiring the construction of new roads, parks, etc.). Some of the money saved will be passed on to homeowners, while some of the money will be used to subsidize houses for lower-income residents.

Rajko Dodic: This is a hot button topic but I just don't see how the City has the financial resources to address issues that are Provincial and/or Federal. Private landowners build properties to make a profit and that is reasonable and we can't and shouldn't compel them to build low rent properties because that's interfering with private business. It is completely the Province/Federal purview to subsidize low-income housing as their capital pool is greater than the City's. We are limited to collected property taxes and increasing that burden to help lower income families, while laudatory, is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to lobby other levels of government to get them to do what they should be doing to address the issue.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: Affordable housing is often used as a catch-all term, but at the municipal level, I believe the primary responsibility lies with the Government of Alberta, not City Council. The province is responsible for programs and supports that help lower-income residents access housing. Municipalities can play a supporting role by approving zoning and development policies that encourage a variety of housing types, including attainable housing for seniors or families, but direct subsidies for residents should come from provincial programs, not local taxes. City Council’s focus should be on smart planning, infrastructure, and creating conditions that allow the housing market to function effectively, rather than trying to replace the role of the province.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I have been a landlord and renter. Housing is a basic need. Here is my balanced approach: MEASURED RENT CONTROLS. There are too many landlords that take advantage of rent gouging (landlords evicting tenants under the guise of renos or moving in themselves, only to wait a bit and double the rent and find new renters) and too many tenants that rely on subsidies. Rents are already out of control and mortgage refinancing rates and rising taxes have people selling to get out from under debt. A way to alleviate this issue is to impose rent controls. This is not about punishing landlords or creating dependency among tenants—it’s about affordability and responsibility.

John Middleton-Hope: Housing prices are often driven by market demand. We had very few houses built during our 4 year tenure (much of this time was impacted by COVID) and now builders are playing catch up. Material supply, labor and now tariffs all have an impact on the housing industry. There are other strategies like manufactured homes and "small" homes that we are discussing options with industry that may help solve some of the shortage we are experiencing. Regrettably costs continue to increase and only really benefit our citizens if they sell and move to a lower market. This is in part why we have such an increase in population in Alberta and Lethbridge where migration from Ontario and BC (houses are much more expensive) is impacting the market. The city, working with the province continue to try to provide housing and this is very challenging, but there are other options to turn the market over and free up some of the inventory that we are exploring. I do not advocate for "keeping the cost of housing from getting out of control." It is not something the city can control and we do not have the supports to subsidize housing.

Ryan Parker: For me, affordable housing means making sure people at every stage of life can find a safe and suitable place to live. The City’s role is to create the conditions for housing to be built—by keeping regulations fair, ensuring infrastructure is in place, and partnering with the province and federal government on supports for lower-income residents. It’s really a combination: we need to support vulnerable residents while also making sure housing overall doesn’t get out of reach for families and young people. My focus is on balance—supporting those who need it most, while keeping the market healthy and affordable for everyone.

Tom Roulston: I think the subsidized housing model can work, granted there's support and buy-in from other levels of government. However, from a municipal perspective, I think there are broader benefits when focused on keeping the cost of housing affordable for all. One solution, that could be considered, is zoning for more multi-family/suited homes in new residential developments. I think there also needs to be broader conversations about non-confirming secondary suites and where they fall into all of this. With more inventory comes the potential for rent relief.

Gerry Saguin: When I talk about affordable housing, I mean creating the conditions for more supply to come onto the market at a price families can actually afford. That starts with reducing red tape and streamlining the permitting and inspection process so that builders and developers are not bogged down in unnecessary delays. It also means looking at underused parcels of city-owned land and rezoning them for family-focused or mixed housing projects that can expand options for residents. I do not believe the solution is heavy taxpayer subsidies. Instead, the City’s role should be to remove barriers and encourage the private sector to invest and build. When supply grows and processes are efficient, housing becomes more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: “Affordable” means housing costs under 30% of pre-tax income. The City has tools across the continuum: work on approval timelines where needed; modernize zoning/land use to enable gentle density and the missing-middle; target incentives where they unlock units; partner with providers to deliver supportive and attainable supply; and advocate to the Province and federal government to align funding and mortgage rules. It’s not either subsidies or supply – it’s a smart mix that actually fills needs.

Mike Schmidtler: This is one of those areas where I do think government should play a role. My point is that we can't afford to be inefficient with our operational spending because this in an area where government really can step in and help level the playing field for those who need it.

Suketu Shah: For me, affordable housing means ensuring that residents have access to housing that meets their needs without excessive cost. I believe the city’s role is to make doing business in Lethbridge easier—streamlining zoning, making land available for development, and reducing red tape to encourage housing supply. By keeping supply strong, we help keep costs reasonable. I also think it’s important to work collaboratively with partners, like the provincial government, to support the development of affordable housing for vulnerable populations as needed.

Ryan Wolfe: We need to look at a combination. We need to constantly pursue funding models from other levels of government. In a market economy like ours, it is difficult to "keep the cost of housing from getting out of control". Expectations need to change and will change over time. First time homebuyers should not "expect" their first home to be a 1400 sq foot detached home with a double garage. The reality is that for many, their first purchase may have to be something smaller and more affordable, and that is ok. The best remedy in this situation is to continue to attract business with good jobs so that workers can attain housing. We should encourage the development of properties and projects that will make good, attainable "first time homes" for the future. We will need to look at out of the box solutions for subsidized housing. Again, expectations need to adjusted. Gatineau Quebec for example has opened an amazing "shipping container" community for those needed assistance with housing. These units are extremely durable and easy to maintain and relatively inexpensive. We will need to be creative.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: Workers are the backbone of our society, and unions ensure that their voices are properly represented. It is city council's duty to work with our public unions to ensure that all workers have good pay, benefits, and working conditions. Maintaining a good relationship with our workers is vital to ensure that we can solve our problems, after all, they're the one's who will implement the solutions we come up with. Our current fiscal stress is fault of system problems that we've left unaddressed for decades. It isn't the fault of our workers, and it is vile to suggest that they should pay the price for our inaction.

Kelti Baird: Interesting question. I am in favour of public sector unions in City operations as it gives the Municipality the responsibility to the citizens who choose to work for it and work to make it as efficient as possible. Union workers in Lethbridge are also our citizens, and many own properties so their taxes also pay their salaries. I believe private contractors or public-private partnerships generally wind up being more costly to the taxpayer (not to mention publicly subsidizing corporate profit) than our unions. The best thing the City can do is have the aim to find solutions with our union leaders and have enough respect for our public servants to negotiate their contracts on time. Our IAFF (firefighters union) has been without a contract for over 4 years and thats just not acceptable.

Al Beeber: I've never been in a union but I recognize the enormous economic impact their jobs have on a community and their voting power. The idea of fiscal responsibility has to be examined from a global perspective extending beyond the wages of just one sector. Everyone deserves fair compensation for the type of work they do and the qualifications they have for the work they're doing. I think council really needs before making any decisions to have all the information in front of them possible to make informed decisions. That would entail hearing from Administration and the unions themselves and determine each negotiation on a case-by-case basis. As a journalist, I'm in the business of questioning and getting answers. That will continue as a council member so I can make informed decisions in the best interest of the community.

Mark Campbell: We have a team of knowledgeable people who try to find fair and equitable solutions to our unions. They present their options to council. Council votes on what is deemed reasonable. When those negotiations fail, it goes to a mediator. As a council we'll have to make a final determination as to what is fair. That is a difficult part of the job.

Belinda Crowson: Public section union are formed from Lethbridge residents who live, work, shop and spend their money in the community. They are your neighbours, friends and family. Their role is to provide the services required and desired by the residents of Lethbridge and to do so within the budget set by Council. Council prioritizes long-term financial sustainability of the city by ensuring that the negotiating team is provided clear direction on the budget available for negotiations. These constrain the negotiating team so that contracts stay within budget. Council must, in this matter and all others, think long-term and think about the impact of any decision both on the corporation and on the larger community.

Rajko Dodic: The reality is we have a number of unions who collectively bargain. If the City doesn't agree with a proposal it often goes to mediation or arbitration and, often as not, the City ends up having to pay more than what had been thought was a reasonable offer. The City Council's role is to direct the negotiating teams and act on their recommendations. If they don't then we have the potential of strikes which causes even more problems.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I would ensure that union negotiations are transparent, accountable, and grounded in fiscal discipline. That means reviewing budgets carefully, asking hard questions about the long-term impact of contracts, and making sure any agreements balance fair treatment of employees with the responsibility to protect taxpayers from unsustainable cost increases.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: Public sector unions in city are essential for a safe, smooth running city. What is unacceptable is the expectation of unions/union members that they are immune from realities. I have said from the beginning of my campaign, in clear terms, that sweeping, swift changes are here on our doorstep. They are going to radically and rapidly change your life, your family, your home, your job , and this city over the next 4 years. It would benefit the community to have someone such as myself, ahead of the curve, to successfully navigate this shift. THE NEXT 4 YEARS ARE GOING TO BE HIGHLY CHALLENGING. EVERYONE MUST BE PREPARED TO PIVOT/ADAPT OR FACE MOUNTING PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DIFFICULTIES. Fiscal responsibility and respectful relations are my duty but I will neither pander, misrepresent or mislead on the realities in front of us.

John Middleton-Hope: We have recently settled with 9 unions. The city negotiating team was given a mandate we felt we could afford and so collective agreements have been ratified with all our unions. We will open up negotiations again with IAFF and the LPA as their agreements are coming to an end in December. Council for the most part must stay out of negotiations as this is a labor issue between the city and our operations personnel.

Ryan Parker: Public sector unions play an important role in representing their members, and I respect that. At the same time, council’s responsibility is to taxpayers, so negotiations must always balance fair treatment of employees with fiscal responsibility. I will advocate for respectful, transparent bargaining that ensures we can attract and retain good people, while keeping agreements sustainable and affordable for the community.

Tom Roulston: As a working professional, I've had the opportunity to work as part of a union and work for my members as an officer on my executive. I've also worked in management. I've seen both sides. I believe unions play a key role, especially when it comes to the well being of their members. They have their finger on the pulse of their workforce, and its important to acknowledge what they're seeing and hearing. I will always advocate for 'collective' bargaining as the name states. Both sides need the opportunity to be heard respectfully and there needs to be compromise when asks of one side or both cannot be met in a sustainable way. Compromise comes from both sides.

Gerry Saguin: I respect the important work that City employees do, and I believe in fair treatment for workers. At the same time, negotiations with public sector unions must always balance fairness for employees with affordability for taxpayers. Contracts must be sustainable over the long term and not place an undue burden on the community. That means looking at total compensation — wages, benefits, and pensions — in comparison with similar municipalities and ensuring agreements reflect what residents can reasonably afford. Transparency and fiscal discipline must guide these negotiations.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: I respect collective bargaining. We must understand what our workers need to do their jobs safely and reliably. That said, I believe that we must request transparency of costs over the life of agreements, and bargain within the City’s service level and sustainability constraints. We can do this through comparative data, productivity measures, and outcome metrics so residents can see the value they receive, while supporting workers in the jobs we’re asking them to do. It’s about balance, and being professional, principled, and data-driven.

Mike Schmidtler: Unions are our partners. I have 23 years of collective bargaining experience, both with the Teamsters in Calgary and a workers association here in Southern Alberta. What I can tell you is I never had the option of over paying....if I did my competitors wouldn't and my customers couldn't afford my products and services. On my Bridge City News interview I gave an example of the devastating effects over time of over paying for labour in a segment referred to as the "Rule of 72". In it I point out that at the City's current 5% tax increase, taxes will double every 14 years (72/5). That means a $4000 tax bill today will be $8000 in 14 years, $16,000 in 28 years. Compare that with the City sticking with the current CPI inflation rate of 2%. That same $4000 tax bill would take 36 years (72/2) to double to $8000....while at a 5% increase that tax bill would $24,000 in 36 years.....3 times higher. Very few people's incomes will keep pace with that. Salaries and wages are not the only thing driving tax increases but they are a big contributor. The Town of Coaldale website displays a comparison of salaries wages per capita for 8 municipalities. Not surprisingly they are half of Lethbridge but we are are still 48% above the average of the 8. Contracting out would help, but more discipline in union negotiations is also required. There isn't a single business owner I know that doesn't have a story of a key employee (or several) be attracted away by significantly higher pay for an easier job at the City. I would ask....why are we competing with our own tax dollars?

Suketu Shah: Public sector unions play an important role in representing employees and ensuring fair working conditions. That said, as a councilor, I would ensure that negotiations are conducted responsibly and transparently, with a focus on balancing fair compensation with the need to protect taxpayers and maintain fiscal sustainability. I support collaborative approaches to bargaining, but city spending must remain disciplined so that essential services are delivered efficiently without placing undue pressure on property taxes or long-term budgets.

Ryan Wolfe: Unios have a role to play and I appreciate their contributions to the community. It is essential that there is a fair bargaining process during negotiations and that the city makes decisions in the best interest of all residents.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: A third party review of LDE was performed and the results include an extensive set of recommendations to prevent future mismanagement. I believe in learning from our past mistakes and will work to implement these recommendations to ensure history doesn't repeat itself. The review can be found here: https://www.lethbridge.ca/news/posts/council-hears-concerning-results-from-third-party-lde-review/

Kelti Baird: I was a bit surprised no budgets were included in the publicly available documents when the Council was voting to spend millions bailing the project out. There is a significant amount of time spent in-camera during council meetings and I have significant concerns about transparancy at City Hall. I would be interested to know if the recommendation to go in-camera comes from City admin, and which councillors push back on this if any do. The lack of oversight is obviously a problem and may be a symptom of failing to be more involved. Of course, that gets tricky because when contracts are awarded to other entities for partnerships, there is a fiduciary expectation and any oversight is often maligned as needless and overburdensome beaurocracy.

Al Beeber: What we need to do first of all is learn what kind of expense the new "Excite Lethbridge" is going to burden the taxpayers with and if that cost will be balanced by increased revenues. Will this new iteration of an existing organization require more City employees and if so why? One former mayor told me he was against taxpayer-supported debt and the LDE is a good illustration why. Perhaps the City Treasurer or designates need to have a role in keeping track of the ongoing finances of such organizations and report to council on a regular basis. The Ex - a term the City doesn't want used anymore - is a prime example why council needs to be kept informed of costs starting from planning stages.

Mark Campbell: Reviews are ongoing with other organizations. And that's something that wasn't regularly done to the extent they are doing now. I think that's crucial to maintianing a viable organization.

Belinda Crowson: Council must have a strong vision for what they hope to achieve with the partnership with municipally-supported organizations. Following that vision, a fee for service agreement must be created that sets out the roles and responsibilities of both organizations, the expectations and metrics used to evaluate, how reporting out is done (annual plan and report with financial statements to be submitted to standing policy committee with accompanying presentation), and how budget may be affected by performance. Accompanying this, there must be expectations around governance for each organization. This will include parameters for how board members are selected (skill matrices, people recruited based on role on board not on personal connections, etc.) and that there are expectations for onboarding and ongoing governance training and development for individual board members and the board as well. Council will also expect to see updated governance level plans (such as strategic plans) submitted by the organization.

Rajko Dodic: I believe an answer to a previous question addressed this. In a recent expert report on the issue, the conclusion reached was that the blame should be shared by Administration,. the Lethbridge and District Exhibition Board and City Council. When I was on Council previously and the Exhibition came looking for capital money, the Administration including the City Manager and Treasurer at the time looked very closely whether the Exhibition had the financial ability to actually operate the project and the answer was no and thus the Resolution that put guardrails in place to ensure that monies would be provided when certain pre-conditions were met. Thus, in future costly projects , the same rigour needs to be applied.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: The Exhibition Park fiasco was a clear example of what happens when oversight and accountability are lacking. As a Councillor, I would push for stronger governance policies for any municipally-supported organization, including regular financial reporting, independent audits, and clear lines of accountability back to Council and residents. It’s not enough to react after the fact—Council needs to ensure taxpayers’ money is protected from the start. I would also advocate for transparent reporting to the public so residents can see exactly how funds are spent, and so projects are managed responsibly. Lessons from Exhibition Park must guide a new standard of accountability for all future municipal partnerships.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I would like to note this is not just Ex, it is a pattern: Safe Supply $1.6M unaccounted for in Lethbridge: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/lethbridge-supervised-consumption-site-loses-government-funding-after-audit-finds-1-6m-shortfall-1.5651413 How much more is unaccounted for? We will never know. There is no consequence or accountability. Here is how we change it in steps - a solid solution: 1. Hire new leaders who align with truth, trust and transparency and do no harm as civil servants. Use Recall Mandates to remove them from office, as I advocate in my campaign, if they are betraying their sworn duty to the citizens. 2. Use blockchain to track money flows (Blockchain is not AI). You work hard for every penny and yet there is zero accountability, zero consequences for individuals who continue to misappropriate funds. Track it publicly. 3. Clear agreements and regular routine check ins are measures to keep accountability. Make reports easy to obtain by the public. No private / closed-door leadership meetings. Lastly, directors and managers who do not immediately report overages or irregularities as a priority will be immediately terminated.

John Middleton-Hope: As we had in the past, council representation on the Board will be important going forward. We did not have representation on the Board over the last 4 years. Second the EX will become part of a municipal corporation structure that will provide more direct control by the city comprised of subject matter experts rather than volunteers.

Ryan Parker: The Exhibition showed us the importance of strong oversight and accountability when taxpayer dollars are involved. Going forward, I will push for clearer reporting requirements, regular financial reviews, and stronger transparency from any organization receiving City support. It’s about protecting taxpayers while still supporting groups that add value to our community.

Tom Roulston: If elected, I would support regular fiscal reporting from all municipally-supported organizations to ensure potential discrepancies are identified and resolved in a timely manner.

Gerry Saguin: The financial mismanagement at the Lethbridge & District Exhibition was unacceptable, and it shook public confidence. Going forward, I would support stronger accountability measures for any organization that receives taxpayer funding. This should include independent annual audits, quarterly public reporting, and clear deliverables tied to any funding agreements. If taxpayer dollars are being spent, residents have the right to know exactly how they are being managed. Council must play a stronger role in oversight to make sure this type of mismanagement never happens again.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: This Council has put policies in place to mitigate future risk. Organizations receiving public support in the future must meet governance and reporting standards.

Mike Schmidtler: The big thing everyone forgets about the new building is the prior City council choose to remove themselves from the Board where they had the best chance to provide guidance and oversight long before construction was underway. Having said that, senior administration people were involved the entire way through....where is the accountability on their part? I would ensure proper oversight by doing just that....staying involved in it, not just waiting for over runs or issues related to the building not being sufficiently fit for purpose.....and then pointing fingers at others after the fact.

Suketu Shah: I was not involved in past decisions regarding the Exhibition, but moving forward, proper oversight and accountability must be a priority for all municipally-supported organizations. I would advocate for clear financial reporting requirements, regular audits by independent parties, and council review of major expenditures. Transparency with taxpayers is key, and I would support measures that ensure city funds are used responsibly, with regular updates provided to the public so that projects stay on track and within budget.

Ryan Wolfe: Easy. As soon as $50 of city money is involved in a project, the receiver has to loop us in 100% so that we can object to stupidity. However, this requires the proper focus and scrutiny from council.. This was evidently quite lacking in this case.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: The reasoning behind the split appears solid, and from what I can tell, we haven't divested any public assets during the split. Based on this, I don't object to the split, but time will ultimately tell if it was the right decision.

Kelti Baird: This one snuck up on me and seemed rather a sudden move. I would be interested to trace back the origins of this idea. Without knowing much about it, I am curious to know what the long-term goals are and where Admin saw a gap in services that could not be filled by one of our extant organizations.

Al Beeber: If that non-profit can contribute to non-ongoing tax burdens, it will be a smart decision. But that will depend on if it can generate new revenues to compensate for the expected tax hike that the CFO stated last December will be needed to pay for its operations in the future. Referring to my last answer, will this new entity require the hiring of more staff? If so, how can those costs be offset? I've been following this issue since the revelation that the old Ex needed more support and the public needs to know with certainty if there is a real plan to get that organization out of debt.

Mark Campbell: Yes. Excite Lethbridge can focus on bringing on bringing in the big events that bring in big economic value to the city. The Ag Society, a long tradition in Lethbridge will focus on what has been an integral part of the city for over a century-Ag-related event. That will also enable the organization to obtain a yearly grant from the provincial government. And both organizations will be held accountable with regular reporting.

Belinda Crowson: There is a reason that so many medium-sized agricultural societies are having financial difficulties. Too much has been expected of the volunteer run board of these societies as the work has grown in complexity and size and they were not provided the support to properly oversee staff and manage/govern these growing organizations. Added to this in the case of the Lethbridge society was the was oversight of a large building project. Having two organizations – one volunteer led and responsible only for the agricultural society and the other responsible for the management of the buildings and site – will help both organizations achieve success.

Rajko Dodic: One is to run the day to day operations and the other is to deal with the agricultural component. It is too early to tell whether this model will work or not so I will give it some time before commenting.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: A municipally controlled non-profit could work in theory, but only if there are clear governance rules, independent audits, and direct reporting to Council and residents. Without those safeguards, we risk repeating the same mistakes and leaving taxpayers on the hook again.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I support this division given the financial debacle we have experienced at the hands of our current city leadership. This would provide a measure of additional accountability.

John Middleton-Hope: It is the right approach. I am grateful to our administration for wrestling back control of the operations and I am confident this will improve outcomes. This facility, like the YMCA, pools, parks, arenas will all take time to reduce costs, but these are locations our citizens advocate us to provide and are what bring people to the city and enhance our collective quality of life.

Ryan Parker: I believe splitting the Lethbridge and District Exhibition into separate entities was the right move. It created clearer accountability, stronger oversight, and a path to stabilize the organization after years of financial mismanagement. A municipally controlled non-profit ensures taxpayer dollars are protected while still supporting an important community asset. This structure gives us the transparency and control we need, while keeping the Exhibition focused on serving residents and the region.

Tom Roulston: I think this was the right approach. It gives each entity clear direction and defined areas of focus and jurisdiction.

Gerry Saguin: I believe splitting the Exhibition into separate entities was the right decision because it brought greater transparency and accountability to an organization that badly needed it. However, the job is not finished. Council must remain vigilant and ensure that proper oversight continues. Boards must be made up of people with the right skills in finance, governance, and risk management so that decisions are sound and taxpayers can have confidence in how their money is being used.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: Splitting the Lethbridge and Exhibition into two entities brings clear benefits. The municipally owned corporation provides direct accountability to Council for major assets and financial oversight, while returning the ag society to a community-led board allows it to focus on its core mandate of agriculture and local programming. This separation reduces risk, creates sharper focus, and ensures both organizations can succeed on their own terms. That said, splitting entities may also result in some issues. Coordination and communication must be strong, or we risk gaps in oversight or duplication of effort. Clear reporting frameworks and transparent public communication are key to maintaining trust. Just as we expect transparency and reporting from our fee-for-service organizations, we must expect the same transparency and reporting here. Some unexpected benefits may include renewed grassroots connections for the ag society and stronger financial transparency through the municipally owned corporation’s reporting obligations. Potential drawbacks include inter-entity tension or the City assuming greater exposure if governance discipline slips. The opportunity is to test this structure, build accountability, restore public confidence, and ensure both sides deliver on their intended purpose.

Mike Schmidtler: I like the Lethbridge & District Ag Society piece since its independent of the City but I'm leery of the Excite Lethbridge piece being under the City. I've been told that the City controlled piece will be a "muni corp" and therefore somewhat independent of the City and eligible for provincial money but I'm not a fan. I liked the LDE being completely independent of the City and my fear is we're creating another Enmax (sorry, VisitLethridge.com) arena staffed and run by the City, the least efficient operator I can think of. I want to see this facility succeed and I'll keep an open mind but if elected but will continue to voice these concerns.

Suketu Shah: I was not part of the previous council decisions, so I cannot speak to the intent behind splitting the Lethbridge & District Exhibition. Generally, creating separate entities can help clarify responsibilities and improve accountability, but only if accompanied by strong governance, financial oversight, and transparent reporting. My focus would be on ensuring that any municipally-supported organization operates efficiently, responsibly, and with clear accountability to taxpayers, regardless of its structure.

Ryan Wolfe: No idea.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: The only proven strategy for helping our unhoused neighbours is to provide safe, secure housing along with supports like therapy, addiction counselling, and job training. We also need to drastically lower the cost of housing to make life more affordable and prevent people from becoming unhoused in the first placed. This can be done with zoning and land use reform aimed at making it legal to build affordable, middle density, mixed use neighbourhoods supported by small and local businesses.

Kelti Baird: My preferred approach is housing-first. This method not only provides stability for the individuals, but stability for the systems of support to always be able to find people in order to deliver services as efficiently as possible. It has also been proven time and again to be the most responsible use of taxpayer dollars as it is significantly less expensive compared to our current system which relies heavily on police, EMS, ER, and court interventions not to mention havibg to repeatedly deal with ebcampments every few months. We are seeing some positive strides in Lethbridge with new permanent supportive housing units available, and more are needed.

Al Beeber: Homelessness is such a tough issue but at its root, drug addiction seems to be the core reason for much of it. The encampment strategy basically involves moving camps from one place to another, it's not a solution and I think CSD knows that. We've all seen for years the Point-in-Time surveys which can be problematic because of the possibility some people are being counted more than once. Who's responsibility is this? Well, social services falls under the provincial purview as does most funding for family and community supports. Why aren't people utilizing those supports including the shelter? We need to know that answer which would help council work with CSD and the province on addressing this issue which also impacts public safety and crime.

Mark Campbell: The Encampment Stragegy has been exceptional in my mind. It's a long process but the Encampment team is creating relationships with homeless individuals and are always encouraging them to seek help. Not everyone wants help but perhaps when they're ready, they might be able to turn their lives around.

Belinda Crowson: My preferred approach is to get houses built as quickly as possible and to remove barriers that have slowed down the construction of the wide range of housing required in our community. This involves providing support for the Land Use Bylaw Renewal project, looking into granting opportunities for housing projects and ensuring our infrastructure and supports are in place.

Rajko Dodic: I was in support of the encampment strategy although there was some pushback as to whether there were legal issues involved which I believed were not. Homelessness is a catchall phrase and covers people who have homes but choose to live rough, as well as those with minds incapable of making rational decisions who have support systems that would provide shelter to them and to those who through no fault of their own are too poor to be able to obtain shelter. In this area, I admit I have no answer because of the complexity of the issue and the underlying causes that create the homelessness, each of which require different responses so this is an area that I really need an expert to tell me what the best thing to do is and then go the further step to determine who is responsible for funding the solution.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: Currently the encampment strategy is working as it was designed, however not as I believe the councillor that brought it forward intended, to ensure encampments do not become entrenched. We need to go a step further than that. It's not about making people move 5 feet and cleaning up their garbage it's about ensuring we have the supports in place and the appropriate housing to move people through a continuum of recovery focused housing. The shelter is now expanded and there is more than enough safe space for individuals experiencing homelessness to find shelter within the four walls of the shelter itself. It's time to get tough on encampments. It is not a safe situation for the individuals living within them nor is it for the community as a whole. The entire reason people live in encampments in our city is because they're not willing to follow the rules that are set forward at the shelter therefore making this a policing issue. I would advocate to the Minister of Justice for more funding specific to encampments, Furthermore I would advocate to the minister of assisted living and social services to fund a resource hub located at the Lethbridge shelter. This provincial government has been very clear they do not support individuals living in encampments so let's lean into that knowledge and advocate for funding for our community to clean up the encampments and move people through a continuum of appropriate recovery focused housing.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I am aware we are seeing improvement with respect to the strategy. Here are my suggestions: 1)Working closely with the Blood Tribe as reports show we see 68% comprising of Indigenous people - should these individuals be treated directly on the reserve? This would make more sense to me as per "cultural connection" and "cultural wisdom keepers" can best address this. 2) Follow a model of providing compassion and connection and get people off the streets into temporary shelter IMMEDIATELY. 3) Zero tolerance for crime - pressuring our provincial government to enforce the law. 4) Zero tolerance for repeat OD's of individuals to mandatory recovery programs. Tough love is necessary - along with pressuring our provincial government to enforce this. https://www.mylethbridgenow.com/55636/news/municipal-news/lethbridge-city-hall/city-says-encampment-strategy-showing-positive-results-two-years-since-launch/

John Middleton-Hope: As a primary author of the encampment strategy, I am proud of the work being done. I will bring forward a motion this fall, if re-elected to enhance our engagement strategy by ensuring we have the resources to respond to encampments on the weekend. We will continue to work with partner agencies to minimize the impact not only in the downtown, but also around the shelter. Other cities are looking to our deployment strategy as a model of success.

Ryan Parker: The Encampment Strategy is an important step, but it needs to stay focused on both compassion and public safety. We cannot allow unsafe encampments to grow, but we also have to connect people to the supports they need—whether that’s housing, treatment, or mental health services. My preferred approach is a balanced one: enforce rules that keep our parks and neighborhoods safe, while partnering with the province, nonprofits, and Indigenous organizations to provide long-term solutions to homelessness. The City can’t solve this alone, but we must be a strong and active partner.

Tom Roulston: There are no changes I'd want to make immediately, if elected. We need to support our city's social organizations that are working to help our vulnerable populations break away from homelessness and addiction cycles. We need to ensure there are adequate policing resources in place to keep communities safe and also keep those who are vulnerable safe.

Gerry Saguin: The City’s Encampment Strategy must be strengthened to ensure public spaces are safe and accessible for everyone. Parks and sidewalks cannot be left in unsafe conditions. At the same time, we need to recognize that simply moving people from one location to another does not solve the problem. I believe in a balanced approach that combines consistent enforcement of bylaws with stronger connections to detox, rehabilitation, and recovery programs. Real success should be measured by helping people leave the cycle of addiction and homelessness, not just by the number of encampments cleared.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: The unhoused and encampments are some of the most complex and visible challenges in our city. Lethbridge needs to continue with an approach that is coordinated, compassionate, and accountable. I’m proud of the Encampment Strategy that has been built over the past 4 years, because in 2021 we didn’t have one. However, moving into the next 4 years, this can be built upon and strengthened so that the needs of our most vulnerable are being met. My priorities are: • Continuing to build partnerships with accountability – City, police, Indigenous organizations, housing providers, and outreach workers must be aligned with clearly defined roles and measurable outcomes. • Faster transitions – People need to move from encampments into safe shelter and then into appropriate housing more quickly, with the supports they need. • Balanced enforcement – Police should be focussed on police work: e.g. weapons offences, trafficking, and violent crime, and supported by specialized positions that can assist with mental health and addictions calls, ensuring that our most vulnerable can be connected to the services they need. • Transparency for residents – The City and Lethbridge Police Service need to continue reporting publicly on timelines, outcomes, and neighbourhood impacts so people can see progress. Ultimately, encampments are a symptom of a gap in support services and appropriate housing. That’s why I continue to advocate for housing across the spectrum, from transitional and supportive housing to attainable homeownership, combined with the right social supports.

Mike Schmidtler: As the GM at Lafarge we experienced encampments first hand. Admittedly this is not my strong suit but I'm sympathetic of both the social need and negative affects on surrounding businesses and the City as a whole. When I'm not well versed in something I'm happy to reach out to those who are. What I will say is poor public policy like building the 5 star hotel of supervised consumption sites attracted addicts here from all over the province. We're all aware of other cities "solving" their problems by buying their addicts a bus ticket here.....and many are still here. That's the first thing....we need to look after our own but not be importing them and creating an industry around it.... that only harms our City and its reputation. Housing and treatment options are part of the solution but only if they are on a path to removing themselves from that lifestyle. What the owners of businesses around the homeless shelter told me is that police are well aware the most violent among the homeless but they are a small handfull of the homeless population. We need to take their crimes far more seriously than we do and remove them from the streets.

Suketu Shah: I support addressing homelessness in a practical, responsible way that balances compassion with public safety and the needs of all residents. My focus would be on working with social service providers, nonprofits, and other levels of government to provide housing and support services efficiently. Regarding the Encampment Strategy, I would review it to ensure it is effective, evidence-based, and fiscally responsible, with clear outcomes and accountability. Any changes would prioritize safe, stable solutions for those experiencing homelessness while maintaining accessible, welcoming public spaces for the broader community.

Ryan Wolfe: No encampments. The preferred approach is to collaborate with all the relevant stakeholders and find better options. Again, it is not the job of council to create solutions. It is our job to ensure those receiving funding are proactively pursuing solutions and strategies that can be implemented by council.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I conditionally support building the third bridge, provided that: 1. We first implement more impactful and less costly measures to improve traffic and eliminate congestion. 2.The bridge is a high level bridge with dedicated rights-of-way for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. 3. We secure the needed from higher levels of government so that we can build the bridge without blowing a hole in our budget.

Kelti Baird: I am in favour, but I do not believe we should rush to build without adequate investment from other levels of government. We also need significant build out of west-side commercial and amenities to reduce the number of trips over the river, which is putting pressure on our current infrastructure during peak times.

Al Beeber: My bladder says 'yes.' And I don't say that facetiously. I'm a westsider and I know the frustrations of the delays which mostly are caused by drivers not paying attention or driving like they were in an IndyCar race. That doesn't lessen the impact of the oft-lengthy delays which impact the ability of Fire/EMS to reach calls, parents from reaching children in after-school programs as well as the flow of commerce through Lethbridge. A robust discussion needs to start with the provincial and federal governments about funding such a crossing because we can't afford to bear the burden of its cost on our own shoulders.

Mark Campbell: The plan has to always be ready. The third bridge is top of mind because of the recent issues with the collision under the bridge. The cost is high and will be a big tax burden unless we can secure provincial funding. I support a third bridge but we need financial help

Belinda Crowson: A third river crossing is going to happen. The question is when, how to pay for it and where will it be located. It’s also necessary to do good planning and work to make people’s lives easier until the bridge is built. In the meantime, we need to advocate to the provincial government for them to follow through on their commitment to expand the Highway 3 bridge with 3rd lanes in both directions. We also need to ensure that we have appropriate zoning and servicing on the west side so that businesses can choose to build more commercial spaces over there. Businesses such as lumber stores, clothing stores, etc. built on the westside would decrease the need for some of the trips that are keeping the two current bridges so busy. The city won’t build these businesses but needs to ensure that all zoning and infrastructure is in place for business people to make that investment if and when they choose. Further, I would really wish to see a complete analysis before the third bridge is built as to the best possible location. We have one location identified. Some think the bridge should go further south than this location. However, other who advocate for a more regional economic approach wonder if the first new bridge built shouldn’t be north to Picture Butte to better link that area into the large economic region. With the size of the investment that a third bridge entails, we need to do it right.

Rajko Dodic: The problem with the referendum was that there was no indication what the cost would be so I directed a written inquiry to administration on December 2, 2021 which they responded to a few weeks later. We didn't have an exact price on the bridge at the time but I used the range of $200 million to $300 million and the tax increase for those numbers were 14.5% to 22.1% tax increase on top of already budgeted tax increases. For literally decades the Province has indicated they were not prepared to contribute to the cost because it was a local project and that position has not changed. So the answer is yes, I am in favour but not if 100% of the costs was borne by residents. We simply can't afford it.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I support the principle of a third river crossing, but it must be planned responsibly and with full transparency. West side residents have already endured a difficult summer with traffic disruptions, and until the current bridge structure is addressed, those problems will continue. I’m encouraged by ideas like building a bridge on provincial land, which would shift the construction cost away from taxpayers. What’s most important is that any decision is made openly, with clear communication to residents, and that we prioritize solutions that address traffic safely and efficiently without creating unexpected costs for Lethbridge taxpayers.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I fully support building a third bridge—it’s a top priority and part of my campaign platform. With our west side population growing, this bridge will be a vital connection to the airport. I also eagerly anticipating expanding the airport to attract more carriers and flights, which will strengthen our commercial corridor nearby and drive economic growth in that district of our city.

John Middleton-Hope: It would be nice to have a 3rd bridge and a ring road but frankly the cost is currently out of reach. Estimated at $275m for a 3rd bridge, plus interchanges, is a very costly venture without support on the horizon from the province or Government of Canada. To connect HWY 4 where all trucks come into the city with a bridge and ring road to the west would be upwards of $300m. The south western communities (south of the university) that may use the bridge account for less than 10,000 population, and the development of the university and the crossings to provide more commercial and retail opportunities is a cost born by business and not tax payers. In my view this is a better alternative and I am confident that as our citizens learn of the costs and the practicality of a 3rd bridge, they will agree that bringing a lumber yard, hotels, restaurants, Canadian Tire, Walmart type stores to the west side, is preferable so we do not have to travel across the city.

Ryan Parker: I support a third river crossing. Lethbridge residents made their voice clear in the referendum, and I believe it’s an important project for the future of our city. A new crossing will ease traffic congestion, improve emergency response times, and support growth on both sides of the river. The key now is working with the province to secure funding and make sure the project is done responsibly and with long-term planning in mind.

Tom Roulston: I'm in favor of a third crossing. But as stated in my earlier remarks, we need to approach this endeavour with an open mind, fight hard for provincial and/or federal government support and be willing to make changes to existing plans, especially if it garners provincial or federal buy-in. I don't believe we can undertake a project like this, in a sustainable way, if we were to solely rely on municipal taxpayer dollars.

Gerry Saguin: I support long-term planning for a third river crossing, but I do not support putting that financial burden on Lethbridge taxpayers alone. A project of that size would require significant provincial or federal funding before moving forward. In the meantime, we need to protect potential corridors and update business cases so that Lethbridge is ready to move when funding opportunities arise. This is about preparing responsibly without overcommitting taxpayers.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: In 2021, residents were asked in a non-binding ballot if building a third bridge should become a municipal capital project priority, and 60% voted yes. That direction matters, and I take it seriously, but we also need to be honest about the realities. The City’s most recent review (by Stantec, 2022) reaffirmed Chinook Trail as the preferred alignment and pegged the cost in the range of $190 – 300 million. That scale of investment could increase the average residential property tax bill by 14.5% to 22.1% for the municipal portion. Even if we secure provincial and federal cost-sharing, Lethbridge taxpayers would still shoulder a significant portion. Preliminary traffic modeling suggests a third bridge may be required between 2030 and 2040, with the Chinook Trail alignment offering the best value relative to other options. The Preliminary Design work is scheduled for 2027 in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (item C-21). Until then, any cost figures remain estimates. From my platform, I’ve been clear: we must make evidence-based decisions, protect fiscal sustainability, and focus first on maintaining and investing in the core services and infrastructure that keep our city safe and viable. I support advancing the planning work and pursuing external partnerships so that when the time comes, we have the numbers and cost-sharing agreements in place. But I will not commit Lethbridge taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars without a transparent business case, clear timelines, and provincial/federal partners at the table. In short: yes, I respect the referendum result and support advancing the work – but only with updated studies, seeing the 2027 preliminary design work, strong financial partnerships, and a firm eye on long-term sustainability.

Mike Schmidtler: Absolutely in favour of a 3rd bridge, but not on the current alignment. I've talked about this consistently throughout the campaign, in my social media and every interview I've done. The route needs to be further south where it can be built at a much lower level and much closer to the airport where it can attract provincial and federal money as a ring road. Further, redevelopment of the warehouse district around the airport will bring in private investment and much more tax revenue once the City completes annexation which was scheduled for 2026 if its still on schedule.

Suketu Shah: Yes, I support a third Oldman River crossing. As a west-side resident, I see firsthand the traffic challenges our community faces. That said, I do not support funding it solely through a city tax increase. My priority would be to first twin the Highway 3 bridge and improve on- and off-ramps at Whoop-Up Drive—projects that could access provincial funding or be fully provincially funded. Once these upgrades are completed and our population grows further, we would be in a stronger position to advocate for provincial support for a third bridge.

Ryan Wolfe: Yes, I'm in favour. Who would not be? The question is....how do we pay for it. City funds alone can't do it. So my first plan is to win the lottery and build the bridge in which case we will name it the Ryan Wolfe Big Bridge!......If this plan fails then I will work with council to continue to advocate for the bridge with other levels of government.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I support moving to a ward system. My understanding is that ward systems give better representation to more people in the city while also making it easier for new-comers with smaller campaign budgets to have a shot at being elected. Given how different Lethbridge's North, South, and West sides are, having councillors elected from each area would help ensure that the unique needs of each area would be represented in council.

Kelti Baird: I support a ward system. I like the idea of having one or two specific people I can reliably reach rather than hoping someone of 8 might get back to me if they care enough. Having a ward would increase diversity of council and potentially more accurately represent their constituents.

Al Beeber: Yes, I do favour a ward system. And the reason is that ward systems are shown to increase the diversity of voices in government. Studies I've read have stated clearly that an at-large system like we have in place now benefits incumbents who have developed strong voting blocs who can focus their voting voice on a single candidate and propel such person to victory. We need to level the playing field.

Mark Campbell: I prefer the system as is. I like the idea of being elected for the entire city, not just one secion of the city.

Belinda Crowson: I worked very hard in the last term of Council to move this issue along and to have a citizen’s assembly look into this issue. Without this work having been done, it is too early to have an opinion on whether a ward system in the best possible approach for Lethbridge. This is partly because we’ve never completed an economic analysis. For example, would council under a ward system be able to share one staff as they currently do or would more staffing be required? What would be the economic and budgetary impact of the ward system? We also haven’t research which, if any, of the approaches to a ward system would work best in Lethbridge and how many wards would be recommended. Should we move entirely to a ward system? Remain in an at-large system? Or bring in a hybrid system where some councillors are elected to wards while other remain at-large? What precisely do people wish to achieve with the ward system and are there other, perhaps more financially responsible ways, in which we could achieve those same goals? These conversations and research absolutely must occur as they have been requested by the majority of residents but only after we have done the work can we as a community determine the best way forward.

Rajko Dodic: The Province dictates how a Ward system operates and one potentially problematic issue is that the candidate in a ward is not required to live there but the elector is which to some degree defeats the purpose of the ward in that you would want one of a ward's residents to speak on the a ward's behalf but that person may not even have day to day knowledge of the issues because they live elsewhere. Also, we have 8 councillors and boundaries would have to be established to ensure that there is equal representation by population. We may have three identifiable areas of the City but there is not equal population in each area so the boundaries will spill over in that part of a ward may be on the south and part on the west. In any event, we are pursuing a potential ward system and what it may look like so it is too soon for me to take a position one way or another without additional information.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: I am strongly in favor of implementing a ward system for municipal elections. A ward system ensures that all areas of the city have direct representation on Council, so the unique needs and concerns of every community are heard. It creates more accountability, encourages closer connections between residents and their Councillor, and helps prevent certain areas from being overlooked under an at-large system. For Lethbridge, this is the best way to ensure fair and balanced representation for everyone.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I don't feel a ward system is necessary in our city given the current size and population. You can drive anywhere within a 15-20 minutes. We are not a sprawling metropolis. Given the near even split of the non-binding referendum 2021 question, it is not a vast majority vote.

John Middleton-Hope: Yes actually 56% voted in favor. I brought this motion forward and when it became apparent there was insufficient will on council to proceed, I crafted a "precinct model" that would have retained elections at large but two councillors would be assigned in one of four areas of the city on a yearly rotating basis to ensure each Councillor had an opportunity to represent each area of the city. This was also defeated by council. If re-elected I will bring back a motion to bring in a ward system. It enhances accountability, transparency and representation.

Ryan Parker: I respect the 2021 referendum — 55% of voters said ‘yes’ to exploring a ward system. That said, after listening to residents and council debate, I co-sponsored a motion to pause the ward analysis and instead look at alternatives like precincts so we get the best balance of local representation and city-wide thinking. My view is practical: I won’t support rushing into a ward system just because a question passed. Any change must be carefully designed with independent boundary work, broad public consultation, clear rules to prevent parochialism, and a transition plan that preserves fairness and equal representation across the city. If a precinct or hybrid model delivers better representation without undermining city-wide decision making, that’s the direction I’ll back.

Tom Roulston: I support re-opening talks about a ward system if elected. I believe elected officials, representing defined areas of the city would be better representative of our communities at the council table. Right now, the rules make it possible that an entire city council could be made up of people who live in one neighbourhood. We're a growing city, and should evolve as such, away from the current status quo.

Gerry Saguin: I believe implementing a ward system would be good for Lethbridge. It would ensure that every neighborhood has a direct representative on council and would make councillors more accountable to the residents they serve. At-large systems can sometimes concentrate influence in certain areas, while a ward system balances representation across the entire city. An independent review process should determine the most fair and effective way to draw boundaries, but the principle of more direct accountability is one I fully support.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: In 2021, 55% of voters voted in favour of “Do you support using a Ward System to elect City Councillors (other than the Mayor) starting with the 2025 municipal election?” While the question was non-binding, I believe we need to respect that direction and at least fully explore what a ward system would mean for Lethbridge. To me, this is about strengthening trust in local democracy, not rushing to redraw maps for their own sake. Council originally struck a Ward Commission to review options but later rescinded it due to costs and uncertainty. That created real frustration amongst residents, because they were left feeling their vote had been disregarded. I think we can do better. If we are going to revisit the ward system, it must be through a transparent, resident-led process that lays out the costs, boundaries, and impacts clearly before Council makes a final decision. The Municipal Government Act (MGA) requires councillors to “consider the welfare and interests of the municipality as a whole and bring to council’s attention anything that would promote the welfare or interests of the municipality.” So, even in a ward system, councillors are still legally bound to represent the interests of the entire city of Lethbridge, not just residents in their ward. The ward structure only changes how Councillors are elected, it doesn’t change the scope of their responsibility under provincial law. From my perspective, wards could improve accountability and representation, and I would commit to re-examining this issue through meaningful public engagement, cost-benefit analysis, and a clear transition plan. Whether we stay at-large, move to wards, the decision should be rooted in evidence and community input not politics of the day. For me, the principle is simple: residents asked the question, gave us a direction, and they deserve a fair, transparent process to see it through.

Mike Schmidtler: If you're going to ask voters something and they vote in favour, there is an expectation that it will be implemented. There was also a question about a bridge that voters were also in favour of, but not much has happened on that either. Having said that, I'm not a fan of a ward system because it would pit area against area to compete for infrastructure spending in their ward as opposed to where it should be for the benefit of the whole City.

Suketu Shah: Yes, I support implementing a ward system. The 2021 referendum showed that a majority of Lethbridgians—55%—favoured this change, and as a councillor, my responsibility is to respect and represent the will of the residents who elected me.

Ryan Wolfe: I think it is important to listen to the will of the voter. I think Lethbridge is now big enough to implement a ward system. Many people I speak with on the doors are very frustrated with a lack of ability to contact anyone at city hall. A ward system would make me directly accountable to those within my ward. I think that would be good.

Councillor

8 To Be Elected

Kaitte Aurora: I was the candidate for the NDP in the Foothills riding (located west of Lethbridge) during the 2025 federal election and remain a member of the federal and provincial NDP. The NDP is the party that most closely aligns with my progressive populist politics.

Kelti Baird: I am not. I dislike party politics which is why I am interested in serving at a municipal level. While I have never had a party membership, I have voted NDP, Independent, Green, and Liberal in the past, but my decisions are made based on the people I believe will do best for Lethbridge.

Al Beeber: I believe we need independent decisions for local issues. I'm completely opposed to any party involvement including local parties in municipal governance because that brings ideology into play. And I don't believe political ideology should be a basis for decision making at this level. I have zero affiliation with any party.

Mark Campbell: I am opposed to having any political affiliations. I want to make decisions based on what I believe is best for my city, not what a political party tells me is best.

Belinda Crowson: I have never purchased a membership in any political party, federal or provincial.

Rajko Dodic: I am not affiliated with anyone in particular. I have contributed to a number of parties and voted for different candidates based on whether they best represented my views. In short, I vote the person and not the party.

Rufa Doria: No response.

Robin James: Lethbridge is already divided politically between the UCP and NDP, and I believe municipal elections should focus on a candidate’s core principles, ethics, and experience, rather than party lines. Voters deserve to know that their Councillors are making decisions based on what’s best for the community, not a political agenda. That said to answer your question yes I am a member of a federal and provincial party. Furthermore in my career I work very closely with Minister of Assisted Living and Social Services, Minister Jason Nixon. I am currently the co-chair of the Homeless Review Panel, a Board Member of the newly formed Assisted Living Alberta and a former member of the Lodge Review program. I am also a big supporter of the Recovery Alberta.

Tevi Legge: No response.

Margaret (Magie) Matulic: I am aware of the 'party- pilot' currently running in Calgary and Edmonton for this upcoming 2025 election. As we do not have that pilot running here in Lethbridge, this question is not applicable.

John Middleton-Hope: In Lethbridge, municipal elections and on council, each Councillor is independent or at least not affiliated with any specific party. Our job is to work with our MLAs and advocate for our citizens. I ran unsuccessfully for the UCP in Lethbridge West because I believed that by seizing this opportunity I would be able to represent our citizens inside government, with ministers to get the resources we need for one of the fastest growing cities and the 3rd largest in the province. This did not occur and although I felt it was an opportunity for our city, I will not run again for the UCP. I believe I am most effective as a council member rather than being compelled to "tow a party line". There are members on council that are supported by one party or the other and so I won't speak for them. I am a fiscal conservative and believe strongly in our responsibility to ensure our needs are addressed before our wants.

Ryan Parker: I’ve always run as an independent, and I believe that’s important at the municipal level. City council should focus on local issues—like safety, infrastructure, housing, and affordability—not partisan politics. While everyone has personal views, I don’t represent a provincial or federal party, and I don’t take direction from them. My commitment is to the people of Lethbridge, to make decisions based on what’s best for our community, not a party line.

Tom Roulston: As a journalist I never held political affiliation with any party, nor do I currently. If you're looking to place me on the political spectrum in terms of alignment you'll find me most days in the common sense centre.

Gerry Saguin: I am running as an independent municipal candidate and am not formally affiliated with any provincial or federal political party. However, I believe in common-sense principles such as living within our means, focusing on core services, protecting freedoms, and keeping government accountable to taxpayers. These are the values that will guide every decision I make on council. My focus will always remain on what is best for the people of Lethbridge.

Jenn Schmidt-Rempel: I am very happily politically agnostic, and I intend to stay that way. Municipal work is non-partisan in law and in practice. I work effectively across the spectrum and with every order of government and all political parties. I understand that I need to collaborate with whoever voters elect.

Mike Schmidtler: I'm not a fan of political affiliation in municipal politics. I wouldn't make a good "party" candidate because I think independently. It should be obvious to anyone reading my responses here or on social media, my website, brochure and interviews, that I would only classify myself as a fiscal conservative.....nothing more. Government is way too big at all levels in this country and has lost sight of how hard people have to work to pay all these taxes and other costs like utilities that are a result of narratives not what's in the best interests of hard working people. Socially however I have many progressive views. I find the left/right labels counter productive to respectful dialogue.....its much easier and intellectually lazy to "label rather than listen".

Suketu Shah: Yes, I am provincially affiliated with the United Conservative Party (UCP) and sit on both the Lethbridge East and West constituency association boards. Their founding principles align closely with my beliefs on responsible governance, fiscal prudence, and supporting families and local communities. That said, I recognize that municipal politics are officially non-partisan, and I am committed to serving all residents of Lethbridge, regardless of political affiliation.

Ryan Wolfe: Great question. I'm not sure what "affiliated" means in this context. To my knowledge, I'm not affiliated with any parties. If you are asking which parties I vote for in Provincial and Federal elections, that is a great question. Thanks