Tim Down

My contribution to climate action has primarily come through my professional work, public-policy advocacy and community involvement.

Over more than three decades working in real estate, property assessment, valuation, development and advisory services, I have seen how land-use decisions, infrastructure investment, building design, transportation, water supply and natural hazards affect both community resilience and long-term costs.

More recently, I have written and spoken about wildfire resilience, FireSmart practices, water conservation, resilient construction, insurance availability and the implications of increasingly frequent wildfire and extreme-weather events for property owners and communities. I have advocated for better preparedness, practical risk mitigation, responsible water management and development practices that recognize the Okanagan’s hotter, drier climate.

My approach is to focus on measures that produce demonstrable results. At the municipal level, that means concentrating on areas where local government can make a meaningful difference, including land-use planning, transportation, infrastructure, urban forestry, water management, emergency preparedness and the performance of municipal buildings and assets.

I also believe environmental policy should be evaluated alongside affordability, economic competitiveness and fiscal responsibility. Effective climate action should reduce risk and emissions without losing sight of housing costs, infrastructure capacity or the financial burden placed on residents and businesses.

Personally, I try to reduce unnecessary energy and resource consumption, while recognizing that durable progress depends on sound policy, innovation, responsible investment and cooperation among governments, businesses and residents.

I support moving toward higher-performing, lower-emission buildings, but the pace of adopting higher Zero Carbon Step Code requirements should be informed by construction costs, housing affordability, industry readiness and provincial standards.

Kelowna has already completed an industry-readiness review and is examining accelerated adoption. I would expect Council to consider that evidence before establishing the next implementation schedule, particularly at a time when housing construction costs and project viability remain significant concerns.

Building resilience also requires more than reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In Kelowna’s hotter, drier climate, new buildings should be designed to remain safe and comfortable during extreme heat while minimizing energy demand. Measures can include efficient heat pumps, improved insulation and airtightness, appropriate glazing and exterior shading, passive cooling, effective ventilation, reflective materials, landscaping and tree canopy where suitable.

For existing buildings, I would support removing unnecessary barriers to energy-efficiency upgrades and making residents and building owners aware of available provincial, federal and utility incentive programs before creating additional municipal subsidies.

The objective should be measurable performance: lower energy consumption and emissions, greater resilience to extreme heat, reasonable operating costs and healthier buildings. Any new municipal requirement should also be evaluated for its effect on construction costs, housing supply and affordability so that environmental progress and housing objectives reinforce rather than undermine one another.

I support protecting mature trees where practical and expanding Kelowna’s urban tree canopy, particularly in neighbourhoods, streets and public spaces where shade will provide the greatest benefit.

Kelowna already has a Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy and established canopy targets. I would focus on implementing those commitments and measuring results rather than creating policies that simply count how many trees are planted.

On public land, priorities should include shade along sidewalks, transit stops, parks, schools and other heavily used public spaces. Mature trees should be retained where feasible during road, park and infrastructure projects, with appropriate replacement when removal is unavoidable.

On private land, development approvals should encourage retention of significant healthy trees, adequate soil volumes for new trees, and replacement planting appropriate to each site. However, tree-protection requirements should also consider housing objectives, property rights, wildfire risk and reasonable development economics rather than imposing a single rule everywhere.

Species selection is equally important. Kelowna’s dry climate requires drought-tolerant, pest-resistant and FireSmart trees, with preference for suitable native species where appropriate. The objective should be the right tree in the right location, supported by sufficient soil, water and long-term maintenance.

I would also support continuing programs that help residents, stratas and community organizations plant appropriate trees on private property, while directing resources toward areas with low canopy and high heat exposure.

Over the next four years, I would focus transportation investment on moving more people safely, reliably and efficiently, while reducing congestion and unnecessary emissions.

Kelowna already has a Transportation Master Plan that calls for increased transit ridership, more cycling and walking, and reduced vehicle kilometres travelled. I would prioritize implementation where there is demonstrated demand and measurable public benefit.

For transit, that means working with BC Transit and regional partners to improve frequency, reliability and connections on the busiest corridors, particularly between major employment areas, UBCO, downtown, Rutland, the hospital and growing residential areas. Transit investment should be measured by ridership, service reliability, passengers per service hour and cost per rider.

For walking and cycling, I support completing gaps in the existing network, improving intersections and pedestrian safety, and creating practical connections to schools, employment, transit and commercial areas. Investments should focus on connected networks rather than isolated projects.

Land-use planning is equally important. Locating more housing near jobs, services and frequent transit can reduce trip distances without restricting people’s transportation choices.

I would also support continued expansion of EV charging where there is a demonstrated public need and where municipal investment complements rather than replaces private-sector infrastructure.

The objective should be a balanced transportation system that improves mobility, safety and accessibility while reducing emissions and delivering measurable value for taxpayers.

I support increasing the diversion of food and organic waste from the landfill, but I would not simply revive the previous curbside proposal without addressing the reasons it did not proceed.

The recent regional program raised legitimate concerns about cost, economies of scale and the exclusion of multifamily housing. A successful program should serve the whole community, provide measurable environmental benefits and represent reasonable value for taxpayers.

I would ask the City and RDCO to accelerate the next phase of analysis rather than waiting until 2030, examining collection options for single-family, multifamily, commercial and institutional users together. The business case should identify capital and operating costs, processing capacity, expected participation, landfill-life benefits, greenhouse-gas reductions and the cost per tonne diverted.

Kelowna already composts substantial quantities of organic material at Glenmore Landfill, so the question is how best to expand food-waste diversion using existing infrastructure where practical and determining what additional processing capacity is genuinely required.

I would also examine phased implementation or pilot programs before committing to major capital expenditures. If the evidence demonstrates that an expanded regional system can materially reduce waste and emissions at a reasonable lifecycle cost, I would support moving it forward.

The objective should be effective waste diversion, not simply introducing another collection program. Results, costs and environmental benefits should all be measurable and publicly reported.

I would focus on two practical climate priorities where municipal action can produce measurable results: wildfire resilience and water security.

First, I would strengthen Kelowna’s wildfire resilience by accelerating FireSmart initiatives, fuel management in priority interface areas, emergency access and evacuation planning, and protection of critical municipal infrastructure. Within four years, residents should be able to see measurable progress through the number of high-risk areas treated, neighbourhoods participating in FireSmart programs, critical infrastructure assessed and protected, and priority evacuation and emergency-response plans completed. Progress should be reported publicly each year.

Second, I would focus on implementing Kelowna’s existing Water Security Plan. In a semi-arid community facing hotter, drier summers and continued population growth, conserving and managing water effectively is both an environmental and infrastructure priority. I would support better measurement of water use, efficient irrigation, reduction of unnecessary potable-water consumption, infrastructure improvements and greater coordination among local water providers.

Within four years, residents should expect clear reporting on per-capita water consumption, peak summer demand, infrastructure improvements, water-loss reduction and progress toward more resilient water supplies.

My approach would be to establish baselines, identify achievable four-year targets, measure outcomes annually and report the results publicly. Climate policy should ultimately be judged by demonstrated reductions in risk, resource consumption and long-term costs, not simply by the number of programs announced.