In September 2023, I warned Council that approving a plan that ends in 2026 would put the Township in exactly the position it is in now — an election year, no plan in sight, and no public discussion of what comes next. That warning is in the public record. So is the silence that followed.
"Does the Council plan to begin the process for the next Strategic Plan again in just over 2 years during an election year (2026), or are we forcing the new Council to scramble or operate without a plan in their first year of office to guide them? If a similar October timeframe for approving were to happen, a new Strategic Plan would be approved mere weeks before a new council were to be elected. This feels like a poorly planned end date."Chris Johnston, public submission to Council, September 19, 2023
It is now Mid-2026. The 2023–2026 Strategic Plan expires this year. The municipal election is October 2026. There is no public record of any motion, resolution, or discussion to begin a new planning process.
North Bay has a 10-year strategic plan. Callander looks 20 years out. Nipissing Township is on its second consecutive plan that barely covers one Council term — and no one at the table appears to be asking what comes next.
A five-year plan is adopted — the minimum planning horizon for a municipality this size.
The community engagement process for the new plan consists of one town hall. No meeting agenda was circulated in advance, no public survey was conducted, and no brainstorming framework was used. The session was led by a third-party facilitator reading from the existing plan and asking what residents thought.
Between the July 4 town hall and September 19, Council dedicated 1 minute and 36 seconds to public discussion of the strategic plan. A 9-page written submission raising structural concerns was submitted the same day.
The 2023–2026 Strategic Plan is approved by Resolution R2023-208. By the date of approval, the plan was already nearly one-fifth complete. The previous plan still had runway remaining. The new plan adds only two genuinely new years — 2025 and 2026.
The plan does not appear to have been referenced or cited in major Council decisions — including the software replacement, the organizational restructuring, or the landfill card system. A strategic plan that does not guide decisions is a document, not a strategy.
The plan expires in an election year. No public discussion of a successor plan has appeared in the record. The pattern predicted in 2023 is unfolding exactly as described.
At the time of approval, 18.75% of the 2023–2026 planning period had already elapsed. Planning is supposed to be about the future. A plan approved with a fifth of its timeline behind it is not a strategic document — it is a retrospective with a short runway.
One scripted town hall with no advance agenda, no public survey, and no brainstorming framework does not constitute meaningful community engagement. The result is a plan shaped almost entirely by staff, with community input reduced to reacting to a document rather than shaping it.
Without a clear numbering convention and defined actionable vs. passive goals, there is no practical way to report on what has been achieved, what is in progress, and what has been deferred. A plan you cannot measure is a plan you cannot be held accountable to.
The submission asked explicitly: will Council start a new plan during the 2026 election year, or force the incoming Council to scramble without one? That question has not been answered. We are now in 2026.
The five-year plan this process replaced — before it had fully run its course.
Open 2019–2024 plan →Approved with 18.75% of its own timeline already elapsed. Expires in an election year with no successor plan in sight.
Open 2023–2026 plan →Written before holding any office. Identifies six structural problems with the plan and process, predicts the 2026 election-year planning gap, and recommends a 2025–2035 plan instead. Every concern raised has since proven accurate.
Open my submission →A strategic plan should cover 5–10 years — not just edge up against the next election. North Bay plans 10 years out. Callander plans 20. Nipissing should at minimum see beyond a single Council term.
The plan should be ready early enough to guide the Council's major decisions, with hiring, procurement, and capital choices tied back to it explicitly. A plan that is never cited in decisions is not doing real work.
Goals should be numbered, categorized as actionable or ongoing, and reported against annually. If Council cannot point to a goal number when making a major decision, the plan is not functioning as a strategy.
One scripted town hall is not community engagement. A proper process involves surveys, working groups, and multiple touchpoints before a draft is written — not after it is nearly finished.
Every concern raised in 2023 was documented, submitted, and ignored. The Township is now in exactly the position that was predicted. That is not bad luck — it is what happens when planning is treated as a checkbox rather than a commitment.