At the beginning of this Council term, members signed a pledge to govern with transparency, responsibility, and accountability, and to build public trust.

That commitment matters.

I reviewed By-law 102-22 regarding Council remuneration. The original by-law stated that Council remuneration would increase by 1.70 percent effective January 1, 2022.

Later, on November 22, 2023, under Item 19.3, Council amended that wording so the 1.70 percent increase was effective January 1, 2023, and added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

In simple terms, the amendment did two things: it corrected the effective date of the 1.70 percent increase from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023, and it added a further 2 percent increase effective January 1, 2024.

The amendment was carried unanimously in open session, after arising from a closed session item related to labour relations.

Mistakes can happen. I understand that. As an accountant, I’ve learned that it is not enough for something to appear correct. It must be accurate, factual, and clearly explained so residents can understand it.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that staff were wrong in treating the date correction as a technical amendment, or that staff failed in their duties. Staff work within the procedures, reports, and direction before them.

However, Council should hold itself to a higher standard than simply asking what is technically required.

However, the issue is not whether the amendment was approved in open session. It was.

The issue is how the change was communicated to residents.

From reviewing the Council meeting videos, the change was described as a “technical adjustment” to the by-law. However, there was no clear, plain-language explanation that the effective date was being corrected from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023.

For residents watching the meeting, this wording would not make it clear what was actually being changed.

On a matter involving Council remuneration, residents should not have to interpret technical language or review documents afterward to understand what changed.

Transparency should mean more than recording a correction. It should mean clearly explaining the correction to residents.

This raises a fair question:

Did Council meet the standard of transparency, responsibility, and accountability that it pledged to uphold?

Residents deserve clear communication, especially when decisions involve public funds and Council compensation. Accountability is not just about following procedure. It is about ensuring residents can clearly see what changed, why it changed, and how decisions are made on their behalf.

Richmond Hill residents expect City Hall to focus on local priorities: roads, infrastructure, community safety, planning, and reliable services.

Over the past few years, Council has also spent time debating and passing motions on matters that fall outside municipal jurisdiction, including provincial and federal issues.

These motions may be well-intentioned, but they do not produce direct results for Richmond Hill residents.

They still require staff time, agenda time, research, and follow-up. That is not free. It takes time and resources away from the work residents rely on every day.

When families face rising costs, they focus on essentials and manage their budgets carefully. City Hall should do the same.

Before asking residents to pay more, the City should demonstrate stronger cost control, better discipline, and a clear focus on priorities that deliver real value.

Council should focus on what it can control and where it can produce measurable results for the community.

Good intentions matter. But results, accountability, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars matter more.

A consultant report warned that Richmond Hill may face property tax increases of 6 to 7 percent annually. That may not sound alarming at first, but when increases are repeated year after year and compounded over time, the burden becomes significant.

After only a few years, families are no longer dealing with a modest adjustment. They are facing a much higher cost of living, a heavier tax bill, and a City Hall that keeps asking for more.

That should concern every homeowner, senior on a fixed income, young family, and small business in Richmond Hill.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The City says this is about planning for the future. I agree that we must invest in core infrastructure, maintain public assets, and prepare for growth. But fiscal responsibility means making hard choices. It means setting priorities. And it means recognizing that residents are not a limitless source of revenue.

The City’s own Financial Master Plan makes this clear. It states that the current capital forecast is not sustainable at its present scale and that reducing the size of the capital program would be necessary to lower tax increases and reduce the need for debt.

That is the real issue.

A city cannot keep approving more and more commitments without considering what taxpayers can realistically support. Leadership means knowing the difference between what is necessary and what is simply desirable. Government cannot try to do everything at once.

The bigger risk is overextension. A city can be in a strong financial position today and still make choices that create long-term pressure tomorrow. When too many projects and commitments are pursued at the same time without clear priorities, costs rise, discipline weakens, and taxpayers are left carrying the burden.

Richmond Hill must stay focused on what matters most: roads, public safety, infrastructure repair, reliable city services, and smart planning. These are the essentials residents depend on, and these are the priorities City Hall must protect first.

The good news is that Richmond Hill is in a strong financial position today. That strength should be protected. It should not become an excuse to overextend, overpromise, and overtax.

We also need to be honest about who carries the burden. Richmond Hill relies heavily on homeowners for property tax revenue. When spending grows too quickly, it is residents who are expected to absorb the cost. They should not be treated as a limitless source of revenue every budget season.

I do not believe that is acceptable.

My approach is simple. Before asking families for more, City Hall must prove that every dollar is being spent wisely. Before taking on new commitments, Council must show they are necessary. Before expanding the wish list, we must protect the basics.

Fiscal responsibility is not about saying no to progress. It is about saying yes to the right priorities. It is about discipline, restraint, and respect for taxpayers.

Richmond Hill deserves leadership that is focused, responsible, and accountable. We need a City Hall that knows what matters, spends carefully, and never forgets who pays the bills. If elected, I will fight for responsible spending, disciplined priorities, and respect for every taxpayer dollar.

Richmond Hill residents do not expect perfection from City Hall. But they do expect common sense.

Before asking families, seniors, and small businesses to pay more in property taxes, the City should prove it is focused on the basics first. That means safe roads, reliable public services, public safety, and infrastructure kept in good repair.

This should not be controversial. It should be the standard.

When families face rising costs, they do not keep spending as usual. They cut back, focus on essentials, and make careful choices.

City Hall should do the same.

Before raising taxes, the City must show that non-essential spending has been reviewed, priorities are clear, and every dollar is being used responsibly.

The issue is not just whether the City spends money. The issue is whether the City is spending on the right things, in the right order, at the right time.

The current ten-year capital forecast is beyond the City’s financial capacity at its present scale. The pressure comes from the size of the overall capital plan, which goes well beyond current and historical spending levels. That is exactly why Richmond Hill needs a basics-first approach.

When families face rising costs, they make choices. They protect essentials first. They pay the mortgage, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and fix what cannot be ignored. City Hall should think the same way.

Richmond Hill has many responsibilities. The City delivers fire and emergency services, roads, snow clearing, waste management, infrastructure repair and replacement, planning, by-law services, parks, recreation, and more. But when financial pressure grows, leadership means distinguishing between what is necessary right now and what can wait.

That means fixing what residents rely on every day before expanding the wish list.

It means protecting roads and transportation, public safety, infrastructure repair, and dependable local services before moving ahead with projects that may be desirable but are not urgent.

It means being honest that every dollar has a cost and every new commitment eventually lands on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Richmond Hill is in a strong fiscal position today, and that is good news. But a strong position is something to protect, not something to take for granted. Good finances are built with discipline, and discipline starts with priorities.

Responsible government requires sequencing, restraint, and focus. It is not about saying no to progress. It is about making sure progress happens in the right order and at a pace residents can afford.

My view is simple.

Before City Hall asks residents for more, it should show residents that the basics come first.

Before adding new commitments, it should prove that core services are protected.

Before expanding spending, it should demonstrate that every major project has been tested against affordability, necessity, and long-term value.

Residents are not asking for everything at once. They are asking for a City that works, a budget that makes sense, and a Council that knows the difference between priority and excess.

That is the approach I believe Richmond Hill needs. If you believe City Hall should focus on the basics first, protect core services, and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill is a great place to live, but growth should do more than add buildings. It should help create better places for residents, families, and local businesses.

Too many residents feel that Richmond Hill lacks welcoming places to gather, enjoy a walk, meet friends, or spend time together as a community.

People want destinations. They want places to eat, relax, stroll, support local businesses, and enjoy local life. They want areas where people stay a little longer instead of simply driving through.

When residents point to places like Markham Main Street or Newmarket Main Street, they are not saying Richmond Hill should copy another city. They are saying Richmond Hill should create more great places of its own.

That is a fair expectation.

Residents do not just want more development. They want better development.

Too often, development is measured by numbers alone: how many units, how many floors, and how much density. But residents experience growth through traffic, streetscapes, local businesses, public spaces, and whether there are places nearby that feel worth visiting.

That is why responsible planning must be about more than approving buildings. It must be about building community.

Richmond Hill should support walkable destinations, street-level activity, local restaurants, public gathering spaces, and attractive areas that bring people together.

That does not happen by accident. It happens when Council has a vision and expects development to contribute to community life, not just add more pressure.

Richmond Hill should be a place where you can meet family for dinner, enjoy a coffee, take an evening walk, support a local business, and feel proud of the community around you.

We should not settle for growth that only adds density.

We should push for growth that creates better places.

That means supporting local business, encouraging welcoming public spaces, and planning neighbourhoods that are not only functional, but vibrant, walkable, and connected.

Richmond Hill does not need to become another city. It needs to become the best version of itself.

If you believe Richmond Hill should grow in a way that creates better places, stronger local business, and a more vibrant community, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Residents deserve to feel safe in their own neighbourhood.

That should never be up for debate.

Richmond Hill is a caring community. We believe young people facing crisis, addiction, homelessness, or instability need help and support. Compassion matters. But compassion and public safety must go together. One should never come at the expense of the other.

In recent months, many residents have raised serious concerns about safety around the youth centre area. They have spoken about used needles, drug activity, trespassing, petty crime, loitering, and a growing sense that the surrounding neighbourhood is being asked to accept conditions that should never become normal.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

They should not be minimized.

And they should not be brushed aside as the price of helping vulnerable people.

A caring city does not choose between compassion and safety.

It delivers both.

Residents have every right to expect clean parks, safe sidewalks, secure homes, and peace of mind in the communities where they live. Families should not have to worry about what their children might find on the ground. Seniors should not feel uneasy walking in their own neighbourhood. Homeowners and nearby residents should not feel like their concerns are being ignored.

At the same time, young people in need deserve support that is structured, responsible, and managed in a way that protects both clients and the surrounding community.

This is why Richmond Hill needs answers.

What safety measures are currently in place around the facility and surrounding area?

What coordination exists between service providers, York Regional Police, City staff, and local residents?

What reporting process should residents use when they encounter used needles, trespassing, suspicious activity, or disorder?

What improvements can be made right now to address the impact on the neighbourhood?

And how will the public know whether the situation is getting better?

These are reasonable questions.

They are not attacks.

They are the kinds of questions responsible leadership should be asking.

Too often, residents feel they are left with frustration but no information. They are told to be patient, told to be understanding, or told that someone else is responsible. But leadership means stepping in, demanding clarity, and making sure community concerns are taken seriously.

My position is simple.

Supporting vulnerable youth matters.

So does protecting neighbourhood safety.

The people living near this area should not be made to feel invisible. Their concerns are real. Their quality of life matters. And their right to safety matters.

We need more transparency, better communication, and clear accountability from all parties involved.

We need practical action, not vague assurances.

Given the ongoing concerns raised by nearby residents, the City should review whether the current location, operating model, safety measures, and neighbourhood supports are working as intended.

This does not mean turning our backs on vulnerable youth. It means making sure support services are delivered responsibly, with proper safeguards for both the people using the service and the surrounding community.

If the current arrangement is creating repeated safety concerns for residents, then City Hall has a responsibility to ask whether changes are needed.

That means stronger coordination, faster response to neighbourhood concerns, clear cleanup protocols, public communication, and measurable steps to improve safety and confidence in the area.

A good community is one that shows compassion.

A strong community is one that shows compassion and responsibility at the same time.

Richmond Hill residents should not be forced to choose between compassion and safety. They deserve both. That is exactly what I believe City Hall should fight for, and if you believe in a safer, more compassionate, and more accountable Richmond Hill, I would be honoured to earn your support.

Richmond Hill should take a serious look at whether its current two-step council meeting process is still the best use of time and resources.

Committee of the Whole is supposed to be where the main discussion, debate, and review take place before matters move to Council for formal approval. That structure may have a purpose. But if most of the substantive discussion is already happening at Committee of the Whole, and the Council meetings that follow are often very short and largely procedural, then it is fair to ask whether the current process is creating duplication without enough added value.

Many Council meetings wrap up in about an hour, but that total includes procedural items such as the anthem, announcements, agenda approval, statutory declarations, and other formalities. As a result, the time spent on actual Council debate is often far less than an hour, sometimes only 20 to 30 minutes. When that is the case, residents are entitled to ask whether the staff preparation, administrative support, and public resources required for a separate formal meeting are being used efficiently.

If the substantive discussion has already taken place at Committee of the Whole, then a follow-up Council meeting devoted mostly to confirmation and procedure may not be the best use of City Hall’s time or taxpayer resources.

Every additional step in government comes with a cost: staff preparation, administrative support, agenda management, and more time spent moving the same matter from one stage to another. That may be justified when it clearly improves scrutiny, transparency, or decision-making. But if the second meeting is often limited to formal confirmation after the real debate has already taken place, residents are right to ask whether there is a more efficient way.

Good governance is not about how many meetings are held. It is about whether decisions are made carefully, transparently, and efficiently.

Families and businesses are expected to value time, avoid duplication, and use resources wisely. City Hall should do the same. When a process results in one meeting for the real discussion and another meeting that is often much shorter and focused largely on procedure, it is reasonable to review whether the structure still makes sense in practice.

This is not an argument against accountability or public debate. Those are essential. Residents deserve open discussion and careful decision-making. But they also deserve a system that respects staff time, respects taxpayer resources, and avoids unnecessary layers wherever possible.

If Richmond Hill can maintain transparency and accountability while streamlining its two-step Council meeting process, then that option should be on the table.

Government should not be more complicated than it needs to be. It should be effective, understandable, and respectful of the people who pay for it.

Richmond Hill should always be open to reviewing its processes and asking a simple question: does this structure still serve residents well, or is it time to consider a more efficient approach?

This same principle should apply more broadly. Council should focus its time on matters where the City has real authority and where decisions can produce real results for residents.

This does not mean Council should ignore serious issues such as hate, discrimination, or public safety. Those issues matter deeply. But Council should be careful to focus on actions within municipal authority, while urging the appropriate federal, provincial, regional, and policing bodies to take action.

When motions are primarily symbolic or directed at matters outside municipal jurisdiction, they may still be well-intentioned, but they consume staff time, agenda time, research, and follow-up. That is not free. If City Hall wants residents to accept higher costs, it should first show that it is reducing unnecessary process, avoiding duplication, and focusing on work that directly serves Richmond Hill.

A councillor’s role is not just to attend meetings and approve motions. It is also to think critically about how City Hall operates, identify where processes are outdated or duplicative, and look for ways to use staff time and taxpayer resources more wisely. I believe it is time for change, and if elected, I would propose eliminating Committee of the Whole to create a more efficient, accountable, and cost-effective Council process.