Sigmund Lee

Richmond Hill’s operating budget has grown significantly in recent years. That does not automatically mean every increase is wrong, but it does mean residents deserve a clear explanation of what changed, why it changed and how it is being paid for.

This is not about attacking City services.

Residents rely on roads, parks, libraries, fire services, recreation programs, by-law enforcement, planning, customer service and infrastructure maintenance. These services matter.

But supporting City services does not mean avoiding hard questions.

Responsible spending requires asking tough questions before today’s budget pressure becomes tomorrow’s tax problem.

The Five-Year Operating Budget View

Before discussing tax rates, explanations, inflation, service levels or reserve funds, residents should be able to see the absolute budget numbers clearly.

All figures below are drawn from, or calculated from, the City’s published budgets and Financial Master Plan. Sources are listed at the end.

The public figures I found show Richmond Hill’s operating budget moving from about $189 million in 2022 to $257.9 million in 2026.

That is an increase of about $68.8 million over five budget years, or roughly 36%.

There is also useful context from 2021. The 2021 operating budget was about $184.1 million. Compared with the 2026 figure of $257.9 million, that is an increase of about $73.8 million, or roughly 40%.

Why the 2024 to 2025 Number Needs Care

The largest concern residents may notice is the apparent move from about $212 million in 2024 to about $245 million in 2025.

That looks like an increase of about $33 million.

But there is an important accounting and presentation question: are residents comparing the same budget categories on the same basis?

The 2025 Budget Book appears to present the 2024 comparison differently. In that table, 2024 total operating expenditures are shown at about $226.5 million and 2025 total operating expenditures are shown at about $245.3 million.

On that same-basis comparison inside the 2025 Budget Book, the increase in total operating expenditures is about $18.8 million, not $33 million.

That difference matters.

I am not drawing a conclusion from the headline number alone. I am saying the headline number is large enough, and the presentation difference is important enough, that residents deserve a clear reconciliation.

What Changed Inside the 2025 Budget

The 2025 Budget Book identifies a 2025 operating-budget tax levy increase of about $4.30 million, equal to a 3.19% tax rate increase. It breaks that tax levy increase into the following budget pressures:

That $4.30 million tax levy increase is not the same as the gross increase in total operating expenditures. That is why residents need to see both the spending side and the funding side.

The Funding Side Matters

A budget can grow by one amount on the expenditure side, while the tax levy changes by a different amount because user fees, fines, grants, investment income, other funds and reserves also change.

The 2025 Budget Book’s operating-budget table shows several important changes between the 2024 budget and the 2025 budget:

The numbers above are presented as positive amounts for readability, even though budget tables often show revenues as offsets.

This is where the reserve question becomes important.

The 2025 Budget Book explains that the operating budget is funded through property taxation, user fees and fines, and transfers from reserves and other funds. It also shows that, in this 2024 to 2025 comparison, the amount coming from reserves and reserve funds decreased.

That does not end the question. It sharpens the question.

Residents should still ask what each funding source is paying for, whether any reserve-funded items are one-time or ongoing, and whether the City is relying on any temporary sources to reduce the immediate tax impact.

Projects, Staffing and Ongoing Costs

The operating-budget increase should not be judged by the headline number alone.

Some increases may be reasonable or necessary. Costs can rise because of inflation, labour agreements, contract pricing, insurance, utilities, software, legislated requirements, population growth, service demands, infrastructure maintenance, new facilities or Council-approved service improvements.

But those reasons should be shown clearly.

The 2025 Budget Book identifies several items residents should look at carefully, including:

• Nine new full-time staff requests;
• Five contract-to-full-time conversions;
• The full-year impact of 11 new full-time staff requests approved in a prior year;
• Staff resources related to housing legislation;
• The multi-year phase-in of the Public Works Enhancement Program;
• The addition of 16 firefighters approved in previous years’ budgets;
• One-time reviews or plans funded from reserves, reserve funds or other funds; and
• Other growth-related costs, including software, hardware, waste management, streetlight hydro, maintenance contracts, parks events, encampment cleanup, signs, pavement markings and new programming.

Again, some of these costs may be justified. The question is whether residents can clearly see which ones are permanent, which ones are temporary, which ones are multi-year phase-ins and which ones have a defined end date.

The Financial Master Plan Raises the Stakes

The operating budget should also be viewed beside the City’s longer-term Financial Master Plan.

That plan says Richmond Hill is currently in a strong financial position, but it also says the current 10-year capital forecast is beyond the City’s financial capacity.

The plan projects average annual City tax levy increases of about 7.4% from 2027 to 2031, and about 6.0% annually over the longer period to 2035. Those are City portion numbers, not the total property tax bill including the Region and school boards.

The plan also says significant debt financing has been introduced into the model to manage tax rate spikes while maintaining adequate reserve balances.

This is exactly why residents need a clear public explanation.

Debt is not automatically wrong. It can be appropriate for long-life infrastructure, especially when future residents will benefit from the asset.

But borrowing should not be used to make today’s budget look easier without showing tomorrow’s repayment schedule.

If Richmond Hill is using debt, reserves, higher fees, CAS levy increases and project deferrals to manage affordability, residents should see the full plan in plain language.

Questions Residents Should Ask

The concern is not that every increase is automatically wrong. The concern is whether residents can clearly see which increases are temporary, which are permanent, which are required, which are discretionary and which are being supported by recurring or non-recurring funding.

My View

I believe Richmond Hill residents deserve a clearer public explanation of the operating-budget growth over the past several years.

The numbers show a substantial increase. The next step is to explain the drivers behind that increase in plain language.

Not just percentages. Not just tax-rate language. Not just high-level budget summaries.

Residents should be able to see the actual dollar increases, the reason for each major increase, whether the cost is temporary or permanent, whether it has a start date and end date, and whether it is funded by recurring revenue or by reserves and other non-recurring sources.

This is not anti-service. It is pro-accountability.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR A BETTER-RUN CITY

Good municipal government begins with understanding what municipal government is responsible for, what authority it has, and what it can realistically deliver.

Municipal government has an important job to do.

The Province of Ontario’s Municipal Councillor’s Guide describes a councillor’s role in three main ways: representative, policy-maker and steward. Those roles may overlap, but they point to the same basic responsibility: listen to residents, make sound municipal policy and ensure public resources are used carefully.

To me, that is what “staying in our lane” means.

Roads, parks, planning, infrastructure, recreation, local services and the day-to-day issues affecting residents are areas where City Council can make a direct difference.

It also means understanding where responsibility rests with York Region, the Province, the federal government or another public body.

Municipal responsibilities also do not stop neatly at Richmond Hill’s boundaries. York Region is responsible for important services and infrastructure that directly affect our city, and decisions made by neighbouring municipalities can affect us as well. Staying in our lane therefore does not mean working in isolation. It means understanding Richmond Hill’s role, working with our regional and municipal partners where responsibilities overlap, and being clear about who is responsible for delivering what.

Council will inevitably be asked to consider issues where the real authority rests somewhere else, where the City’s ability to produce a practical result is limited, or where the City could act but the benefit may not justify the resources required.

That does not mean the issue is unimportant. It means Council should understand its role before committing Council time, staff resources or taxpayers’ money.

There is nothing wrong with advocacy when an issue matters to Richmond Hill. Council can make Richmond Hill’s concerns known, but residents should be able to distinguish between asking another government to act and taking action that the City itself can deliver. Where responsibilities are shared, Council should understand exactly what Richmond Hill’s part is.

Three matters that came before Council show how these questions arise in practice.

Those questions should not be answered by Council in isolation. Good decision-making also means listening to the residents, businesses and community organizations affected by a decision. Consultation should happen early enough to help shape the decision, not simply after the direction has already been determined.

When We Can Advocate but Not Deliver

Highway 407

Traffic congestion affects Richmond Hill residents, businesses and local roads. It is clearly a local concern.

In March 2025, Richmond Hill Council considered a motion asking the Ontario government to conduct a feasibility study into buying back the Highway 407 lease. The motion also asked the Province to explore dedicated truck lanes and a one-year pilot involving toll relief for those lanes.

The important distinction is that the motion asked the Government of Ontario to take those actions. Richmond Hill itself could not conduct a provincial buyback, determine Highway 407 toll policy or implement those provincial measures.

That does not mean Council should remain silent. Council can advocate. It can explain how provincial transportation decisions affect Richmond Hill, provide information, pass resolutions and work with neighbouring municipalities.

A problem can affect Richmond Hill without Richmond Hill having the authority to deliver the solution.

Staying in our lane in this case does not mean ignoring traffic congestion. It means understanding who has the authority to act and directing our advocacy accordingly.

When We Control Part of the Answer

AED Registration

Few people would argue against making Automated External Defibrillators easier to locate during a medical emergency.

In November 2025, Council considered AED registration with AED Foundation Ontario.

The final municipal action distinguished between what Richmond Hill directly controlled and what it did not. City-owned properties and facilities equipped with AEDs were required to register them, while private businesses and community organizations were encouraged to register theirs.

That distinction matters. The City can require registration for AEDs in its own facilities. It does not have the same direct authority over private businesses or community organizations. For them, the City’s practical role is encouragement, education and cooperation rather than creating expectations it cannot meaningfully enforce.

The question here is where the City’s authority actually ends:

What part of the problem can Richmond Hill actually control?

Where the City has authority, use it. Where responsibility rests elsewhere, cooperate or advocate rather than unnecessarily duplicating that role.

A worthwhile objective does not automatically mean every level of government needs to create another layer of administration around it.

When We Can Act but Should Ask Whether It Is a Priority

Plant-Based Initiative

The third example is different.

In October 2025, Council considered a plant-based initiative. The final resolution dealt with plant-based food options at City meetings and events, encouraging options at community events, and exploring public awareness opportunities concerning plant-based food systems and diets.

These were actions the City could take, so the question here is not simply one of authority. It is a question of priority and proportionality.

Council will always be presented with worthwhile causes, interesting ideas and requests for municipal involvement. Many will have merit, but Council and staff have limited time and resources.

Before adding another initiative, communication program, study or area of activity, Council should ask what practical result is expected and whether the municipal effort is proportionate to that result.

Something can be within the City’s ability to do without necessarily being something the City needs to do.

Focus Is Also a Form of Accountability

Every decision has an opportunity cost. Council time spent on one issue is time that cannot be spent on another. Staff asked to research, report, communicate or administer one initiative have less time available for other work.

The same discipline should apply to spending.

Municipal budgets include funding for planned services and projects and may also include contingencies for unexpected needs. The existence of available money should never, by itself, become the justification for spending it.

“We have money available” is not the same as “this is a good use of taxpayers’ money.”

If an expenditure is unnecessary or does not provide sufficient value, the fact that money is available should not change that conclusion. Where money is not required, leaving it unspent preserves financial capacity and can help reduce future financial pressure.

The same principle applies to other municipal resources. City land has value. Staff time has value. Council time has value. Reserves and contingencies have value.

The fact that the City owns an asset, has staff available or has room within a budget does not answer the fundamental question:

Is this the best use of that resource for Richmond Hill residents?

That does not mean Council should never discuss broader issues or support worthwhile causes. It means elected officials should be disciplined about where they direct municipal resources.

Before asking staff to spend time researching or implementing an idea, Council should be able to explain what Richmond Hill can actually do with the answer.

Passing a resolution is not the same as solving a problem. Residents deserve to know the difference.

Representation is more than passing resolutions. It means understanding the responsibilities of municipal government, using municipal authority where it can produce results, advocating clearly where another body must act, and being responsible with the resources residents have entrusted to the City.

A councillor’s representative role, policy-making role and stewardship role should all point in the same direction: practical decisions, clear responsibility and careful use of public money, staff time and City resources.

Completing the Series

This is the final piece in my Practical Solutions for a Better-Run City series.

Part 1
looked at practical reform: fairer rules, proportionate costs and reducing unnecessary duplication.
Part 2
looked at listening to frontline employees, residents and businesses who understand how City processes actually work and experience them firsthand.
Part 3 is about making sure Council itself stays focused on what it can deliver and does not create unnecessary work or spending in the first place.

Taken together, these three ideas reflect how I would work as a councillor: represent residents honestly, make policy within the City’s authority, exercise stewardship over public resources, listen to the people affected by City decisions, work with other levels of government where responsibilities overlap, keep government lean and focused, keep processes as simple as possible, respect the knowledge and time of staff, and treat every taxpayer dollar as money entrusted to the City by residents.

Good municipal government does not need to make things more complicated than they need to be. It needs to know its responsibilities, listen to the people it serves, work effectively with other levels of government, set priorities, use its resources carefully and deliver results.

That is not less ambitious government.

It is focused government.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

Residents should not need to be accountants to understand major categories of City spending.

Richmond Hill’s audited financial statements report a broad expense category called contracted services.

In the City’s 2025 audited financial statements, contracted services were reported at $74.1 million in 2025 and $63.5 million in 2024.

That does not mean all of this spending was consulting. It does not mean the spending was unnecessary. It does not mean the money was wasted.

But it does raise a fair question: can residents see enough detail to understand what was contracted out, why it was needed, and whether some work could reasonably have been done in-house?

Contracted services can include many different things: specialized expertise, technical work, studies, outside reviews, service contracts, temporary support and other purchased services.

Some outside work may be necessary. Some may save money. Some may require expertise the City does not have internally.

That is exactly why clearer reporting matters.

When a major spending category is reported broadly, residents cannot easily see how much was spent on consulting-type work, how much was spent on recurring service contracts, which departments used outside support, and what results were delivered.

This is not an accusation. It is a request for clearer financial information.

What Residents Should Be Able to See

If elected, I would support clearer annual reporting on outside contracts and consulting-type work, including:

• how much was spent
• what type of work was contracted out
• which departments used outside support
• whether the work was one-time or recurring
• whether in-house capacity was considered
• what result, report, study or deliverable was received

This kind of reporting would help residents understand the numbers. It would also help Council ask better questions before approving future budgets.

This Can Help Staff Too

Clearer reporting is not about blaming staff.

In fact, it can help staff by showing where outside expertise is truly needed, where internal capacity may need to be strengthened, and where repeated contracted work may point to a larger staffing, training or process issue.

If the City regularly needs outside help for the same type of work, Council should understand why.

If outside work is more efficient, residents should be told that too.

The goal should be better information, better decisions and better value for taxpayers.

Why It Matters Now

Residents are already facing financial pressure through property taxes, water and wastewater rates, stormwater fees and user fees.

At the same time, Richmond Hill’s own long-term financial planning documents identify significant future tax and capital pressures.

When residents are asked to pay more, they deserve clear information about how public money is being used.

Good financial management starts with good information.

Not every outside contract is a problem. But every major category of spending should be understandable to the people paying the bill.

Have Your Say

Do you believe Richmond Hill should provide clearer reporting on contracted services and consulting-type work?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

This election should not be about personalities. It should be about the financial decisions Richmond Hill residents will face during the next term of Council.

My focus is simple: affordability, financial oversight and whether City Hall is prepared for the financial pressure already identified in its own reports.

Richmond Hill’s Financial Master Plan projects average annual City tax levy increases of 7.4% from 2027 to 2031 and 6.0% from 2027 to 2035.

After projected assessment growth, the equivalent real tax-rate increases average 5.4% over the first five years and 4.2% through 2035.

The report also states that the City’s 2027 to 2035 capital forecast represents spending at 1.8 times the 2026 capital budget and 3.6 times the City’s five-year historical annual capital expenditures, in constant 2026 dollars.

Most importantly, the report recognizes that the City’s capital forecast does not represent a sustainable level of spending.

Financial pressures of this size do not appear overnight. They develop over time through past budgets, capital plans, growth assumptions, infrastructure needs, provincial decisions and choices about priorities.

When financial pressures become known, responsible budgeting should adjust. That may mean phasing projects, rechecking priorities, reviewing service assumptions, protecting reserves and being clearer with residents about what can be afforded and when.

That is why the next Council must look forward honestly, not simply list what was approved in the past.

That is not a minor issue. That is the future.

The Regional Tax Pressure Also Matters

Richmond Hill residents do not only pay City taxes. They also pay York Region taxes through the same property tax bill.

York Region has identified almost $4.9 billion in financial pressures over the coming decade, including growth-related infrastructure requirements and reduced development-charge collections linked to provincial legislative changes.

That matters directly to Richmond Hill residents.

If York Region faces major financial pressure, Richmond Hill residents will feel it through the Regional portion of their property tax bill.

City pressure and Regional pressure do not arrive in separate household budgets. They arrive together.

A resident does not pay one bill as a Richmond Hill taxpayer and another bill as a York Region taxpayer. It is the same resident, the same home and the same family budget.

The Real Question

The real question is not simply what was approved in the past.

The real question is whether the next Council is prepared to manage what comes next.

• What must be done?
• What can wait?
• What will it cost?
• Who pays?
• What are the alternatives?
• What happens if City and Regional pressures both increase at the same time?

These are not abstract questions. They affect taxes, fees, reserves, debt, capital plans, service levels and long-term obligations.

Residents deserve more than broad statements about responsible management. They deserve clear priorities, complete financial information and Council members willing to ask difficult questions before decisions are made.

My Approach

As a CPA and FCA (Ireland), I believe financial oversight means looking at the full picture.

That includes City taxes, Regional taxes, stormwater fees, water and wastewater rates, user fees, infrastructure needs, capital spending, debt and future obligations.

It also means asking whether projects can be phased, whether priorities need to be reviewed, whether reserves are being used responsibly and whether residents are being told the full cost before decisions are locked in.

Richmond Hill does not need vague promises about affordability.

It needs practical financial oversight.

It needs Council members who understand numbers, ask questions and are prepared to look beyond the next headline or the next budget year.

The past can be debated. The financial future cannot be ignored.

Have Your Say

Do you believe Richmond Hill should make long-term financial pressure one of the central issues in this election?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

Richmond Hill will continue to grow, particularly along the Yonge Street corridor. The question is not simply how many residential units will be built. It is whether that growth will also create places where people can work, shop, obtain services and contribute to a stronger local economy.

Too often, mixed-use development means a residential building with a small amount of commercial space on the ground floor.

That may satisfy a planning requirement, but it does not necessarily create a meaningful employment destination or a vibrant commercial area.

I believe Richmond Hill should explore a stronger mixed-use incentive along appropriate sections of Yonge Street.

The Concept

The concept is straightforward.

A development that provides substantial, usable and protected commercial or employment space on its lower floors could qualify for additional residential height or density.

A building might include:

• Shops, restaurants and community-serving businesses on the ground floor;
• Offices, medical services, professional services, studios, education or co-working space on the second and third floors; and
• Residential units on the floors above.

In return for creating meaningful commercial and employment space, the development could be permitted additional residential floors, subject to infrastructure capacity, good planning and a proper financial analysis.

Growth Should Also Create Employment

Richmond Hill also has limited land remaining for new commercial and employment development. Once land is converted to predominantly residential use, it can be extremely difficult to recover that employment capacity later.

Using appropriate sites along Yonge Street more efficiently could help address that limitation. Instead of relying only on ground-floor retail, buildings could create commercial and employment space vertically on the lower floors, with residential units above.

This is one practical way to accommodate population growth while preserving and expanding space for businesses, services and local employment.

Richmond Hill needs housing, but a healthy city cannot consist only of places where people live.

It also needs places where people work, operate businesses, meet clients, obtain medical and professional services, and participate in community life.

Additional employment space along Yonge Street could support local businesses, create jobs closer to where people live and reduce the need for some residents to travel outside Richmond Hill for work or services.

It could also bring more people to the corridor throughout the day.

Residential buildings create activity during mornings and evenings. Offices and services create daytime activity. Restaurants, shops and community uses can extend that activity into evenings and weekends.

That combination can help produce a more active and economically resilient corridor.

The Space Must Be Genuinely Usable

The City should not permit additional height merely because a development labels several areas as commercial space.

The space must be designed for real businesses and organizations.

That means considering:

• Appropriate ceiling heights;
• Elevator and public access;
• Loading and delivery requirements;
• Ventilation and servicing;
• Visible and effective signage;
• Flexible floor layouts; and
• Accessibility for employees, customers and visitors.

A poorly designed commercial unit that remains vacant does not strengthen the local economy.

The objective should be to create space that businesses can realistically occupy and use.

Allow Different Employment Uses

The policy should permit a reasonable range of employment-generating uses.

Traditional offices may not be appropriate in every location or under every market condition. Medical offices, professional services, studios, educational uses, co-working facilities and community services may also provide valuable employment and activity.

The purpose should not be to create office floors simply to satisfy a requirement. The purpose should be to create flexible space that can support businesses, services and employment over the long term.

Additional Height Must Reflect the Public Benefit

Richmond Hill should not promise a fixed number of additional floors before completing the necessary planning and financial analysis.

The incentive must be large enough to make the additional commercial construction financially realistic, but it should not exceed the value of the benefit being provided.

The amount of additional height could depend on factors such as:

• The amount of commercial or employment space provided;
• The suitability and quality of that space;
• The location of the development;
• Available transportation and infrastructure capacity;
• The effect on surrounding neighbourhoods; and
• The length of time the space will be protected for non-residential use.

This should not become an informal negotiation in which every development receives a different deal.

The rules should be clear, measurable and established through the City’s Official Plan and zoning framework.

Protect the Commercial Space

If a developer receives additional residential height for providing commercial or employment space, that space should not be quickly converted into residential units afterward.

The City would need enforceable protections to preserve the non-residential space for its intended purpose.

The City should also monitor the results. It should track:

• Occupancy of the commercial and employment space;
• The types of businesses and services attracted;
• Employment created;
• How long spaces remain vacant; and
• Whether the incentive is producing the intended economic benefit.

If the policy creates empty commercial floors, it should be reconsidered.

If it produces successful businesses, employment and greater activity along Yonge Street, the City should consider where else the approach could work.

Not Every Location Will Be Appropriate

This approach should not automatically apply to every property along Yonge Street.

The City should identify locations where additional height can be supported by transit, water and wastewater capacity, roads, community facilities and appropriate transitions to surrounding neighbourhoods.

Good planning requires more than adding floors. It requires understanding whether the location can support the additional residents, workers, customers and service demands created by the development.

Plan for a Complete Community

This is not about opposing residential development. It is about getting more value from growth.

Every new development affects roads, water systems, parks, community facilities and City services. Where appropriate, growth should also help create employment, commercial activity and services for the residents who will live there.

Richmond Hill should explore a mixed-use incentive along appropriate sections of the Yonge Street corridor.

Developments that provide substantial, usable and protected commercial or employment space on the lower floors could qualify for additional residential height, subject to infrastructure capacity, good planning and a financial analysis.

Growth should not only add residents. It should also help create places for people to work, shop, obtain services and build a stronger Richmond Hill economy.

Have Your Say

Should Richmond Hill allow additional residential floors along appropriate sections of Yonge Street when a development provides substantial and protected commercial or employment space?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Sigmund Lee
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

The people who work with municipal systems every day often see unnecessary steps, repeated work and outdated procedures long before those problems reach Council.

Residents, contractors and local businesses also experience City processes firsthand. They may encounter confusing forms, duplicated requirements, inconsistent instructions or unnecessary delays.

If Richmond Hill wants to reduce red tape, it should listen to the people who administer the system and the people who must use it.

What Council May Not See

Richmond Hill’s frontline employees process applications, answer residents’ questions, maintain public facilities, administer programs and work directly with the City’s internal procedures.

They often know which forms create confusion, which approvals duplicate work, which processes cause avoidable delays and which small changes could save time and money.

Council generally receives formal staff reports, departmental recommendations and final proposals. Those are important, but they may not reveal every source of delay or unnecessary administrative work inside an organization.

A councillor may see the final report. A frontline employee may have spent weeks navigating the process that produced it.

That employee may know that information is being entered more than once, that two departments are performing similar reviews, or that a procedure created years ago no longer serves a useful purpose.

These may appear to be small problems individually, but repeated across a large municipal organization, they can consume staff time, delay services and increase costs.

A Confidential Frontline Red Tape Suggestion Box

I propose that Richmond Hill establish a confidential digital suggestion system allowing City employees to identify:

• Duplicated or unnecessary administrative steps;
• Outdated forms, policies or procedures;
• Processes that regularly cause delays or confusion;
• Opportunities to improve service delivery;
• Ways to reduce costs or make better use of staff time; and
• Practical improvements based on direct workplace experience.

Employees should be permitted to submit suggestions with their names or anonymously.

The purpose would not be to encourage personal complaints, bypass workplace responsibilities or interfere with the proper role of management. It would provide a structured channel for practical operational ideas that might otherwise never reach senior decision-makers.

Residents and Businesses Should Also Be Heard

City employees are not the only people who encounter unnecessary red tape. Residents, contractors and local businesses experience municipal processes from the other side.

They may be asked to provide the same information more than once, receive inconsistent instructions from different departments, encounter forms that are difficult to understand or wait unnecessarily for relatively simple decisions.

Richmond Hill should therefore provide a separate public channel where residents and businesses can identify:

• Duplicated application requirements;
• Confusing forms or instructions;
• Unnecessary administrative steps;
• Inconsistent information between departments;
• Avoidable delays in straightforward applications; and
• Practical ways to improve the customer experience.

This would not replace the City’s regular complaint, service-request or appeal processes. It would identify recurring administrative problems and opportunities for broader improvement.

Submissions from employees and the public should be reviewed together for common themes. If both groups repeatedly identify the same problem, that should be a strong signal that the process deserves attention.

Two Channels Serving One Purpose

The employee and public channels should remain separate because they serve different needs.

Employees require confidentiality and protection when identifying internal processes that may not be working effectively. Residents and businesses require an accessible way to explain what happened when they dealt with the City and suggest how the process could be improved.

Both channels would support the same objective: identifying practical ways to reduce unnecessary work, improve services and make better use of public resources.

Protect the Process and the Employees

A useful system requires clear safeguards.

• Employee participation should be voluntary;
• Anonymous employee submissions should be permitted;
• Employees should not face retaliation for making a good-faith suggestion;
• Personal grievances, allegations of misconduct and collective-agreement matters should continue through the appropriate existing processes;
• Public submissions should not replace service requests, complaints or legal appeal processes;
• Suggestions should be reviewed consistently and within a reasonable period; and
• Public reporting should not identify individual employees or disclose private personal information.

The initiative could be administered through the City Manager’s office so suggestions involving more than one department can be considered across the organization rather than remaining within a single administrative silo.

Measure the Results

A suggestion system should not become another place where ideas disappear.

The City Manager should provide Council with an annual public summary showing:

• The number of employee and public suggestions received;
• The general categories of issues raised;
• The number of suggestions reviewed and implemented;
• Examples of improvements made, without identifying employees or disclosing personal information;
• Recurring issues identified by both employees and the public; and
• Any measurable savings, reduced processing time or service improvements.

Not every suggestion will be practical, and not every suggestion should be implemented. Some procedures exist because of legislation, safety requirements, collective agreements or necessary financial controls.

But every reasonable suggestion deserves proper consideration and a system for determining whether it could improve how the City operates.

Respecting the Role of Staff

This proposal is not about councillors directing individual employees or becoming involved in day-to-day management.

Council establishes policy, approves budgets and holds the administration accountable for results. The City Manager and senior staff are responsible for managing employees and City operations.

Council’s role would be to establish the framework, require meaningful reporting and ensure that good ideas have a path to reach the people who can evaluate them.

Small Improvements Can Produce Large Results

Reducing red tape does not always require a major restructuring, an expensive consultant or a new technology platform.

Sometimes the person closest to a problem already knows a better way to do the work.

Frontline employees understand how City processes operate internally. Residents, contractors and businesses understand what those processes are like to use. Richmond Hill should learn from both perspectives.

Listening can help the City improve service, reduce frustration, save staff time and avoid unnecessary costs. It also shows respect for the knowledge and experience of the people who deliver municipal services and the people who depend on them.

If elected, I will ask Council to establish a Red Tape Reduction Initiative with two channels: a confidential suggestion process for frontline employees and a public process for residents and businesses. The initiative would include appropriate safeguards and annual public reporting on the results.

Good management is not only about giving instructions from the top. It is also about listening to the people who understand how the work is actually done and the people who experience the results.

Practical Solutions for a Better-Run City

• Part 1 – September 11:
  
  Practical Reform, Fair Pricing and Unnecessary Red Tape Removed
  
• Part 2 – September 18:
  
  Listening to Frontline Employees: What They See That Council May Not
  
• Part 3 – October 5:
  
  Stay in Our Lane: Focusing City Hall Where It Can Make a Difference
  

Scheduling note: Part 2 was originally scheduled for September 21. Its publication date was moved to September 18 in respect of Yom Kippur, which begins at sunset on September 20 and continues until nightfall on September 21.

Have Your Say

Should Richmond Hill create separate channels allowing frontline employees, residents and businesses to suggest practical ways to reduce red tape, improve services and save taxpayers’ money?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Sigmund Lee
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

During an election, candidates often talk about affordability, taxes and responsible spending. But residents deserve more than slogans. They deserve to understand the full bill they may be asked to carry.

Richmond Hill’s own Financial Master Plan has already identified serious long-term financial pressure.

As I wrote earlier in my commentary, The Past Can Be Debated. The Future Cannot Be Ignored, the plan projects average annual City tax levy increases of 7.4% from 2027 to 2031 and 6.0% from 2027 to 2035.

After accounting for projected assessment growth, the report identifies equivalent real tax-rate increases averaging 5.4% over the first five years and 4.2% through 2035.

These are forecasts, not tax increases already approved by Council. But they show the scale of the pressure facing Richmond Hill.

And property taxes are only part of the picture.

Residents may also face stormwater fees, user fees, infrastructure costs, service pressures and other charges connected to City decisions. Each item may be explained separately, but residents experience them together.

They are part of the full bill.

Stormwater management matters. Flooding, drainage, aging infrastructure and extreme weather are real issues. The City must plan responsibly for them.

But responsible planning also means being honest with residents about the cost, the timing, the alternatives and the total burden on households.

A property tax increase, a stormwater charge, a user fee or a new levy may appear on different lines, but they all come from the same household budget.

A tax increase by another name still affects the family budget.

That does not mean every fee is wrong. It means every fee must be justified clearly.

Before new costs are added, Council should be asking direct questions:

• What problem are we trying to solve?
• What is the full cost to residents?
• What are the alternatives?
• Can the work be phased in?
• What can be reviewed, delayed or prioritized differently?
• How will this affect seniors, renters, young families, small businesses and residents already stretched by the cost of living?

Residents should not have to decode City finances one line at a time.

Residents may hear that there is “a lot of work still left to do.” That may be true. But the next question matters more.

What work, at what cost, paid for by whom, and with what priority?

Work still left to do is not a blank cheque. Every project, program, fee and capital commitment has to be tested against the full financial pressure already facing residents.

If the City is facing major long-term financial pressure, that discussion should happen openly before decisions are locked in, not after residents receive the bill.

As a CPA and FCA (Ireland), I believe financial oversight means looking at the whole picture: taxes, fees, reserves, debt, capital plans, service levels and long-term obligations.

Richmond Hill does not need vague promises about affordability.

It needs clear priorities, complete financial information and Council members willing to ask difficult questions before voting.

Residents deserve to know the full bill before decisions are made.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

Recent public discussion has presented very different figures for how much Richmond Hill property taxes and water bills have increased. Historical comparisons can tell different stories depending on the assumptions used. The more important question is what Richmond Hill residents may be asked to pay in the future.

Historical calculations can change depending on:

• The starting and ending years selected;
• The type and assessed value of the property;
• Whether the calculation refers only to Richmond Hill’s portion or the entire property-tax bill;
• Whether annual increases are added or compounded;
• The amount of water consumed; and
• Whether water, wastewater and stormwater charges are examined separately or together.

That does not mean historical figures are unimportant. It means the assumptions and methods behind them should be explained clearly so residents can make an informed comparison.

But the bigger question is not who wins an argument about the past.

What will Richmond Hill residents be asked to pay in the future?

Richmond Hill’s own Financial Master Plan provides a serious warning.

The plan projects average annual City tax levy increases of 7.4% from 2027 to 2031 and 6.0% from 2027 to 2035.

A portion of those levy increases is expected to be supported by assessment growth from new development. After accounting for projected assessment growth, the report identifies equivalent real tax-rate increases averaging 5.4% over the first five years and 4.2% through 2035.

These are financial forecasts, not tax increases already approved by Council. The eventual outcome will depend on future budgets, assessment growth, capital priorities, debt decisions, service levels and other revenue.

However, the projections clearly show the scale of the financial pressure facing Richmond Hill if current plans continue.

The City’s present capital forecast is not sustainable.

The Financial Master Plan examines approximately $2.06 billion in capital expenditures between 2026 and 2035.

The report states that the City’s capital forecast does not represent a sustainable level of spending and that reducing the scale of the capital program will be necessary to limit future tax levy increases and reduce the need for debt.

The report also identifies several difficult choices:

• Nearly $380 million in debt financing would be required to maintain the current 1.5% annual Capital Asset Sustainability Levy while completing the present state-of-good-repair program;
• Without debt financing, an increase in the Capital Asset Sustainability Levy to approximately 7% would be required to fully fund that program;
• Without debt or other revenue, reserve funds could be depleted; and
• Some capital projects may need to be prioritized, reduced, phased or delayed beyond 2035.

The plan recommends considering a combination of higher dedicated capital funding, strategic debt financing and clearer prioritization of projects.

This financial pressure did not appear overnight.

It reflects infrastructure needs, financial pressures, commitments and decisions that have accumulated over many years.

That is why every new proposal, whether large or small, should answer basic questions before public money is committed:

• Is it an essential service or a discretionary project?
• Is it a clear priority for residents?
• Has the scope been properly defined?
• What is the complete capital cost?
• What will it cost to operate, maintain and eventually replace?
• What measurable benefit will residents receive?
• What financial risks or uncertainties remain?
• Which existing priority could be delayed or displaced?

A current example: the proposed pilot disc golf project.

Council is being asked to allocate $35,000 from the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund to a capital account for the operation of a pilot disc golf course.

The proposal now refers to a park other than Ada Mackenzie Park and provides an implementation period between 2027 and 2032.

Thirty-five thousand dollars will not determine Richmond Hill’s financial future. However, the decision-making principle matters.

The immediate discussion may focus on the initial $35,000 allocation. But responsible financial planning cannot stop at the amount required to begin a project.

Residents should also know whether the pilot will create costs in subsequent years for design, installation, staffing, maintenance, repairs, insurance, monitoring, public consultation, environmental work or eventual removal. If the pilot becomes permanent, Council should understand the full financial commitment before approving the first allocation.

Richmond Hill’s present financial pressure was not created by one project or one budget. It developed as individual commitments and future obligations accumulated over many years. Examining only the initial cost of each proposal, without accounting for what follows, risks continuing the same pattern.

If the proposed location, timing or other project parameters have changed, Council should ensure that the revised scope, need, complete costs, community impact and expected results are clearly established before funding is approved.

Using reserve money does not make a project free. Reserve funds are public resources collected or set aside for particular purposes. Every dollar committed to one project is a dollar that cannot be used for another eligible priority.

Financial discipline does not mean saying no to everything.

It means refusing to say yes until the important questions have been answered.

The skills needed around the Council table.

Being approachable, visible and responsive to residents is an important part of serving on Council. But Council is also responsible for governing a complex municipal organization, approving hundreds of millions of dollars in spending and making decisions with consequences that can last for decades.

Richmond Hill therefore needs a Council with a strong balance of community knowledge, sound judgment and relevant professional skills. At a time of growing financial pressure, financial expertise and the ability to critically examine budgets, forecasts, reserves, debt and long-term obligations are needed more than ever.

The role of leadership on Council.

Leadership on Council is not about being the only person making decisions. It is about presenting a clear and informed position, helping Council understand the financial and operational consequences of each choice, and asking important questions, even when those questions may be uncomfortable.

One councillor cannot guarantee an outcome. But one prepared and independent councillor can improve the discussion, challenge assumptions and help Council make a better decision for residents.

Richmond Hill’s financial challenges are becoming more complicated, and the decisions made during the next term of Council will affect taxpayers for many years.

Financial oversight is not merely a campaign slogan. It requires knowledge, experience, independent judgment and the willingness to ask difficult questions before voting.

As a CPA and FCA (Ireland) with more than 30 years of experience in finance, auditing, oversight and corporate restructuring, that is the experience and discipline I am prepared to bring to Richmond Hill Council.

Arguments about past numbers may continue. Richmond Hill’s future financial pressures still require action.

Residents deserve careful priorities, complete financial information and decisions they can afford.

Sigmund Lee, CPA, FCA (Ireland)
Candidate for Richmond Hill Council, Ward 2

Candidates should have a fair choice when deciding how to communicate with residents during a municipal election. Election-sign fees should reflect the type and scale of signs a candidate actually uses.

Richmond Hill candidates who use conventional election signs may also require separate permits and fees from the City of Richmond Hill and York Region.

I believe there is a practical and fairer approach.

Introduce tiered fees for conventional election signs and provide a free magnetic-only option.

A candidate running city-wide will generally have the ability to place signs across a much larger area than a candidate running in a single ward. The potential use of public space and the corresponding enforcement requirements are not the same.

The fee structure should recognize that difference.

I propose that Richmond Hill establish tiered conventional-sign fees based on the office being sought:

• Mayor and Regional Councillor candidates;
• Ward Councillor candidates; and
• School Board Trustee candidates.

This would provide fairer pricing while continuing to recover reasonable costs associated with administering and enforcing conventional election-sign rules.

A free magnetic-only option.

Candidates who use no conventional lawn or roadside election signs should be permitted to select a free magnetic-only option.

This option would apply to candidates who place only non-illuminated magnetic signs on vehicles being used for normal transportation.

Conventional signs may require monitoring, enforcement and removal from public or private property. A properly secured magnetic sign on a regularly used private vehicle creates little additional administrative or enforcement work for the City.

Candidates choosing the magnetic-only option should therefore not be required to pay the same permit fee as candidates using conventional signs throughout the community.

The rules can remain clear and enforceable.

To qualify for the free magnetic-only option:

• The candidate would declare that no conventional election signs will be used;
• Magnetic signs would have to be safely secured and non-illuminated;
• The vehicle would have to be used for normal transportation; and
• A vehicle could not be parked indefinitely for the primary purpose of functioning as a stationary campaign sign.

A candidate who later decides to use conventional signs would be required to obtain the appropriate permit and pay the applicable tiered fee.

Reduce duplication between Richmond Hill and York Region.

Election-sign requirements involving both municipal and regional roads can create separate applications, fees and administrative processes.

Richmond Hill cannot unilaterally change York Region’s requirements. However, Council can ask the Region to review its system and work toward a more coordinated approach.

Reducing unnecessary red tape was part of my 2022 campaign, and it remains an important part of how I believe Richmond Hill should operate.

If elected, I will bring this proposal before Council and request that Richmond Hill:

• Introduce tiered conventional-sign fees;
• Create a free magnetic-only option;
• Establish simple and enforceable eligibility rules; and
• Ask York Region to coordinate its requirements and reduce unnecessary duplication.

This proposal would apply equally to every future candidate. It would preserve appropriate election-sign rules while providing a fairer choice for candidates who use fewer municipal resources.

Practical reform, fair pricing and unnecessary red tape removed.

Yesterday, while I was speaking with a Ward 2 resident at their door, the resident told me they had read the September 3 YorkRegion.com article about my decision not to pay $618 in combined Richmond Hill and York Region fees for conventional election signs.

The resident asked whether I understood the consequences of campaigning without those signs.

That question stayed with me.

Yes, I do.

Election signs create visibility. They remind people that an election is taking place and help voters recognize a candidate’s name. Without conventional lawn and roadside signs, fewer residents may see my name during the campaign. That may affect the election result.

This is not an accidental consequence. It is a risk I have knowingly chosen to accept.

Principle should come before political convenience.

I believe voters need to understand how the current sign system affects candidates. Richmond Hill charges $308, and York Region charges another $310 for signs along Regional roads. A candidate wanting to use both systems must therefore pay $618 before printing, installing or removing a single sign.

The fees come at a time when candidates also have fewer places to display signs. That matters most to challengers. An incumbent has had four years to build public recognition. A new candidate may have only a few weeks to become known across an entire ward.

Fair access is a democratic issue.

At the municipal level, candidates must finance their campaigns through permitted contributions or personal funds, including contributions from a spouse, within the legal limits. Contributions to municipal candidates are not eligible for federal or provincial political tax credits. A municipality may establish its own separate contribution rebate program, but that is not automatic.

That means every additional mandatory cost matters, especially to an ordinary resident considering public service for the first time. Money paid in permit fees is money that cannot be used for flyers, accessible campaign material, a website or other ways of explaining ideas to voters.

A fair election does not guarantee every candidate equal resources or an equal result. It should, however, give every candidate a reasonable opportunity to be seen and heard.

Political expression and meaningful participation are fundamental to a healthy democracy. Adding financial and administrative burdens without demonstrating that they are necessary can make municipal elections less accessible to the ordinary residents we should be encouraging to participate.

The September 3 YorkRegion.com article reported that Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton, Ottawa, Barrie and Oshawa do not charge candidates campaign-sign fees. If those municipalities have chosen to regulate election signs and protect public safety without collecting an upfront permit fee from candidates, it is reasonable to ask why candidates using both systems in Richmond Hill face $618.

I could simply pay the fees, put up my old signs and avoid the risk. That would be the politically convenient choice. But if I only question a system when doing so is convenient for my own election, what would that say about how I would serve on Council?

If elected, I must be prepared to represent residents and make decisions based on what I believe is right for the community, not on what best protects my chances in the next election.

I am not asking voters to agree with every part of my decision. Voters can decide whether they want a councillor who follows the safest political path or one who is willing to question a system, accept the consequences and look for a practical alternative.

A bigger question about two levels of government.

Thinking about the issue again this morning led me to a broader question.

Richmond Hill is one local municipality within York Region. The City and the Region control different roads and have different responsibilities, so their work is not identical. However, from a candidate’s perspective, the result is still two sets of rules, two applications and two fees for the same basic activity of displaying election signs.

Could the two governments coordinate one application and one reasonable fee shared between them? Could the process be simplified while still protecting safety and controlling clutter?

Even within York Region, one fee structure is not inevitable. As reported by YorkRegion.com, Vaughan’s municipal sign fees vary according to the office being sought: $389 for mayoral and Regional councillor candidates, $195 for ward councillor candidates and $65 for school trustee candidates.

That approach at least recognizes that a ward campaign is different in scale from a city-wide campaign. Richmond Hill should consider whether its own fee structure fairly reflects those differences and whether a ward candidate should face the same local fee as a candidate campaigning across the entire city.

This may appear to be a small election-sign issue, but it raises a larger question about government efficiency. When two levels of municipal government regulate similar activities, residents deserve to know whether the processes are coordinated and whether any administrative duplication can be reduced.

Does every type of sign create the same public cost?

Richmond Hill has said its election-sign fee helps offset taxpayer costs for permit administration and the removal of illegal signs. York Region similarly says its fee covers permitting and enforcement costs.

Those costs can arise when conventional signs are installed beside roads, placed in prohibited locations, abandoned or left for staff to remove.

A magnetic campaign sign attached to a privately owned vehicle being used normally does not create the same issues. It has no stake, does not occupy a boulevard and would not ordinarily require City or Regional staff to collect it after the election.

This does not mean that safety rules should disappear. A sign should not obstruct a driver’s view or create a road hazard. But regulation and fees should reflect the actual risk and public cost involved.

If a privately displayed magnetic sign does not create the usual installation or roadside removal costs, it is reasonable to ask what municipal cost must be recovered.

The resident understood the choice.

The resident and I discussed both sides. There is a real campaign consequence to having fewer conventional signs. There is also a reason for taking the position.

I may or may not benefit politically from this decision. That is not the point.

Leadership is not only about choosing the safest route. Sometimes it means drawing attention to a problem, accepting the risk and trying a different solution.

Ultimately, voters can decide whether they want a councillor who will put principle before political convenience, think beyond the familiar approach and look for practical solutions.

#RichmondHillCouncil #Ward2 #FairElections

YorkRegion.com has published a story examining why Richmond Hill and York Region charge candidates a combined $618 to use both election-sign systems, while Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton, Ottawa, Barrie and Oshawa do not charge campaign-sign fees.

The story also looks at my decision not to pay the two fees and instead use magnetic campaign signs on vehicles during normal everyday use.

I appreciate reporter Mike Adler taking a closer look at the issue and including the City’s response. This is bigger than one candidate or one election. Election rules should protect safety and control clutter while giving incumbents and challengers a fair opportunity to reach voters.

Incumbents have four years to build public recognition. A new candidate may have only a few weeks to become known across an entire ward.

Read the full YorkRegion.com news article

Read my detailed background commentary below

Candidates who want to display election signs under both the Richmond Hill and York Region systems face two separate charges in 2026: $308 to the City and $310 to the Region. That is $618 before printing a single sign, buying a stake or arranging installation.

Election signs are often dismissed as campaign clutter. I do not support a free-for-all. Safety, sightlines, reasonable spacing and effective enforcement all matter.

But election signs also perform a public service. They tell residents that an election is taking place, identify who is running and give new or lesser-known candidates an affordable way to introduce themselves to voters.

The question is not whether election signs should be regulated. It is whether the rules control clutter fairly or make local elections less accessible to ordinary residents who want to serve their community.

I raised these concerns in 2023.

I first wrote to Richmond Hill Council on June 5, 2023, before it considered major changes to the election-sign rules. I said the clutter problem was largely caused by forcing many signs into small areas near Regional intersections. I proposed allowing signs along public boulevards with reasonable spacing, such as a distance between signs from the same candidate.

Following the June 7 Committee of the Whole meeting, I wrote to Council again on June 12. I described election signs as a public service and warned that broadly restricting affordable public visibility would affect non-incumbents most. Incumbents already have name recognition. New candidates generally do not have the same access to private lawns or the same ability to attract attention without spending more money.

At the June 14 Council meeting, my correspondence was formally received and the proposed election-sign amendments were referred back to staff for further consideration.

My position was not that candidates should be allowed to place signs anywhere. I asked Council to address the source of the problem through spacing, coordination and enforcement rather than broad restrictions.

During the June 7 debate, Mayor David West also acknowledged that election signs provide an important community value by letting residents know that an election is underway. When discussing the proposed restrictions, he said they “would also reduce the cost of signs to candidates.” He added that this was especially “important for a new candidate trying to get in for the first time.”

That was a reasonable objective. But public policy should be judged by its results.

I raised the same fairness issue publicly again in 2026.

On April 25, 2026, the Richmond Hill Liberal and YorkRegion.com published my letter, “Richmond Hill election sign rules favour incumbents by making it harder for new candidates to reach voters.” I argued that the City and Regional rules may appear neutral but, taken together, can favour incumbents by pushing campaign visibility onto private-property networks and a limited number of Regional intersections.

That published letter focused on fairness and meaningful access for lesser-known candidates. The current fees and the practical value of the available Ward 2 locations give us another reason to examine whether the system is working as intended.

What candidates face in 2026.

In my 2022 campaign, the Richmond Hill election-sign fee I paid was $273. The City’s fee is now $308.

Candidates who also want to place signs at permitted York Regional road intersections must pay York Region another $310. The current total for using both systems is therefore $618.

The fees are only part of the issue. Candidates are paying while receiving fewer opportunities to be seen.

Richmond Hill’s current rules generally limit election signs to campaign offices and private property with the owner’s consent. Open public areas that were available during my 2022 campaign, including locations near community mailboxes, are no longer available.

York Region now permits election signs only at designated Regional intersections. A candidate may place no more than one sign at each permitted intersection and may register a maximum of 50 signs. Under the earlier Regional by-law, candidates could place up to two signs at an intersection, with no more than one on any corner, and there was no stated overall 50-sign cap.

Fifty signs may sound generous until the designated locations are examined at the ward level.

After reviewing the locations affecting Ward 2, I believe only approximately 12 or 13 offer meaningful visibility. Another four or five are technically permitted but have little practical campaign value. At a $310 Regional fee, that works out to roughly $24 to $26 for each useful Ward 2 location before the cost of the sign, stake and installation.

This is my practical assessment as a Ward 2 candidate. It illustrates why a Region-wide maximum does not necessarily provide fair or useful access within an individual ward.

Fewer signs do not necessarily mean a more affordable election.

Reducing the number of signs a candidate can place may reduce printing costs. But that is only one part of a campaign budget.

When low-cost public visibility is removed, candidates do not stop needing to communicate with voters. Lesser-known candidates may instead have to spend more on addressed mail, digital advertising, newspaper advertising and other forms of promotion.

Incumbents have had four years to build public recognition. A new candidate may have only a few weeks to become known across an entire ward. Candidates with substantial financial resources can purchase the visibility that sign restrictions remove. Candidates without those resources cannot.

The risk is that local elections become increasingly accessible only to people who are wealthy, well-connected or already known. Voters should be choosing among candidates based on their ideas, experience and judgment, not on who has the largest campaign bank account.

A reasonable second look.

Richmond Hill and York Region should review whether the current system achieved its intended purpose.

Could the City and Region coordinate one application and one reasonable fee? Could Richmond Hill restore a limited number of clearly designated and properly spaced public locations? Could York Region review whether its designated intersections provide meaningful access within each local ward, rather than relying mainly on a Region-wide maximum?

These changes would not require a return to uncontrolled sign placement. Clear spacing, sightline protections, size limits, removal deadlines and effective enforcement can address safety and clutter.

In 2023, the stated concern included reducing costs and helping new candidates. In 2026, candidates who want to use both sign systems face $618 in fees, fewer locations and less affordable public visibility.

That outcome appears to conflict with the original objective. It deserves a second look.

#RichmondHillCouncil #RichmondHillMayor #YorkRegionCouncil

Richmond Hill needs more housing. However, building more housing is not the same as planning responsible growth. Every development decision affects traffic, infrastructure, municipal finances, public services and the types of homes available to residents.

The real question is not simply how many units Richmond Hill can approve.

How much development can Richmond Hill responsibly support, where should it be located, what infrastructure will it require and who will ultimately pay for it?

Density can reduce some infrastructure costs.

Building infrastructure across a large, low-density area can be expensive. More roads, watermains, sewers and other infrastructure may be required to serve fewer households.

Compact development can use land more efficiently. It can place more residents near existing services, local businesses and public transit while spreading certain infrastructure costs across more homes.

That is an important argument in favour of appropriate density.

However, density is not unlimited and height alone is not a housing strategy.

When too much development is concentrated in one area without sufficient supporting infrastructure, existing roads, intersections, water and wastewater systems, parks, fire and emergency services, transit and community facilities can come under increasing pressure.

The right question is not whether Richmond Hill should choose high-rise or low-rise development.

It is whether we are approving the right amount and form of housing, in the right locations, at the right time, with the necessary infrastructure properly funded and ready.

Residents experience cumulative traffic.

Each development application may include its own traffic study. A study may conclude that one particular project can be accommodated.

But residents do not experience developments one at a time.

They experience the cumulative traffic created by every completed, under-construction and approved project using the same roads and intersections.

A development that appears manageable on its own may have a very different impact when combined with thousands of additional units already approved nearby.

Before approving further major development, Richmond Hill and York Region should clearly identify:

• The total number of completed, under-construction and approved units in the surrounding area;
• The cumulative traffic expected from all those developments;
• Which roads and intersections will require improvements;
• Whether sufficient transit capacity will be available;
• When the required infrastructure will be completed; and
• Who will pay for its construction and long-term maintenance.

Widening a road or changing a traffic signal after congestion becomes severe addresses the symptom. Responsible planning requires examining why so many additional trips are being created and whether the supporting network can accommodate them before development proceeds.

More housing does not automatically mean affordable housing.

Increasing housing supply is an important part of improving affordability over time. However, approving more units does not automatically make those units affordable or suitable for the people who need them.

For 2026-2027, Richmond Hill’s official affordable-ownership threshold is $488,900.

Affordability also involves more than the initial purchase price. Residents must carry mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities, insurance, maintenance and, in condominiums, monthly fees.

A smaller condominium may have a lower purchase price than a detached home but may still remain beyond the reach of many first-time buyers. It may also not provide enough space for a growing family.

Richmond Hill needs a broader range of housing choices, including rental housing, affordable ownership, family-sized condominiums, townhouses, multiplexes, low-rise and mid-rise housing, housing for seniors and appropriately located high-rise development.

A balanced community needs both rental and ownership opportunities. Ownership allows residents to build equity and establish long-term roots in the community, while rental housing provides flexibility and an essential option for many households.

A housing strategy should not be measured only by how many units are approved. It should also ask:

• How many homes will be affordable to local households?
• How many will offer a realistic path to ownership?
• How many will be suitable for families?
• How many will remain affordable over the long term?
• Are different housing types being provided?
• Are we building balanced communities or simply maximizing the number of units on individual sites?

Growth-related costs do not disappear.

Development charges are intended to help pay for growth-related infrastructure such as roads, parks, facilities, water and wastewater systems.

However, there is a difficult balance.

Higher development charges can increase the cost of building new homes and may affect affordability. Reducing or waiving development charges may help a project proceed, but the cost of the required infrastructure does not disappear.

If growth-related revenue is reduced, the remaining cost may eventually fall on existing property taxpayers, water and wastewater customers, government funding, municipal debt or infrastructure that is delayed.

York Region has reported approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next decade, including approximately $1.4 billion in projected reductions to development-charge collections and billions more in growth-related infrastructure pressures.

That makes transparent financial planning essential.

Any incentive or reduction intended to create affordable housing should produce a measurable and enforceable affordability benefit. Taxpayers should know what they are contributing and what they will receive in return.

Every new asset creates a future obligation.

Development is often discussed in terms of construction and immediate economic activity. Municipalities must also consider the long-term cost.

New roads must be repaired and resurfaced. Parks must be maintained. Community facilities require staffing, utilities, cleaning and eventual replacement. Water and wastewater systems must be operated and renewed.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I believe development should be evaluated over its entire life, not only at the moment it is approved.

Council should understand both sides of the financial equation:

• The property taxes, development charges and other revenue a project may generate; and
• The infrastructure, operating, maintenance and replacement costs it creates.

A project can produce new revenue while still creating long-term obligations greater than originally anticipated.

Finding the right balance.

Overbuilding is not determined by height alone. It occurs when the scale or pace of development exceeds the infrastructure, services and financial capacity available to support it.

Underbuilding also carries consequences. Too little housing can reduce choice, worsen affordability and make it harder for young people, families and seniors to remain in the community.

Richmond Hill therefore needs balance.

Appropriate high-rise development can make sense near major transit and urban centres. Townhouses, multiplexes and lower-rise development can add more choices within existing communities. Other neighbourhoods may require more gradual change.

Responsible development is not about stopping growth. It is about ensuring growth occurs in the proper locations, at a manageable pace, with a suitable mix of housing and infrastructure that is funded before residents experience the consequences.

Before approving major development, Council should be able to answer: Is the infrastructure available? What will it cost? Who will pay? What will the cumulative traffic impact be? Will the homes be affordable and suitable? What long-term obligations will taxpayers inherit?

Growth should improve Richmond Hill, not simply make it larger.

Canada–U.S. trade negotiations have ended without an agreement. The United States has imposed a 50% tariff on approximately $20 billion of selected Canadian exports, and Canada has announced that it will respond with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on selected American products beginning September 8.

It is important to be accurate. This is not a 50% tariff on everything Canada exports, and it does not mean Richmond Hill’s costs or property taxes will suddenly increase by 50%.

However, the potential ripple effects should concern residents.

Tariffs can increase the cost of raw materials, equipment and imported components. They can also disrupt supply chains and make future prices less predictable.

For Richmond Hill, this could affect construction materials, municipal vehicles and equipment, electronics, building systems, replacement parts and major infrastructure contracts.

The City’s own budget documents have already warned that tariffs are expected to increase construction costs and the cost of municipal capital investments. If the current trade dispute continues or expands, that pressure could become more significant.

Local businesses may also be affected. Some could face higher supply costs, reduced export opportunities or weaker consumer demand. When businesses struggle, the impact can reach employees, families and the broader local economy.

These financial pressures do not exist in isolation.

Richmond Hill’s Financial Master Plan forecasts City property-tax-rate increases averaging approximately 6% annually between 2027 and 2035 before accounting for assessment growth.

York Region has also reported approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next decade involving growth-related infrastructure, reduced development-charge revenue, transit, wastewater and community housing.

Because both the City and York Region receive a portion of our property taxes, financial pressure at either level can eventually reach Richmond Hill residents.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I do not see these as unrelated headlines. Financial pressures accumulate.

A higher construction bid here, a more expensive equipment purchase there, reduced development-charge revenue and slower economic activity can eventually become additional pressure on property taxes, user fees and household expenses.

We do not yet know the full financial impact of these new tariffs, and we should not pretend that we do. However, waiting until higher costs appear in future budgets would not be responsible financial planning.

Richmond Hill should begin preparing now by:

• Identifying tariff exposure in major contracts and capital projects;
• Reviewing the timing and necessity of planned expenditures;
• Exploring competitive Canadian and alternative suppliers where practical;
• Protecting financial reserves against genuine unexpected costs;
• Reporting tariff-related budget pressures clearly to residents; and
• Helping local businesses connect with available support programs.

Reducing the impact does not mean abandoning necessary infrastructure or cutting essential services. It means making careful choices, distinguishing between needs and wants, and completing the right projects in the right order at a pace residents can afford.

Richmond Hill cannot control international trade negotiations. It can control how responsibly it prepares for their consequences.

Residents are already managing higher household expenses and the prospect of significant future property-tax pressure. Every reasonable step should be taken to prevent additional costs from simply being passed on to their pocketbooks.

Good financial oversight means recognizing risks early and reducing their impact before they become unavoidable.

Fireworks are an enjoyable part of Victoria Day and Canada Day celebrations for many Richmond Hill families. But for some dogs, cats and other animals, the sudden flashes and explosions can be terrifying.

Residents recently asked me an interesting question: could the City provide a safe and quiet place for pets that have a particularly difficult time during fireworks?

What they were describing might be called a temporary quiet refuge for pets somewhere animals could be cared for while fireworks are taking place.

The Challenge Is Larger Than One Public Display

Scheduled community displays allow pet owners to know approximately when and where the noise will occur. Private fireworks are more difficult to anticipate because they may be discharged throughout different neighbourhoods and at different times.

Richmond Hill’s current fireworks rules permit consumer fireworks on Victoria Day and Canada Day, as well as the day immediately before and after each holiday. They must be used on private property with the owner’s permission and must not create a nuisance or pose a risk to people or property.

This means the disturbance may not be limited to one scheduled display. For some households, fireworks can be heard over several evenings.

Animals do not understand that the noise is part of a celebration or that it will eventually stop. Frightened pets may shake, hide, bark, attempt to escape or become extremely anxious. That can also make these evenings stressful for their owners.

Could a Quiet Refuge Work?

The residents’ suggestion deserves consideration, but there are practical questions that would need to be answered.

Would the City need to operate such a service itself, or could it partner with existing kennels, veterinarians or animal-welfare organizations? How many residents would use it? How would dogs, cats and smaller animals be safely separated? What staffing, vaccination, insurance and liability requirements would apply? What would it cost, and who should pay?

A communal location may also not be suitable for every animal. Some pets may be more comfortable remaining in their own familiar home than being transported to an unfamiliar place with other frightened animals. Any proposal should therefore be developed with advice from veterinarians and animal-care professionals.

Instead of constructing a new taxpayer-funded facility, Richmond Hill could begin by exploring whether an existing animal-care provider would be interested in a partnership or small pilot program during future fireworks celebrations.

Other Ways the City Could Help

A quiet refuge is only one possibility. The City could also consider:

• providing clear advance notice of scheduled municipal fireworks;
• reminding residents when and where private fireworks are permitted;
• encouraging people to limit fireworks to reasonable hours and be considerate of neighbours and pets;
• improving enforcement when fireworks are discharged illegally or create an unreasonable disturbance;
• sharing practical animal-safety information before Victoria Day and Canada Day; and
• examining quieter fireworks or alternative forms of celebration for future events.

Pet owners can also prepare by keeping animals indoors, closing windows and doors, providing a comfortable place to hide, playing music or white noise, walking dogs before dark and ensuring identification and microchip information are current. Properly fitted, noise-reducing earmuffs designed specifically for dogs may help some animals, but they should be introduced gradually and well before fireworks begin. They may reduce the noise, but they will not necessarily eliminate anxiety caused by the flashes and vibrations. Owners of animals with severe anxiety should speak with their veterinarian in advance.

Celebration and Consideration Can Coexist

This is not a proposal to eliminate community celebrations. Fireworks are a tradition enjoyed by many residents and families.

However, enjoying a celebration and considering its effect on animals do not have to be opposing positions. A thoughtful City should be willing to listen, examine practical options and determine whether something reasonable can be done.

I am not suggesting that Richmond Hill immediately spend money on a new facility. I am suggesting that the residents’ question deserves a proper answer. Could a partnership, pilot project or another practical approach provide some relief without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers?

Does your pet struggle during fireworks? Would you use a temporary quiet refuge, or is there another approach Richmond Hill should consider? I would like to hear from you. Please share your experience through my contact page.

Over the weekend, a resident asked me where Richmond Hill would find the money to build several projects being requested by different groups. My response was straightforward: when finances are under pressure, the City must be prudent. A worthwhile proposal does not automatically become affordable simply because people support it.

Every project can sound reasonable when considered on its own. The more difficult responsibility is comparing it with everything else the City must fund and determining whether residents can reasonably afford it.

Municipal projects are funded through sources such as property taxes, user fees, development charges, government grants and reserve funds. None of these represents free money. Ultimately, the cost is carried by taxpayers, service users or money previously set aside for future needs.

Residents sometimes hear that the City has “found the money” for a project. This raises a fair question: If money was found, what lost its funding?

In municipal finance, money is rarely simply found. It is usually reallocated from another purpose. Reallocation may be appropriate, but residents deserve to know where the money came from, what it was originally intended to fund and what may now be delayed, reduced or paid for later.

When funding is reallocated, residents should be told where it came from, what it was originally intended to support and what trade-offs were made.

Reserve funds serve an important purpose. They help pay for emergencies, future obligations and the repair or replacement of roads, watermains, community centres and other public infrastructure. Using reserves for their intended purpose is responsible. However, reserves are not unlimited. Once money is withdrawn, it is no longer available for the next urgent repair or unexpected expense.

Using reserve funds repeatedly to support ongoing expenses is particularly concerning. It may postpone the financial impact, but it does not eliminate it. Eventually, the City must replenish the reserve, reduce another service, increase property taxes, raise user fees or borrow money.

Families understand this type of decision. When household finances are limited, they protect the essentials first. They pay the mortgage, buy groceries, keep the lights on and repair what cannot safely be ignored.

A family may want to renovate the basement, improve the landscaping or undertake another project that could benefit the home in the future. But if the roof is leaking, the furnace needs replacement and household expenses are already difficult to manage, the family must decide what is urgent and what can wait.

The proposed improvement may still be a good idea. That does not mean the family can afford to undertake it today.

Municipal finances are more complicated, but the principle is similar. The question is not simply whether a project has value. The questions are whether it is the right priority, whether this is the right time and whether it can be funded without placing an unreasonable burden on residents.

A project does not become unworthy simply because only part of the population will use it. Libraries, sports facilities, trails, cultural spaces and specialized programs can benefit the community even though every resident may not use each one personally.

However, Council must still consider the total construction cost, the number of expected users, the broader community benefit and whether less expensive alternatives are available. Residents should also know what it will cost to operate, maintain and eventually replace the facility.

A government grant may help pay to construct a facility without covering the cost of operating it for the next 30 or 40 years. A reserve fund may cover the initial construction cost, but staffing, utilities, insurance, cleaning, security and future repairs usually become continuing expenses.

That is how a one-time project can become a permanent property-tax or user-fee obligation.

Financial restraint does not mean Richmond Hill should stop improving the city. It means doing things in the right order. Public safety, essential services, infrastructure repair and legal obligations must come first. Other worthwhile projects may need to be phased, redesigned, supported through partnerships or postponed until the City is in a stronger financial position.

Before approving a new financial commitment, Council should answer several basic questions: Is it necessary? Is it urgent? Is it affordable? What will it cost over its entire life and what may need to be delayed in order to pay for it?

Good ideas will always outnumber the dollars available. Responsible municipal government means protecting essential services, maintaining adequate reserves and proceeding at a pace residents can afford.

At approximately 6 p.m. on July 28, crews were already working on Bayview Avenue north of Elgin Mills Road. When I left for work the following morning, the section had been treated, the equipment was gone and all lanes were open.

York Region advises that this work is part of a road-preservation project on Bayview Avenue between Major Mackenzie Drive and Stouffville Road.

The treatment is called microsurfacing. It is a cost-effective method used to address minor surface defects and extend the life of a road. York Region notes that the surface may initially feel rougher and sound noisier, but it should become quieter as the stones settle.

Road maintenance is necessary, but how the work is scheduled and carried out matters. Performing the work overnight reduces daytime congestion, maintains access to homes and businesses, and limits disruption for residents.

We have all experienced road projects that appear to continue for weeks or months with little visible progress. That was not what I observed on Bayview Avenue. The crews arrived, completed the section efficiently and reopened all lanes before the morning commute.

This is the kind of practical and efficient delivery residents appreciate. Credit should be given to York Region, the contractor and the crews who worked through the night to get it done.

Good government is not only about identifying problems. It is also about recognizing when public work is carried out well.

A well-managed Business Improvement Area can strengthen a commercial district by attracting visitors, organizing destination events, improving streetscapes and introducing customers to local restaurants and stores. Richmond Hill’s published BIA budgets, however, raise reasonable questions about how much of its spending directly promotes downtown businesses and how the results are measured.

The Village of Richmond Hill BIA is funded through a special property-tax levy paid by commercial property owners within the BIA and collected by the City on its behalf. It is not funded through the general municipal property-tax levy paid by Richmond Hill residents.

It has also been stated publicly that grants and sponsorships help fund BIA programs. However, those outside contributions are not separately identified in the published budget tables. Clear reporting should show the full cost of each program, grants and sponsorships received, the net amount paid through the BIA levy, and how any unspent money is used.

The published tables also identify proposed transfers from the BIA reserve fund but do not disclose the reserve’s opening or closing balance. When annual expenditures are lower than budgeted, it is unclear from these tables how much of the unspent money is added to reserves, how much is carried forward, and how much remains available in subsequent years. Complete reporting should show the opening balance, annual additions and withdrawals, and the closing reserve balance.

The concern is not based on a single year.

In 2023, the BIA reported total expenditures of $104,654. Of that amount:

• $19,551 was spent on marketing – approximately 19% of total expenditures
• $1,757 was spent on local and major events – less than 2%
• $73,550 was spent on employee salaries and office rent and utilities – approximately 70%

In 2024, the BIA reported total expenditures of $103,297. Of that amount:

• $15,626 was spent on marketing – approximately 15% of total expenditures
• Only $115 was spent on local and major events, although $5,000 had been budgeted
• $74,063 was spent on employee salaries and office rent and utilities – approximately 72%

The 2025 figures reported as of August 1 show $12,450 spent on marketing and $2,100 on events. Because these are partial-year figures, the final 2025 results may be different.

For 2026, the BIA proposes a total budget of $168,275, funded through a $100,000 BIA tax levy and a $68,275 transfer from its reserve fund. Proposed expenditures include:

• $58,450 for employee salaries
• $16,520 for office rent, phone and internet
• $10,700 for professional services
• $54,600 for marketing
• $17,500 for streetscaping
• $1,750 for events with local groups
• No funding for a major event hosted by the BIA

Administration, employees and office space are necessary. Marketing also includes activities beyond public events. However, these figures raise a reasonable question: Is enough of the BIA’s budget reaching activities that directly attract customers and support downtown businesses?

Spending money under a category called “marketing” does not, by itself, demonstrate success. Commercial property owners paying the levy deserve to know:

• How many people BIA programs bring into the downtown core
• How many local businesses participate
• Whether businesses experience increased customer traffic and sales
• Whether event visitors return afterward
• Why previous marketing and event budgets were substantially underspent
• What measurable results were produced by the money that was spent

Successful BIAs in Toronto and other municipalities have helped make their commercial districts destinations through street festivals, coordinated promotions, streetscape improvements and strong local identities.

The question is not whether Richmond Hill should have a BIA. The question is whether its resources are being used effectively and whether the results are being measured and publicly reported.

Local businesses paying the levy deserve more than a list of activities. They deserve clear evidence that their collective investment is bringing customers through their doors.

A resident recently spoke with me about garbage, discarded materials and poorly maintained properties in one of Richmond Hill’s older neighbourhoods. His concern was not about expecting every lawn to be perfect. It was about properties where continuing neglect affects the appearance, safety and enjoyment of the surrounding community.

Property standards matter. Residents invest considerable time and money in maintaining their homes. Accumulated garbage, abandoned materials, unsafe structures and persistent neglect can attract pests, create hazards and affect the value of neighbouring properties.

This is particularly important in Richmond Hill’s older neighbourhoods. Older should never mean forgotten. These communities deserve the same level of attention, maintenance and municipal service as newer developments.

At the same time, enforcement must be reasonable and fair. A temporarily untidy yard is not the same as prolonged neglect. Some residents may be dealing with age, illness, disability or financial hardship. Where appropriate, the City should first provide clear information, reasonable time to comply and connections to available assistance.

However, serious or repeated violations cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The City should review:

• How quickly property-standards complaints are investigated
• Whether residents receive meaningful updates after reporting a problem
• How repeat violations are tracked and followed up
• Whether enforcement is consistent across all Richmond Hill neighbourhoods
• How property owners and landlords are held accountable when rental uses create ongoing problems
• Whether residents receive enough information about the proper disposal of bulky items and household waste

The objective should not be to punish residents over minor imperfections or make every property look identical. It should be to protect public safety, neighbourhood appearance, quality of life and the investments residents have made in their homes.

Good property standards require both personal responsibility and effective municipal enforcement. When residents take pride in their properties and the City responds consistently to genuine problems, the entire community benefits.

Our older neighbourhoods are an important part of Richmond Hill. They should be respected, protected and never left behind.

Richmond Hill and southern York Region are becoming significant locations for data centres. Existing, under-construction and proposed facilities could eventually consume approximately 22 million litres of water every day, the equivalent consumption of about 100,000 residents. Industry estimates also suggest they could require more than 500 megawatts of electrical capacity over the next decade.

Ward 1 Councillor Carol Davidson deserves credit for asking York Region to assess whether our infrastructure planning has fully accounted for their combined demands.

This question is especially important because York Region already faces approximately $4.9 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. These pressures include growth-related infrastructure, reduced development-charge revenue, transit, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing.

Data centres did not create this financial pressure. However, before additional facilities are approved, residents deserve to know what infrastructure they will require, who will pay for it, and what Richmond Hill will receive in return.

How much property-tax revenue will these facilities generate for Richmond Hill and York Region? How many permanent local jobs will they create after construction is completed? Will the developers pay the full cost of any necessary water and wastewater expansion? What measures will be required to reduce water consumption and recycle water?

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property-tax bill goes to York Region. Residents should not be expected to subsidize infrastructure expansions primarily benefiting highly resource-intensive private developments.

Data centres can bring investment and strengthen Richmond Hill’s commercial tax base. But economic development should be measured by its net benefit, not simply by the size or cost of a project.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether that growth is being planned and funded responsibly.

Before further major approvals proceed, Richmond Hill and York Region should publish a clear accounting of:

• Expected water and wastewater demand
• Required infrastructure upgrades and who will pay for them
• Municipal and regional property-tax revenue
• Development charges and other financial contributions
• Permanent local employment
• Water recycling and conservation requirements

Richmond Hill should welcome responsible investment, but residents deserve to know that the benefits will exceed the long-term public costs.

After traffic and road safety, snow removal is probably the second most common concern I hear while speaking with residents across Ward 2. One topic comes up repeatedly every winter: the windrow left at the end of driveways after roads are plowed.

Richmond Hill has established service standards for clearing roads, sidewalks, and residential windrows following a snowfall. I appreciate the hard work of our snow removal crews, who often work long hours under difficult weather conditions to keep our community moving.

But perhaps we should ask a different question.

Are we measuring success by meeting a service standard, or by helping residents regain access to their community as quickly and effectively as possible?

Many seniors have told me they were unable to leave their homes because they first had to wait for the road to be plowed, and then wait again for the windrow at the end of their driveway to be cleared. For some, that meant delaying medical appointments, postponing grocery shopping, or simply remaining home longer than they wanted.

At the same time, I have also heard another perspective.

Many working residents tell me they simply cannot wait. By the time the City’s windrow equipment arrives, they have already shoveled the end of their driveway themselves because they needed to get to work, take their children to school, or attend an appointment.

This raises an important public policy question.

If many residents have already cleared their own windrow before the City arrives, is the current program being delivered at the right time to achieve its intended purpose?

That doesn’t mean the program lacks value. For many seniors, residents with disabilities, and others who are physically unable to clear heavy snow, windrow clearing remains an important service that helps them maintain their independence.

The question, therefore, is not whether the service should exist. The question is whether it can be delivered more effectively.

Could road plows and windrow clearing equipment operate more closely together? Could routes be optimized to reduce waiting times? Could neighbourhoods with a higher concentration of seniors or residents with mobility challenges receive priority following major snowfalls?

These are questions worth exploring before concluding that the only answer is to spend more money.

I also don’t believe Richmond Hill should simply accept a service standard because neighbouring municipalities have adopted similar ones. Good municipal government should continuously ask whether existing services still meet the needs of today’s residents.

Perhaps success should not be measured by whether we met a published service standard, but by whether residents can safely leave their homes to get to work, attend medical appointments, buy groceries, and maintain their independence as soon as reasonably possible.

Good public policy isn’t simply about adding services or cutting services. It’s about regularly reviewing whether a service is achieving its intended purpose, providing good value for taxpayers, and meeting the needs of the people it was designed to serve.

While speaking with residents on Canada Day, an interesting idea came up during one of our conversations: could our community festivals do more to support local businesses?

Richmond Hill hosts many successful community events throughout the year. Festivals such as Taste of Asia, Ribfest, Canada Day celebrations, and other cultural and community events bring thousands of residents together and help build a strong sense of community.

Many of these events are held at Richmond Green, which offers excellent space, parking, and facilities for large gatherings. It is an excellent venue for events that attract large crowds.

There are practical reasons why many events are held in parks. Parks offer large open spaces, parking, easier traffic management, and fewer disruptions to nearby residents and businesses. Organizing a street festival requires additional planning, road closures, transit coordination, emergency access, and close cooperation with local businesses.

That additional planning may be worthwhile if it helps support local businesses, encourages residents and visitors to explore different parts of Richmond Hill, and creates vibrant business districts that continue to benefit long after the festival ends. The goal is not to replace successful park events, but to consider whether some future festivals could bring additional benefits to the community.

With those considerations in mind, several residents suggested that Richmond Hill could explore hosting selected festivals as street festivals or in commercial areas where local businesses could benefit from increased foot traffic.

When visitors attend a street festival, they often discover restaurants, cafés, bakeries, specialty shops, and local businesses they may not have visited before. Many stay for lunch or dinner, enjoy dessert, or return another day after discovering a new favourite place.

Supporting local businesses does not always require new spending. Sometimes it simply means planning community events in ways that encourage residents and visitors to experience more of what Richmond Hill has to offer.

I am not suggesting that every festival should move from Richmond Green. It remains an excellent location for many large events.

Perhaps the better question is whether Richmond Hill should consider a mix of park festivals and street festivals, allowing different neighbourhoods and business districts to share in the economic and community benefits.

Community festivals should bring people together. Whenever possible, they should also support local businesses, strengthen our business districts, and showcase everything Richmond Hill has to offer. Thoughtful planning can accomplish both.

Imagine a neighbourhood food festival, a summer street festival in Downtown Richmond Hill, or cultural celebrations held in different parts of our city. These events could bring people together while encouraging residents to discover local restaurants, cafés, and small businesses throughout our community.

York Region is facing nearly $5 billion in financial pressures over the next decade. That should concern every Richmond Hill taxpayer.

Approximately half of a typical Richmond Hill property tax bill is allocated to York Region. While the City and School Boards also form part of the overall tax bill, significant regional financial pressures are not distant or abstract. They can affect local taxpayers, future budgets, infrastructure planning, service delivery, and long-term affordability.

According to York Region, the Region is facing approximately $4.9 billion in financial impacts over the next 10 years, including growth-related infrastructure pressures, reduced development charge revenues, transit needs, wastewater infrastructure, and community housing requirements.

This is exactly why taxpayers need clear oversight, responsible budgeting, and honest communication from every level of local government.

The issue is not whether infrastructure is needed. Growth requires infrastructure. The real question is whether growth is being planned and funded responsibly, and whether taxpayers are being protected from decisions that create long-term financial pressure.

Richmond Hill residents are already facing concerns about future property tax increases. Because property taxes are influenced by decisions at the Regional, City, and School Board levels, residents deserve a clear understanding of how growing financial pressures at each level may affect affordability.

Before taxpayers are asked to pay more, government must show stronger discipline, clearer priorities, and better accountability.

As a CPA with more than 30 years of experience in finance and oversight, I believe residents deserve straightforward answers:

• How will these regional pressures affect future property taxes?
• Which projects are essential, and which can be delayed or reconsidered?
• How will York Region protect taxpayers while maintaining core services?
• What impact will this have on Richmond Hill residents over the next decade?

Good governance means asking these questions early, not after the financial pressure becomes unavoidable.

Richmond Hill taxpayers deserve transparency, discipline, and responsible decisions at both the City and Regional level.

A recent collision in Ward 2 serves as an important reminder that road safety is not an abstract issue. It affects residents every day.

A woman and child were recently taken to hospital following a collision near Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive, an area familiar to many Ward 2 residents.

My thoughts are with those involved, and I wish them a full recovery.

Whenever incidents like this occur, they remind us why residents continue to raise concerns about speeding, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, school-area safety, and the growing number of e-bikes and motorized devices using local streets and sidewalks.

Road safety is not about headlines or politics. It is about ensuring that children can walk safely to school, seniors can cross the street with confidence, and families can move around their neighbourhoods safely.

Richmond Hill needs a practical and responsive approach to road safety. When residents identify concerns, the City should review problem areas quickly and consider appropriate solutions, including improved signage, traffic calming measures, protected crossings, school-zone improvements, pavement markings, education, and enforcement where necessary.

At the same time, solutions must be carefully designed. Safety improvements should enhance neighbourhoods, not create unnecessary barriers, parking problems, or access challenges for residents.

A safe city should not become an unfriendly city.

Residents deserve action, follow-through, and practical solutions that improve safety while respecting the character and livability of our neighbourhoods.

Yesterday’s police incident near Bayview Avenue and Elgin Mills Road understandably raised concerns among many Richmond Hill residents.

As someone who lives only a short distance from where the incident occurred, I understand why residents felt unsettled seeing a significant police response in the middle of the day near local businesses and neighbourhood homes.

York Regional Police later confirmed that officers responded to reports of a suspect with a firearm and that the individual was taken into custody safely without injuries reported.

While the situation ended without physical harm, incidents like this still affect how residents feel about safety in their communities.

This concern is not isolated to one event.

In recent years, Richmond Hill residents have witnessed violent incidents, shootings, tragic attacks, and ongoing discussions around neighbourhood safety and quality of life in different parts of the city.

Residents have also repeatedly raised concerns about disorder, trespassing, public disturbances, and whether enough is being done to address issues before they escalate.

These concerns should not be dismissed.

At the same time, public safety discussions must remain responsible and balanced. Fearmongering and division do not strengthen communities, and vulnerable people should not be unfairly stigmatized or targeted.

Richmond Hill is a compassionate community, and we should continue supporting prevention programs, youth outreach, mental health services, and community partnerships that help people before situations worsen.

But compassion and accountability must go together.

Residents deserve leadership that listens seriously when concerns are repeatedly raised by local families, seniors, and business owners.

Public safety is not about political slogans. It is about ensuring residents feel protected, heard, and respected in their everyday lives.

We need practical leadership that focuses on:

• Stronger community engagement
• Better coordination between agencies
• Prevention and early intervention
• Responsible enforcement
• Transparent communication with residents

Richmond Hill can remain both compassionate and safe. We do not have to choose between the two.

As our city continues to grow, public safety and quality of life must remain priorities for every neighbourhood and every resident.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about presenting information in a way that residents can easily read, understand, and use.

I previously raised concerns that the format of Council expense reports made it difficult for residents to understand the information being presented.

The issue was not whether the information existed. The issue was whether residents could easily understand what they were looking at. Key figures were not clearly presented, and some labels could reasonably be interpreted in different ways.

To illustrate the concern, I reorganized and highlighted key sections myself. The original document and my suggested version are provided below.

I am encouraged to see staff now recommending improvements to constituency reporting and exploring better public reporting tools.

Transparency is not simply about publishing information. It is about ensuring residents can read it, understand it, and use it.

Good governance means providing information that people can actually understand.

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 deserve a Council that understands its responsibilities, uses its time wisely, and focuses on results it can actually deliver.

Municipal government has an important role in protecting the environment and preparing the community for the future.

Richmond Hill can take practical action by maintaining parks and trees, improving stormwater infrastructure, reducing flood risks, making City facilities more energy-efficient, planning responsibly for growth, and preparing for more extreme weather.

These are areas where local government has responsibility, authority, and the ability to produce measurable results.

However, many broader issues commonly discussed at municipal Council are primarily the responsibility of York Region, the Province, or the federal government.

York Region is responsible for major services such as public transit, regional roads, policing, water and wastewater systems, public health, community housing, and many social services.

The Province and federal government control many broader policies involving energy, emissions standards, transportation regulation, taxation, healthcare, education, criminal law, and national or international commitments.

Richmond Hill Council may sometimes choose to express a position or encourage another level of government to act. That can be appropriate when an issue has a clear impact on local residents.

But Council should be honest about the difference between advocacy and action.

Passing a resolution does not necessarily mean Richmond Hill has the authority to implement it or that the underlying problem has been solved.

Every motion still requires Council time, staff time, agenda preparation, research, administration, and follow-up. Those resources are paid for by residents and should be used carefully.

When taxpayers are being warned about future financial pressures and possible tax increases, City Hall should ensure that its time and resources remain focused on core municipal responsibilities.

That includes roads, local infrastructure, fire services, snow clearing, parks, recreation, planning, by-law enforcement, community safety, responsible budgeting, and reliable public services.

If Richmond Hill has the authority to act, Council should act.

If another level of government is responsible, Council should work with that government and advocate where appropriate, but it should not present a symbolic motion as a substitute for measurable results.

This principle also applies to climate action.

I support practical local measures that improve resilience, protect the environment, reduce long-term costs, and provide clear benefits to residents.

Planting trees, protecting natural areas, improving stormwater systems, preparing for extreme weather, and reducing energy use in municipal buildings are all reasonable areas for City action.

At the same time, City Hall should be cautious about moving into personal lifestyle choices or broader policy areas where the municipality has limited authority and where the benefits to Richmond Hill residents are difficult to measure.

Good intentions matter, but good government also requires priorities, discipline, and accountability.

My approach is simple: focus on what Richmond Hill can control, cooperate with York Region and other governments where necessary, and use Council’s time and taxpayer resources on actions that deliver real local benefits.

Residents deserve results, not just resolutions.

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 meeting creates work. A separate Council meeting requires its own agenda package, minutes, Clerk’s Office coordination, technical support, recording and administrative follow-up, even when the meeting itself is very short. Not all of that work is necessarily duplicated, because Council must still perform certain formal and procedural functions. However, when recommendations have already been thoroughly debated at Committee of the Whole and are subsequently approved by Council with little or no further discussion, the City should ask whether the benefit justifies maintaining a second set of administrative steps.

A short meeting is not automatically an unnecessary meeting. It may demonstrate that the work was completed effectively at the earlier stage. But that is precisely why Richmond Hill should examine whether the same transparency, public participation and accountability could be maintained through one streamlined Council process.

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.