ARAKAL, Thomas

I believe Owen Sound should regularly benchmark its municipal management structure against municipalities of similar population, tax base, service responsibilities and geographic characteristics.

Before making cuts, I would want to identify comparable municipalities and examine their senior management structures, management-to-staff ratios, compensation costs, number of management positions and the services they deliver. We should then compare those results with Owen Sound.

My concern is that our municipal structure may be too top-heavy for a city of our size. I don't believe we should maintain positions or layers of management simply because they have always existed.

I would support an independent organizational review that looks at duplication, overlapping responsibilities, reporting structures and whether each senior management position is delivering measurable value to taxpayers.

My goal would not be to cut frontline staff or reduce essential services. It would be to make sure we have the right number of managers, the right responsibilities and clear accountability for results.

If the benchmarking shows that Owen Sound is carrying more senior management overhead than comparable municipalities, I would support restructuring and reducing duplication where appropriate .

Taxpayers should be able to understand what they are paying for - and what results they are getting in return.

Yes, absolutely. I would support recruiting a City Manager with a demonstrated record of organizational transformation, cost reduction and successful change management.

I would also be open to fixed-term, renewable contracts for senior management, with a meaningful portion of compensation tied to clear, measurable performance objectives established by Council.

However, I would want to understand the full cost and structure of such a system before committing to a specific compensation model. Performance incentives should result in better value for taxpayers, not simply higher compensation.

My approach would be straightforward: if we can make the City more efficient, reduce unnecessary costs, improve services and establish clear accountability - while being cost-effective - I am in favour of it.

Council should set clear expectations, measure results and hold senior management accountable for delivering them.

Yes, I support making the rate of inflation the normal benchmark for property-tax increases.

Owen Sound residents are already carrying a significant tax burden. Before asking residents to pay more, I believe Council should first ask: Can we find efficiencies? Can we reduce unnecessary spending? Can we use reserves appropriately? And can we obtain provincial or federal funding for eligible projects?

I would expect the City to be much more aggressive in pursuing every available provincial and federal grant before placing additional costs on local property taxpayers. Ontario has funding programs specifically designed to help municipalities with infrastructure and other eligible projects, so we should make sure Owen Sound is maximizing those opportunities.

I would support exceeding inflation only when there is a compelling and clearly demonstrated reason - such as critical infrastructure, public safety, an emergency, or another essential investment that cannot reasonably be funded through efficiencies, grants, reserves or other appropriate revenue sources.

If taxes must increase above inflation, Council should clearly explain why, how much is required, what alternatives were considered, what outside funding was pursued, and what taxpayers will receive in return.

I don't believe the answer to every budget challenge should automatically be asking property taxpayers for more money. We need to look for savings and outside funding first.

Taxpayers should be the last resort - not the first source of additional revenue.

I support requiring every municipal department to identify 5 - 10% in potential savings and efficiencies as part of the budget process. However, I would not support automatically cutting 5 - 10% of staff or union positions simply to meet a target.

I support organized labour and respect the important work municipal employees provide. Any reduction in a union position should have a clear and evidence-based operational reason.

Regarding the 2011 budget, I believe in transparency and making decisions based on facts. I have not yet reviewed the complete 2011 Owen Sound budget and therefore would not be comfortable saying that I support using it as the City's benchmark.

I would support reviewing the 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation, as one potential benchmark, and comparing it with today's spending. I would also want to understand what has changed since 2011, including population, services, infrastructure needs, staffing and management.

I would then compare Owen Sound with similar municipalities to determine whether our current spending and staffing levels are reasonable.

My approach is simple: I don't want to make promises based on numbers I haven't verified. I want taxpayers to have the facts, Council to be transparent about the numbers, and decisions to be based on evidence.

Before asking residents to pay more, we should first demonstrate that we have done everything reasonable to find efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary spending.

I 100% agree that residents are stakeholders in their municipal government. Council is elected to represent the people of Owen Sound, and residents should never feel that they are an obstacle to City Hall.

I believe transparency starts with Council having access to complete, accurate and timely information from municipal staff. Before making major decisions involving spending, staffing, consultants or significant policies, Council should have the actual numbers, costs, alternatives and potential impacts clearly presented.

I would also like to see the City take a more careful approach to using consultants. Before hiring an outside consultant, I would want to know whether the expertise already exists within our community. Owen Sound has many experienced professionals, including retired people with valuable knowledge and skills, who may be willing to volunteer their time or participate in advisory groups. Where appropriate and legally permissible, we should explore those community resources before automatically spending taxpayers' money on consultants. This would not replace professional expertise where it is genuinely required, but we should not assume that every problem requires an outside consultant.

I would support greater public disclosure of the rationale behind major spending decisions, staffing increases, consultant contracts and significant policy decisions, while respecting legitimate privacy and legal requirements.

I also believe we need more meaningful interaction between residents and Council. Residents should have more opportunities to come forward, share ideas, ask questions and discuss important projects before decisions are finalized - not simply be informed after a decision has already been made.

For major projects, I would like to see residents involved where practical throughout the process, including opportunities to provide input, understand the costs and timelines, and receive regular updates on progress. Where appropriate, residents should also have a role in community oversight and monitoring of projects, so taxpayers can see whether projects are staying on budget, on schedule and delivering what was promised.

I also believe residents should have a clear way to hold their elected representatives accountable. Personally, I favour moving toward a ward system in Owen Sound, where each councillor represents a specific geographic area. I believe this could provide more direct representation and make it clearer who residents can approach with local concerns and who is accountable for representing their area.

A ward system would not eliminate the responsibility of councillors to think about the entire city. Every councillor should work for the common good of Owen Sound while also being directly accountable to the residents they represent.

As a councillor, I would make myself accessible, listen to residents before decisions are made, and explain not only what Council decided, but why.

Residents are not an obstacle to municipal government - they are the people Council is elected to represent.

My commitment would be to listen, ask questions, share information and make decisions openly and honestly. If I don't know the answer, I will say I don't know and work to find the facts.

Transparency builds trust, and accountability means being willing to answer to the people you represent.

This is a complex issue, and I don't believe it can be solved in one term of Council. But ignoring it is not a solution, and I don't believe the current approach is working well enough.

I also don't want to pretend that I have all the answers.

I believe we need a coordinated approach involving the City, Grey County, provincial and federal governments, health-care providers, police, community organizations and residents.

First, we need to understand that not everyone experiencing homelessness is homeless for the same reason. Some people are struggling with housing affordability, while others may be dealing with mental-health challenges, addiction, family circumstances or other barriers.

For people who are primarily struggling with affordability, we need to work toward more attainable and affordable housing. For people dealing with serious mental-health challenges, we need better access to appropriate mental-health services and supports. For people struggling with addiction, treatment and recovery supports need to be available and connected to housing and other services.

At the same time, public safety matters. People have the right to feel safe downtown, and existing laws and bylaws need to be enforced when there is violence, drug trafficking, property damage, intimidation or other behaviour that puts residents, businesses or others at risk.

I also believe we need to continue working with police and other agencies to disrupt the supply and distribution of illegal drugs. Reducing the availability of illegal drugs is not the entire solution, but neither should we ignore the criminal networks that profit from addiction.

I would support a coordinated approach that combines housing, mental-health support, addiction treatment, prevention, enforcement and accountability.

I also believe publicly funded programs need clear expectations and measurable outcomes. Support should be designed to help people move toward greater stability and independence, while recognizing that recovery is not always linear and that different people need different levels of support.

Most importantly, I want to see measurable results rather than simply spending more money. Council should regularly review indicators such as homelessness numbers, shelter and supportive-housing outcomes, treatment access, repeat emergency-service calls, downtown incidents, drug-related activity, business and resident concerns, and whether people receiving support are moving toward stable housing and recovery.

We cannot promise to solve homelessness, addiction and mental health in four years. But we can stop accepting the status quo, coordinate the services we already have, identify the gaps, measure the results and make changes when something isn't working.

Our downtown needs to be a place where residents, businesses, visitors and vulnerable people can all be treated with dignity - while public safety remains non-negotiable.

I would support reviewing the City's development-charge structure to determine whether it is creating unnecessary barriers to new construction. I would also be open to targeted incentives or temporary reductions where there is a clear public benefit, particularly when developers commit to creating attainable, affordable or geared-to-income housing.

However, I would want to understand the financial impact before supporting a specific reduction or moratorium. We need to make sure incentives actually result in development and do not simply reduce revenue without delivering a meaningful benefit to the community.

Responsible growth can also help broaden the City's tax base and generate additional revenue, which could help reduce some of the property-tax pressure on existing residents. I believe growth should be part of the solution rather than continually asking the same taxpayers to pay more.

I agree that Owen Sound needs more residential and commercial development. After decades of population stagnation, we need to create more opportunities for people to live, work, raise families and invest in our community.

More broadly, I believe the City needs to be more supportive and responsive to people who want to invest and build in Owen Sound. We should look at approval timelines, unnecessary administrative barriers, infrastructure readiness, economic-development opportunities and ways to make it easier for businesses and families to choose Owen Sound.

I will also be transparent: there are parts of this issue where I don't have all the answers yet. I am prepared to learn, listen to developers, businesses, residents and municipal staff, look at what other municipalities are doing successfully, and do what is required to create more opportunities for Owen Sound.

My goal is responsible growth - growth that creates housing, jobs and investment, strengthens our tax base and improves the long-term financial sustainability of the City, while making sure existing residents are not unfairly burdened by the cost.

Yes. I believe this information should be transparent, and taxpayers have a right to know the true cost of the services they are paying for.

Council should have a clear understanding of the full cost of each service, including appropriate administrative, HR, payroll, facilities, IT and other shared-service costs. This information should also be available to taxpayers in a way that is understandable.

I would support using this information when negotiating cost-sharing arrangements with organizations such as the Library and other agencies. We need to know what the service actually costs, who is paying for it, and what value taxpayers are receiving.

I also believe shared services can be a good way to reduce duplication and improve efficiency. For example, there may be opportunities to share IT, HR, payroll, purchasing or other administrative resources where it makes financial and operational sense.

I am not interested in cutting services simply to make the numbers look better. I want to find ways to deliver the same or better services more efficiently and avoid paying for duplicate resources where they are not necessary.

At the end of the day, taxpayers deserve transparency about where their money is going and Council has a responsibility to make sure they are receiving good value for it.

Why not? I absolutely believe the Water Department should be accountable.

Residents should receive a clear explanation of why water and wastewater rates are increasing, what the additional revenue is needed for, and whether there are opportunities to reduce costs or improve efficiency.

I would support requiring the Water Department to provide Council with a complete explanation and justification for proposed rate increases as part of the annual budget process. I would also support the Water Department participating in appropriate cost-reduction and efficiency reviews, just as other municipal departments should.

Water and wastewater charges may be separate from property taxes, but they are still costs paid by residents, and residents deserve transparency and value for their money.

Ultimately, Council is elected to represent the residents who pay these costs. Municipal staff provide Council with the information and expertise needed to make decisions, but elected Council must take responsibility for the decisions it makes.

I also recognize that Council has limitations. We cannot control every cost, and there will be circumstances where increases are necessary to maintain infrastructure and services.

But our responsibility is to ask the questions, look for efficiencies, understand the numbers and do everything reasonably possible to control costs.

We may not be able to make everything perfect, but I believe we should always try to make tomorrow a little better than today.

Thank you for sending this additional question.

I have been following this incident, and in my view, a situation like this should not have reached this point, especially if the City has dealt with a similar situation in the past.

My approach is simple: when a system is not working, the system needs to be reviewed and changed.

Policies and enforcement procedures are necessary to protect our community and ensure that rules are applied fairly. But policies also need to leave room for common sense, reasonable judgment and proportionality. When a relatively minor matter results in repeated court appearances and increasing legal costs to taxpayers, there should be a point where the decision to continue is independently reviewed.

I would support a clear review process that asks some basic questions: Is the evidence strong enough? Is prosecution proportionate to the alleged offence? How much has the City already spent? What will it cost to continue? Is continuing actually in the public interest?

Council should not interfere in individual court cases or decide whether someone is guilty or innocent. However, Council does have a responsibility to make sure the system itself is working properly and that taxpayers' money is being used responsibly.

I also believe there needs to be proper oversight of contracted legal services. Council should understand how much the City is spending on outside legal services, why those costs are being incurred, and whether taxpayers are receiving reasonable value.

Management also needs to be accountable. If a decision results in significant unnecessary costs because of poor judgment, inadequate oversight or a weakness in City policy, it should be reviewed. If mistakes were made, they should be acknowledged, corrected and used to improve the system. Appropriate corrective action should follow where warranted.

What concerns me most is the possibility of repetition. If something similar happened a few years ago and we are again dealing with the same type of problem, then we need to ask whether there is a serious flaw in the City's policies or decision-making process.

At the very least, this case should become a final example from which the City learns. Once the legal proceedings are completed, I would support reviewing the relevant enforcement and legal procedures and making the necessary changes so that we do not continue repeating the same mistakes.

For me, this comes down to common sense, reasonable judgment, accountability and respect for taxpayers' money.

I hope residents take the time during this election to look carefully at all the candidates, the experience and ideas each person brings to the table, and how each of us proposes to address problems like this. Ultimately, residents will decide who they believe can best represent them and bring the changes they want to see at City Hall.

Thanks again for giving candidates the opportunity to respond.