BIANCO, Justin

I believe every level of municipal government, including senior management, needs to be accountable for results. I would support continuing to review the City's organizational structure to make sure positions are necessary, responsibilities are clearly defined and there is no unnecessary duplication.

I would also like to see clear, measurable objectives established for senior management, with regular reporting to Council and the public on whether those objectives are being achieved. Vacant senior positions should not automatically be filled without first asking whether the position is still required or whether responsibilities can be reorganized.

Owen Sound has already undertaken an independent Service Review that identified 53 opportunities for organizational and service-delivery improvements, with the City estimating approximately $2 million in direct and indirect savings over the 2022-2026 Council term. I believe the next Council should closely examine the results of that review and continue looking for opportunities to make the organization more efficient.

Regarding the City Manager:

Yes. When the City is recruiting for a City Manager, I would support placing significant importance on demonstrated experience in organizational improvement, change management, financial responsibility and finding efficiencies while maintaining important municipal services.

I would also want a City Manager who understands municipal government, can work effectively with employees and Council, communicates openly with the public and is prepared to challenge the status quo when something can be done better.

Regarding Fixed Term Contracts:

I would support examining fixed-term renewable contracts for appropriate senior management positions and establishing measurable performance objectives.

I support performance-based accountability, but any compensation system should be carefully designed so that it rewards meaningful results rather than simply hitting narrow numerical targets.

I would support using inflation as an important benchmark and expecting the City to make every reasonable effort to keep tax increases at or below that level.

However, I would not support an absolute cap that prevents Council from responding to circumstances that may be outside the City's control. If an increase above inflation is proposed, I believe Council and the City Manager should be required to clearly explain why it is necessary, what alternatives were considered and what efforts were made to reduce the increase.

Regarding exceeding inflation:

Circumstances could include a serious infrastructure failure, emergency expenditures, provincially mandated requirements, significant increases in essential services such as policing or fire protection, unexpected losses of outside funding, or investments that can clearly be demonstrated to save taxpayers money over the longer term.

Any increase above inflation should be the exception rather than something Council automatically accepts, and the reasons should be explained publicly.

I would support requiring departments to identify meaningful savings and efficiency options during the budget process, including examining staffing levels, vacancies, attrition, duplication of responsibilities, service levels, technology and alternative ways of providing services.

However, I would not automatically require every department to cut 5-10% regardless of its circumstances. Some departments provide essential or legally required services, and an arbitrary across-the-board cut could ultimately reduce services residents depend on.

I would rather have departments identify potential reductions and their consequences so Council can make informed decisions. Owen Sound's existing Service Review has already examined restructuring, staffing capacity, service levels and the use of attrition or reallocation as possible sources of savings.

Regarding the use of the 2011 budget benchmark:

Yes, I believe it could be a useful comparison, but I would not use it as the only benchmark.

Municipal responsibilities, infrastructure costs, regulations, wages, insurance, technology and the services expected by residents have changed since 2011. An inflation-adjusted 2011 budget could help identify areas that deserve further examination, but each major increase should be looked at individually.

Regarding what alternative approach:

I would support service-by-service and department-by-department reviews that look at the actual cost of providing each service, staffing requirements, measurable outcomes and whether there are less expensive ways to deliver the same result.

I would also compare Owen Sound's costs and service levels with similar Ontario municipalities where useful, review vacant positions before they are filled, examine consultant and contract spending and require departments to explain significant year-over-year increases.

Residents should be able to understand what Council is doing, why decisions are being made and how their tax dollars are being spent.

I would support clearer plain-language explanations of major decisions and budgets, regular opportunities for residents to speak directly with members of Council, public town halls and online opportunities for people who cannot attend meetings in person.

I also believe councillors need to communicate throughout the four-year term rather than only around election time. That means listening to residents, responding to concerns and explaining how and why I voted on major issues.

The City's own accountability framework states that Council's role includes accountability and transparency in municipal decisions and services, including public access and participation and efficient use of public money.

Regarding public disclosure:

Yes. When significant public money is being spent, residents deserve to understand what is being purchased, why it is necessary, what alternatives were considered and what result taxpayers are expected to receive.

There will obviously be situations involving employee privacy, legal matters, negotiations or other confidential information that cannot legally be disclosed, but confidentiality should not be used unnecessarily to avoid explaining decisions.

Regarding residents treated as stakeholders:

I would involve residents earlier in major decisions rather than asking for input after the direction has effectively already been determined.

That means public consultation, town halls, online participation, surveys where appropriate and making it easier for residents to bring concerns directly to Council.

People will not always agree with the final decision, but they should know their concerns were heard, considered and answered respectfully. Municipal government exists to serve the community, and residents should be treated accordingly.

I believe we need an approach that addresses both the human causes of homelessness and addiction and the legitimate concerns of residents and businesses regarding public safety.

I would push for stronger coordination between the City, Grey County, the Province, police, health-care providers, mental-health and addiction organizations, housing providers and community organizations.

We need improved access to treatment and mental-health services, supportive and transitional housing, outreach and meaningful paths toward permanent housing. At the same time, existing laws and bylaws should be enforced when behaviour threatens public safety or prevents residents and businesses from safely using public spaces.

Grey County is the local service manager for housing and homelessness and currently operates programs including rent-geared-to-income housing, short-term shelter and supportive housing, so meaningful progress requires cooperation between the City and County rather than either government acting alone.

Regarding a coordinated approach:

Yes. I support a coordinated approach.

Housing alone will not solve addiction, addiction treatment alone will not solve homelessness, and enforcement alone will not solve either problem. We need these systems working together.

Support should come with clear expectations concerning behaviour in shared public spaces, while recognizing that people dealing with addiction, mental illness or homelessness still need access to treatment, housing and support.

Grey County's supportive housing program already combines housing with mental-health, addiction, health and life-skills supports, which is the type of coordinated model I believe should continue to be developed.

Regarding what would you do differently:

I would like to see one clearly coordinated strategy with measurable goals and regular public reporting rather than separate organizations working in isolation.

Success should be measured using actual outcomes: how many people move from homelessness into stable housing, how many remain housed, access and wait times for treatment, repeated emergency-service contacts, public-safety incidents and whether residents and downtown businesses are seeing measurable improvement.

If a program is receiving significant public funding but is not producing results, Council should be willing to ask difficult questions and consider a different approach.

Yes. I would support reviewing development charges to determine whether Owen Sound is competitive with comparable communities and whether changes could encourage additional residential and commercial development.

Any reduction therefore needs to consider how the infrastructure would otherwise be funded so that the cost is not simply transferred to existing taxpayers.

Regarding Targeted Incentives:

Yes, I would consider targeted and time-limited incentives where there is a strong business case and a clear public benefit.

For affordable or geared-to-income housing, I would support examining reductions or other incentives when there is a binding commitment that the promised affordable units will actually be delivered and maintained.

I would prefer targeted incentives tied to specific outcomes rather than simply eliminating development charges across the board.

Regarding makeing Owen Sound more attractive for investment:

I would focus on making the development and approval process as predictable and efficient as possible, actively promoting Owen Sound to employers and developers, identifying barriers that discourage investment and working with other levels of government to secure infrastructure funding.

Economic development is also connected to housing, public safety, infrastructure and quality of life. Businesses are more likely to invest in a community where employees can afford to live, families feel safe and municipal government is responsive and predictable.

I want Owen Sound to be known as a community that welcomes responsible development and is open for business.

I support taxpayers being able to see the true overall cost of municipal services and departments, including appropriate allocations for administration, HR, payroll, facilities and information technology.

However, I also believe there should be a reasonable balance between financial transparency and employee privacy. I do not believe transparency requires publishing the individual salary or personal payroll information of every municipal employee beyond what is already required by law.

Council and taxpayers should be able to see what a department costs to operate, how much is spent on staffing overall and how those costs compare from year to year, without unnecessarily disclosing individual employees' personal financial information.

Regarding cost-sharing agreements:

Yes. Accurate information about the total cost of providing a service should be considered when negotiating cost-sharing arrangements.

Council should understand both the direct and indirect costs involved so that agreements are fair to Owen Sound taxpayers, while also considering who uses the service, regional benefits, service levels and any legal or contractual obligations.

Yes. Ratepayers should receive a clear explanation of proposed increases, what is driving those increases, what portion is going toward operations and infrastructure and what alternatives were considered.

Water and wastewater are funded through user fees rather than property taxes, but residents are still paying the bill and deserve the same level of transparency.

Regarding the Water Department to participate in the same cost-reduction:

Yes.

Water and wastewater must meet strict regulatory and safety requirements, so savings cannot come at the expense of drinking-water safety or responsible wastewater treatment. However, those requirements should not exempt the department from examining staffing, purchasing, energy use, technology, operations and other potential efficiencies.

The City's existing Service Review already calls for performance indicators and revenue targets across divisions, with different approaches depending on whether a service is tax-funded, rate-funded or user-pay.

Regarding Council accountability:

Yes. Staff have a responsibility to provide professional advice, financial information and recommendations, but elected Council ultimately has responsibility for the decisions it approves.

Council members should understand the reasons behind proposed rate increases, ask questions, challenge assumptions where appropriate and be prepared to explain those decisions to the residents who pay the bills.

Response pending.