Council Candidate

HAMLEY, Brock

Responses to the questions posed by Concerned Owen Sound Taxpayers (COST).

1. Municipal leadership and management

Owen Sound's population has stagnated for more than two decades, while the size and cost of the municipal management structure have increased significantly. What changes would you make to ensure that the City's senior management structure is lean, accountable and focused on results rather than simply administering the status quo? Would you support recruiting a City Manager with a demonstrated record of organizational transformation, cost reduction and successful change management? Would you also support establishing fixed-term, renewable contracts for senior management positions, with a significant portion of compensation tied to measurable performance objectives established by Council?.

Candidate response

I do think that the premise that Owen Sound's population has stagnated is not correct. While the last Census showed relatively little growth, Environics Analytics' intercensal data estimates Owen Sound's population at 24,190 as of December 2025. I expect the next Census will confirm that the City has experienced a sizable increase in population in recent years. Further proof of this is the growth in property assessment. New properties have increased the total assessment value by $321,324,727 since 2016. That is an increase of 14.74%.

I do agree though that council should continuously be looking to make changes and improvements to city operations and services. The last Council initiated a comprehensive Service Review that identified 53 opportunities for improvement, including changes to the organizational structure. This review is expected to generate approximately $2 million in direct and indirect savings over this term of Council. The City has also introduced an annual organizational work plan and begun implementing Lean Six Sigma to improve efficiency and accountability. The next Council should build on that work and be prepared to make further warranted changes.

2. Controlling property tax increases

Owen Sound taxpayers have experienced property-tax increases that, in our view, have exceeded what can reasonably be justified by inflation and population growth. Would you support a policy limiting annual property-tax increases to the rate of inflation unless Council can demonstrate a compelling reason to exceed it? If you would support exceeding inflation, what circumstances would justify doing so?

Candidate response

I do support using inflation as an important benchmark when setting the annual budget, but I would not support an absolute cap that prevents Council from responding to circumstances facing the City. Inflation should be a benchmark, not a formula. In 2023, for example, Council approved a municipal levy increase of just 0.86% while national inflation averaged 3.9%. A responsible budget should come in below inflation when circumstances allow.

3. Reducing the cost of government

Owen Sound's population today is smaller than it was in 2011, yet municipal spending and staffing have continued to grow. Would you support requiring every municipal department to identify 5–10% in potential savings, including staff cuts, as part of the budget process? Would you support using the City's 2011 budget, adjusted for inflation, as a benchmark for determining whether today's spending levels are justified? If not, what alternative approach would you use to identify and eliminate unnecessary spending?

Candidate response

Again, I do not agree with the premise on population. As noted above, I believe the assertion about Owen Sound�s population is outdated. I also do not accept the suggestion that City staffing has grown and grown like a wildfire. Since I joined Council in 2018, the City�s overall staffing complement has remained broadly the same. In fact, right now the current complement is 0.5 FTE lower than it was in 2018.

I support requiring every department to identify potential savings as part of the budget process, including staffing reductions where they can be made without compromising essential services. I would not, however, impose an arbitrary 5�10% cut on every department regardless of its current workload or responsibilities. For example, one department may be able to find 20% in savings where another may only find 3%.

We need to continually review what services the City provides, what they cost, whether they are still necessary, and whether they can be delivered more efficiently. Where spending or staffing cannot be justified, I support reducing it.

4. Council accountability and relationship with taxpayers

Many residents believe there is an increasing disconnect between City Hall and the taxpayers it serves. What would you do to make City Council more transparent, accessible and accountable to residents? Would you support greater public disclosure of the rationale behind major spending decisions, staffing increases, consultant contracts and significant policy decisions? More importantly, what would you do to ensure that residents are treated as stakeholders in municipal government rather than as an obstacle to it?

Candidate response

I believe there is always more that City Hall can do to be transparent, accessible and accountable to the people it serves.

I support greater disclosure regarding major spending decisions, significant contracts, and major policy decisions. In many cases that information is already publicly available through Council reports, but we need to do a better job explaining not just what decision is being recommended, but why, what alternatives were considered and what it will cost taxpayers.

At the same time, Council (or individual councillors) won't always agree with every resident or every submission. Accountability means listening, considering the evidence, explaining the decision and ultimately being prepared to defend it publicly.

5. Homelessness, addiction and the downtown

Owen Sound's downtown is facing increasingly visible homelessness, addiction and public disorder. What specific actions would you take to address these problems? Would you support a coordinated approach with the County that combines: increased access to addiction treatment and mental-health services; meaningful pathways into appropriate housing; stronger enforcement of existing laws and bylaws when public safety is affected; and clear expectations for individuals receiving publicly funded support? What would you do differently from the current approach, and how would you measure whether your strategy is working?

Candidate response

There is no easy answer to this one. It will take every level of government to solve. I agree that homelessness, addiction and public disorder are serious issues, particularly in our downtown. Where I disagree is with the implication that there is not already significant work underway to address them.

Grey County is the service manager responsible for housing and homelessness services, and it has been investing significantly in a more coordinated system. Grey County does take a "Housing First" approach. That includes emergency and supportive housing, outreach, mental-health and addictions supports, and partnerships with organizations across our community. The City also has an important responsibility to manage the impacts these issues can have on residents, businesses and public spaces. Which is why one of the priorities I am running on is increasing the service levels downtown to increase litter removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, snow and ice removal and maintenance of public spaces.

I support a coordinated approach that combines access to treatment and mental-health services, pathways into appropriate housing, and appropriate enforcement when behaviour threatens public safety or prevents others from using public spaces. I also believe publicly funded services should have clear operating standards and reasonable expectations around behaviour and safety.

I would not suggest that the answer is to discard the current approach and start again. We need to build on the work Grey County is already doing while putting greater emphasis on outcomes and the impact on the surrounding community. As services expand or change, location, security, operating standards and impacts on neighbouring properties all need to be part of the discussion, not an afterthought.

6. Development charges and economic growth

Owen Sound needs more residential and commercial development if it is going to reverse decades of population stagnation. Would you support reviewing the City's development-charge structure with the objective of making Owen Sound more attractive to developers and encouraging new housing construction? Would you support targeted incentives or a temporary reduction or moratorium on development charges where appropriate, particularly where developers commit to including affordable or geared-to-income housing? More broadly, what specific steps would you take to make Owen Sound a more attractive place to invest, build businesses and raise a family?

Candidate response

In 2025 Owen Sound experienced record levels of development activity. Construction value that year reached a record $214.5 million.

I support regularly reviewing development charges to ensure they are competitive and are not unnecessarily discouraging investment.

The City already provides development-charge exemptions for certain forms of development, including nonprofit and affordable housing, rental housing and industrial development. I would continue to support targeted incentives where there is a clear public benefit and where the incentive is actually necessary to make a worthwhile project happen. I would be more cautious about a broad moratorium that subsidizes development that would have proceeded anyway.

More broadly, I believe the most important things the City can do are make development approvals timely and predictable, ensure sufficient serviced land is available, invest in core infrastructure, keep municipal costs competitive and actively support redevelopment of underused properties.

The objective should not simply be to offer the largest subsidy. It should be to make Owen Sound a place where good projects can get built.

7. The true cost of municipal services

We believe taxpayers should be able to see the full cost of every municipal service, including the costs of administration, HR, payroll, facilities, information technology and other shared services. Would you support fully allocating these costs to each municipal department, agency or shared-service arrangement so Council and taxpayers can see the true cost of each service? Would you also support using this information when negotiating cost-sharing arrangements with organizations such as the Library and other agencies?

Candidate response

I support Council and taxpayers having as clear a picture as possible of what municipal services actually cost.

The City already uses internal cost allocations in parts of its budget, and I would support continuing to improve that information where doing so provides Council with a more accurate understanding of the cost of delivering a service.

Where the City is negotiating a cost-sharing arrangement with another municipality, agency or partner, I absolutely support using the best available information on the full cost of providing that service. Taxpayers should not be unintentionally subsidizing services provided to others simply because some of the underlying administrative costs are difficult to see.

8. Water and wastewater costs

Water and wastewater are accounted for separately from the property-tax-supported budget because they are fully funded by the users of those systems. That does not mean they are separate from Council oversight.

Proposed water and wastewater rates already come before Council for approval, supported by staff analysis explaining the financial requirements of the systems. I support requiring clear public justification for proposed increases, including the operating, infrastructure and reserve requirements driving them.

I also support applying the same expectation of efficiency to water and wastewater services as I would to any other City service. Separate funding should not mean a lower standard of scrutiny.

At the same time, providing safe drinking water is not a discretionary municipal service. Council has significant legal and frankly moral responsibilities for the oversight of the City's drinking-water system, and decisions about rates must ensure we can safely operate, maintain and renew that infrastructure.

8. Water and wastewater costs

Water and wastewater charges have increased significantly, yet these costs are sometimes treated separately from the City's broader budget decisions. Would you support requiring the Water Department to present Council with a complete explanation and justification for proposed rate increases as part of the annual budget process? Would you also support requiring the Water Department to participate in the same cost-reduction and efficiency reviews expected of other municipal departments? Ultimately, do you believe Council-not municipal staff-should be fully accountable to taxpayers for increases in water and wastewater charges?

Candidate response

I also support applying the same expectation of efficiency to water and wastewater services as I would to any other City service. Separate funding should not mean a lower standard of scrutiny.

9. Judgment and Proportionality

We are now asking candidates to consider one additional issue that raises important questions about municipal governance, accountability, judgment, and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Please read the attached opinion paper, “A Failure of Judgment at Owen Sound City Hall,” which examines the City's prosecution of a Georgian College nursing student over an Amazon box found in a municipal garbage receptacle. We are not asking you to prejudge the outcome of the court proceedings. Rather, we believe this case raises broader questions about how municipal enforcement decisions are made, who is responsible for reviewing the strength and proportionality of those decisions, how legal services are procured and overseen, and how Council ensures that taxpayer resources are being used responsibly. As we noted in our previous correspondence, COST believes that significant change in the way City Hall operates is essential if Owen Sound is to move forward. With that in mind, we would like to ask you one additional question: "If elected to Owen Sound City Council, what specific steps would you take to ensure that a situation like this does not happen again—where a municipal prosecution involving questionable evidence proceeds through multiple court appearances at significant cost to taxpayers?"

Candidate response

Response pending.

COST will update this page when a candidate response is received. Candidate responses are presented for voter information and are not necessarily the views of COST.