Council Candidate

MELANSON, Justin

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

City Hall has grown more expensive while the population has not. Senior management should be lean, answer to council, and prove results. I will push for a smaller, clearer structure focused on doing the job taxpayers already pay for.

I would support hiring a City Manager who has turned an organization around and cut costs, not someone hired to administer the same pattern.

For future senior jobs, I support fixed-term, renewable contracts with pay tied to results council sets: holding the levy, faster service, safer streets, and real development. Existing contracts must be respected. New ones should work for the people who pay the bills.

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 will not support tax increases on homes or businesses if the city cannot show progress and do its job. Prosperity and growth come first. If assessment is flat, people are leaving, and downtown is weaker; another increase is not justified. I support limiting levy increases to inflation possibly every other year unless there is a clear, written reason-legal requirement, public safety, or a repair that costs more if we wait. "We need more money to keep doing what we have been doing" is not enough.

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

Yes. Every department should come to budget with 5-10% in savings options, including staffing. Council should see those options before anyone talks about raising taxes.

I am willing to use 2011 spending, adjusted for inflation, as one check. If we have fewer people than we did then and spend more now, City Hall must explain what taxpayers got. My other test is simple: are we growing, is the core healthier, and are services better? If not, spending is not justified.

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

Residents are not an obstacle. They are the reason City Hall exists. I will talk to people in the community, hear their problems, and vote as their representative.

I support full public reasons for big spending, new staff, consultant contracts, and major policy. Decisions should be explained in ordinary language.

I will be available, I will listen, and I will not treat questions as an inconvenience.

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

I have sympathy for people who are homeless or addicted. This problem has grown across Canada for 10 to 15 years. Ignoring it helps no one. Pretending it has no effect on everyone else is also dishonest.

What I hear is that property values and the city's reputation have been hurt; businesses and foot traffic in the core have dropped because people feel unsafe, and some residents have left.

The River District should be a place people visit, feel comfortable, and enjoy. Right now, too many will not go there.

I support working with the County on treatment and mental health, real pathways into housing, stronger enforcement when public safety is at risk, and clear expectations for publicly funded support.

Compassion and rules have to travel together. I will measure success by whether families use downtown again, whether businesses stay, and whether fewer people feel they must leave Owen Sound because of what they see on the street.

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

Yes. Review development charges so it is more attractive to build here. A city that is not growing cannot keep asking the same households for more.

I would support targeted, temporary reductions where builders deliver housing, including affordable units, with conditions if they do not follow through.

Broader steps: make it faster and more predictable to invest, keep the core safe and welcoming, and stop raising taxes when the city is not progressing. People raise families where they feel safe and see a future.

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

Yes. Show the full cost of each service, including administration, HR, facilities, and IT. Taxpayers should see what they pay for. Use those real costs when we talk to the library and other agencies. Hidden overhead is how spending grows without anyone owning it.

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

Yes. Rate hikes should come to council with a full explanation in the budget, not as a separate conversation after the fact.

The Water Department should face the same efficiency review as everyone else. Council-not-staff is accountable for the rates it passes. I will not treat water bills as someone else's problem. If costs rise, the public deserves to know why and what was cut first.

In general, I am not a fan of increasing people's taxes and expenditures in todays current economy. There have been alot of increases people have absorbed over the last few years. This city should do what it can to help everyone feel like a community coming together, not falling behind.

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

Re: municipal prosecutions, judgment, and use of taxpayer dollars will not prejudge a matter that is before the courts. I had not followed this case in detail before receiving your question. The governance issue is separate from the verdict: when should the City charge someone, who reviews that decision, and how much public money is spent before someone asks whether the case is proportionate. From what has been reported, a municipal prosecution proceeded through multiple court appearances over an Amazon box found in a municipal receptacle.

Even without deciding the facts, that sequence raises a fair question about judgment and cost. Legal fees, staff time, and court resources are paid by taxpayers. Those resources should be reserved for cases that are evidence-based, proportionate, and clearly in public interest. I also hear from residents about people going through recycling at the curb. I have seen it at my own home, including several people in the same box in a short period. That is common and frustrating. It is not, by itself, a reason to run an expensive prosecution without a clear public interest test. Sensitive information in recycling is a real concern. Whether collectors lose material value when items are taken from bins is a separate operational question. I would ask waste management for the facts: what the by-law is intended to stop, what harm is occurring, and whether education, warnings, or targeted enforcement would achieve the same result at far lower cost.

For me personally, I wouldn't pursue this matter as there seems to be a disconnect with common sense and culpability here. I feel for Sherry and the unfortunate circumstances. It leads me to believe that if this happens to Sherry, it could happen to anyone else, including myself.

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.