Governance, budget and accountability
You deserve to know where your money goes, help shape the services you rely on, and get clear answers when something needs to improve.
Mayor Zvorygin would use the budget and organizational responsibilities available to the Mayor to lower the cost of government, make City Hall easier to deal with, and give residents the information and opportunities to help find better solutions.
Strong mayor powers come with responsibilities. Mayor Zvorygin is prepared to accept those responsibilities and answer to residents for the results.
Resident need. Your property taxes should support services you value at a cost households can afford. Roads, winter maintenance, transit and public spaces matter in everyday life, and each service should have a clear connection between its cost, funding, result and available alternatives.
Legal power and duty. Section 284.16 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and section 7 of Ontario Regulation 530/22 assign the Mayor responsibility for preparing and proposing the municipal budget, including making it available to the public on the statutory timetable. The duty to prepare and propose the budget remains with the Mayor. Mayor Zvorygin is prepared to fulfil it.
What the Mayor would do. On taking office, the Mayor would use section 284.3, for the purpose of exercising budget powers and duties under Part VI.1, to issue written directions to obtain the detailed records behind the budget: spending and revenues, contracts, staffing costs, debt, reserves and historical results, in usable digital formats. Records would begin to be published as they become available and the necessary privacy and confidentiality checks are completed, throughout budget preparation and before the proposed budget is submitted. A clear timetable would help residents review the information and contribute ideas while budget choices are being developed. The records would be examined using modern software and financial analysis, with employees asked to clarify gaps where needed.
Costs would be compared with services, recurring expenses would be identified and opportunities for savings, including resident proposals, would be tested. Analysis would be shared as it develops, with an explanation of how public contributions influenced the proposed budget. Reviewing unnecessary expenses, duplicated administration and recurring contracts can reduce pressure on property taxes while protecting services that residents value. Mayor Zvorygin would take responsibility for preparing the budget, explaining its assumptions and choices, and holding City leadership accountable for delivering results.
How you can participate and check. You would be able to examine the published records, ask questions and help identify savings during budget preparation. Your knowledge could identify a better repair approach, an unnecessary expense or a competitive local supplier. Resident proposals would be examined, recommendations would be explained and the decisions required to implement them would be brought forward. The Verified Savings Ledger would show proposed savings, implementation costs and verified financial results, including whether service improved. Council would retain its statutory amendment and override role, and the Transparency Plan sets out the broader supporting financial information the plan would publish beyond the statutory proposed-budget requirements.
Resident need. Residents bring practical knowledge from their work, businesses, neighbourhoods and experience using City services. That knowledge can improve decisions when people can see the evidence early enough to use it.
What the proposed approach would do. The budget and transparency responsibilities would put usable service, spending and contract information in residents' hands before decisions are finished. Residents would be invited to ask questions, offer alternatives and submit specific proposals early enough to shape the work before a public decision.
Residents examine records, ask questions, discuss alternatives, submit a proposal, receive a response and follow its progress. Council and qualified staff would assess every proposal for legality, safety, service quality and value.
How you can check. The Public Document Forum would give residents a place to examine public reports and proposals together through the approvals and safeguards needed to implement it. Residents could ask questions, discuss alternatives, submit a proposal, receive a response and follow its progress. The Verified Savings Ledger would use everyday language: what changed, what it cost to make the change, what it saved and whether service improved. The ledger would show proposed savings, implementation costs and verified financial results.
Resident need. You should receive clear answers, know who is responsible and have routine issues resolved promptly. You should also be able to see what each service costs and whether changes improve it.
Legal power and what the Mayor would do. Section 284.6 of the Municipal Act assigns the Mayor responsibility for municipal organizational structure, subject to its statutory limits. The first priority would be to establish and publish a clear picture of the organization under the Mayor's responsibility.
Section 284.3 provides a written-direction power connected to the Mayor's duties and powers under Part VI.1. It would be used to require municipal employees to assemble the detailed financial, organizational and service information needed to prepare the budget and exercise the organizational responsibilities. Records eligible for public release would be published progressively during the work, subject to privacy, confidentiality and other applicable law.
The first year would focus on observation, disclosure and establishing a reliable baseline before major organizational changes. This follows the permaculture approach: observe a full seasonal cycle and understand how the parts work together before making major interventions. At City Hall, that means understanding seasonal workloads, service demands, staffing capacity, costs and the connections between departments.
Records would begin to be released as they become available and the necessary privacy and confidentiality checks are completed. Residents and employees could examine the information throughout the year, identify gaps, explain recurring problems and suggest improvements. The underlying records would be examined, clarification would be requested where needed and the evidence would be published.
The baseline would connect staffing and spending with actual service results: response and completion times, backlogs, handoffs, repeated work, vacancies, turnover, overtime and reliance on consultants. Reliable historical records would be used where available, missing information would be identified and consistent measures would be established for future comparisons.
The Staffing and Administration Plan proposes a three-layer City Hall administration: City Manager, functional working heads, and professional and administrative staff. The Mayor would assess and refine that proposal against the published baseline, employee experience and resident feedback. Major changes would follow a public explanation of the problem, expected benefits, transition costs and measures of success.
Any structural transition would proceed through vacancies, attrition, succession and future hiring, preserving current employee salaries under the staff plan's compensation commitments. Essential services, urgent repairs and statutory duties would continue throughout the observation year. Clearly supported, limited improvements could proceed with their timing and effects recorded.
The first year would include practical steps to control cost growth while the City's structure and finances are being documented. The Mayor would red-circle salaries above the adopted ranges and end automatic inflation-adjusted increases for eligible positions within the authority available to the Mayor. Existing base pay would remain fixed, while every future increase would require a clear, documented reason. Existing contractual and collective agreement commitments would be honoured through their current terms, with the same principle applied to future appointments and negotiations wherever legally available. The Verified Savings Ledger would publish the avoided cost, implementation date and effect on future tax pressure.
How you can participate and check. You would be able to review the current structure, responsibilities, costs and service results while the assessment is underway. Your experience could help identify repeated handoffs, delays, unnecessary expenses or services working well. Proposed changes would be published with an explanation of how those contributions shaped them.
After a change, costs and service results would be compared with the baseline, accounting for seasonal demand and changes in workload. The Verified Savings Ledger would show implementation costs, recurring savings and service effects, so residents can judge whether the change delivered its promised benefits.
Resident need. A simpler structure delivers value when City Hall delivers reliable services, controls costs and follows through on public decisions.
Legal power and what the Mayor would do. Section 284.5 assigns the municipality's powers under section 229 concerning the chief administrative officer to the Mayor. The Mayor would take responsibility for assessing whether City Manager leadership meets published expectations and for future appointments under that authority. The staff plan's fair assessment of existing leadership, recruitment approach and compensation framework would set published expectations, assess follow-through and report the resulting goals, costs and service performance.
How you can check. Residents would see published goals, organizational and management costs, service performance, implementation progress and corrective action. Confidential personnel evaluations and employment information would be handled under applicable privacy law.
The compensation framework preserves the six-times-local-income base-salary ceiling for the City Manager. Pension, benefits, payroll charges and other employer costs would be reported separately from base salary.
| Resident need | The Mayor's authority and action | How residents can check |
|---|---|---|
| Affordable, useful services | Examine financial records and service assumptions, test savings and propose spending connected to roads, winter maintenance, transit, public spaces and other resident priorities. | Review published service costs, assumptions, decisions and results through the budget and savings records. |
| Answers based on evidence | Use written directions under s. 284.3, limited to research, advice and duties related to exercising Part VI.1 powers, to obtain the information and analysis needed for informed decisions. | Follow the written direction, the information provided, the public rationale and the implementation update. |
| A City Hall that follows through | Use the s. 284.6 organizational-structure authority to assess and, where supported by the published baseline, advance the three-layer direction through the staff plan's transition approach and give employees appropriate authority within their professional responsibilities. | Compare the published structure, responsibilities, targets, staffing transition and service measures over time. |
| Accountable administration | Use the s. 284.5 appointment authority to assess leadership against published expectations and make future appointments through a fair, qualified process. | Review Council's lawful evaluation of the City Manager, administrative targets, service results and corrective action. |
| Strong-mayor responsibility or power | Planned approach |
|---|---|
| Preparing and proposing the budget | Used fully, with supporting records published early enough for resident participation. |
| Written directions to municipal employees | Used to obtain research, records, advice and implementation connected to Part VI.1 responsibilities. |
| Organizational structure and senior positions | Used to publish the baseline, assess the three-layer City Hall structure and manage a gradual transition. |
| City Manager authority | Used to establish published expectations, assess follow-through and make future appointments through a qualified process. |
| Council-only committees and chairs | Delegated to Council so committee organization remains a collective Council responsibility. |
| Budget-amendment veto | No planned use. |
| Provincial-priority bylaw veto | No planned use. |
| Provincial-priority proposal requiring more than one-third support | No planned use; proposals would be expected to earn an ordinary Council majority. |
Resident need. The mayor must be ready to understand public finances, make choices under limits and explain the result.
What Andrii brings. Andrii runs two profitable businesses, Lyis Forestry, his farm and nursery business, and LiberIT, his IT business. He has served as a federal campaign treasurer and serves as Grey Bruce Makerspace treasurer. He also brings technical skills and years of engagement with municipal and County government.
Running profitable businesses requires balancing revenue, expenses, pricing, purchasing, cash flow, taxes, risk and investments whose results may take time to appear. Treasurer responsibilities add budget preparation, financial reporting, questions from a governing board and regulated compliance. Programming and IT work add practical skills for examining large amounts of information, comparing scenarios, finding duplication and making complex evidence understandable.
How residents can check. Municipal government serves public purposes. This transferable discipline supports the Mayor's responsibility for preparing and proposing Owen Sound's budget by clarifying costs, priorities, essential capacity, alternatives and useful results. The mayoral responsibilities comparison and full experience article provide more detail.
Resident need. You should have enough time and information to understand a proposal, ask useful questions and bring forward alternatives while changes are still possible.
The Mayor would use budget and organizational responsibilities to help establish the Local Representative system as elected offices in resident-governed neighbourhood associations, giving residents a nearby person who can listen, organize neighbours and follow concerns through City Hall.
Funding would be included in the proposed budget, and the Mayor would use the organizational authority available under law to establish appropriate administrative support. The neighbourhood selection process, accountability rules and geographic councillor assignments would be brought before Council for adoption.
Residents would elect their Local Representative through an accessible annual association election, and the City would provide a clear path for their concerns and ideas to receive attention.
What the Mayor would do. Budget evidence would be made available early, resident contributions would be considered and the choices that follow would be explained. The Mayor would support the three channels in the Open Council Communication plan: a Public Council Forum for ordinary questions and proposals, public written Council sessions for transparent deliberation through the applicable legal framework, and private correspondence for sensitive matters.
How you can participate and check. Residents could raise questions, add local knowledge and follow a proposal before a formal vote. A Public Document Forum and public written-session system would proceed through the applicable Council, administrative, privacy and procedural approvals. Council deliberations covered by the open-meeting rules would take place in properly convened public meetings. When Council discussion materially advances municipal business in circumstances covered by the law, the applicable meeting requirements govern the process. Formal meetings, public notice, public access, motions, amendments, recorded votes and final decisions provide the legal Council framework described in How the law works below.
Owen Sound has nine members of Council, so an ordinary majority requires five votes. The plan is to seek at least five votes for every proposal brought forward.
There is no planned use of the budget-amendment veto, the provincial-priority bylaw veto or the special provincial-priority route that can pass a qualifying bylaw with more than one-third support. These powers are expected to remain unused. Committee organization and chair selection would remain with Council through delegation of the applicable special powers.
This approach preserves clear mayoral responsibility for preparing the budget, obtaining the information required to understand it, organizing City Hall and holding senior leadership accountable. Council decisions would continue through ordinary majority support, informed by early public information, resident participation and constructive deliberation.
Owen Sound was designated a strong-mayor municipality on May 1, 2025. Part VI.1 of Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001 adds duties and powers to the ordinary role of head of Council. The province's Ontario Municipal Councillor's Guide provides a plain-language overview.
Under section 284.16, the head of Council must prepare and propose the municipal budget. Section 7 of Ontario Regulation 530/22 sets the annual timetable, including providing the proposed budget to Council and the Clerk and making it available to the public by February 1. The duty to prepare and propose the budget remains with the mayor. If the statutory deadline arrives without a proposed budget, Council prepares and adopts it. Council has a statutory review period in which it may amend the proposal; the mayor may veto a Council amendment through the written statutory process, and Council may override that veto through the required two-thirds vote.
Ordinary records access follows the City's administrative and disclosure processes. Section 284.3 provides a written-direction power connected to the head of Council's powers and duties under Part VI.1. It permits written directions to municipal employees to undertake related research and provide advice, or to carry out related duties including implementing decisions under that Part. The plan would use this authority to obtain research, advice and implementation connected to Part VI.1 responsibilities. Section 284.4 requires applicable strong-mayor powers and duties to be exercised in writing and sets public-availability requirements, and Ontario Regulation 530/22 requires a record of a staff direction to be provided to the Clerk and City Manager by the next business day.
Sections 225 and 226.1 describe the mayor as head of Council and municipal chief executive officer. Part VI.1 also provides powers concerning senior administration, organizational structure, Council-only committees, written directions to municipal employees and provincial-priority matters. Sections 284.5 and 284.6 assign the relevant City Manager and organizational-structure powers to the head of Council within the statutory exclusions, delegation rules and other law. Day-to-day administration is carried out by the City Manager and staff.
The Mayor must exercise the applicable strong-mayor powers in writing and make those decisions available to the public. The maximum information legally available would be published, with protected records handled under the applicable law, including the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The City's strong-mayor record publishes local decisions and directions.
Sections 238 and 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the City's procedure by-law and related law govern Council meetings and closed-session exceptions. Public written communication can provide information before a meeting. Council deliberations covered by the open-meeting rules would take place in properly convened public meetings. Where a quorum discusses or deals with a matter in a way that materially advances Council business or decision-making, the applicable meeting requirements govern.
The budget-amendment veto is legally available for a Council amendment during the statutory budget process. A provincial-priority bylaw veto is legally available for prescribed bylaws under the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act or the City of Toronto Act when the head of Council is of the opinion that all or part of the bylaw could potentially interfere with a prescribed provincial priority. It requires written reasons and follows separate statutory deadlines. The plan expects both veto powers to remain unused.
Law also provides a separate route for the head of Council to propose certain bylaws advancing a prescribed provincial priority. Such a bylaw can pass when more than one-third of all Council members vote in favour. With nine members, more than one-third means four supporting votes, and the Mayor may vote. This route has its own statutory purpose and applies to the prescribed provincial-priority bylaws under the applicable notice, consultation and statutory requirements. The plan expects any proposal to earn an ordinary Council majority of five votes.
Council continues to govern collectively, with staff expertise, professional authority, procurement requirements, public consultation and approvals required under other law integrated into the process.
Legal authority comes from legislation and official guidance. Statements about how the office would be used are campaign commitments. Background about Andrii's experience is linked for residents who want the fuller record.
Last reviewed: September 7, 2026. Candidates and residents may submit sourced corrections or additions through the candidate information and correction page.