Who Decides, Who Pays, What Residents Get

An open letter to Miranda Miller on “Owen Sound: Where You Want to Live — And What That Means for This Election”

Dear Miranda,

Thank you for your article and follow-up questions. You ask how City Hall can use public money well and what residents should receive in return. For me, the test is clear: residents can see the cost, know who is responsible, and track the result.

Your article and my platform share important goals: reliable services, safer neighbourhoods, affordable homes, and a government that listens and follows through. My platform gives residents a way to review service costs and results. It ties public support for affordable housing to clear commitments and calls for City–County coordination on housing and social supports. Local Representatives could help neighbours organize voluntary neighbourhood watches and bring local concerns to a Councillor for follow-up.

HelpOS and reader trust

HelpOS is a civic-information site I founded and maintain. Its mayor-candidate page states: “Disclosure: This page is maintained by Andrii Zvorygin (https://helpos.ca/mayor/andrii-zvorygin) through HelpOS. Andrii Zvorygin is a registered candidate for Mayor of Owen Sound.” The candidate comparison also identifies me as its publisher and candidate.

The comparison uses the same issue definitions, criteria, and evidence labels for each candidate. It links classifications to sources, marks unclear evidence with “?”, and offers candidates a way to submit sourced corrections. I use language-model assistance to support a more neutral assessment by organizing evidence or drafting summaries within that same method. Readers can review the sources and method themselves. (HelpOS candidate comparison)

Ontario election law sets requirements for campaign advertising, attribution, and record-keeping. The rules I reviewed contain no general restriction on a candidate also publishing civic information. Strong-mayor decisions follow conflict-of-interest rules: a Mayor with a direct or indirect financial interest in a matter must disclose it and follow the limits on using the related power. (Municipal Elections Act; 2026 Ontario Candidates’ Guide: campaigning; campaign finance; Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, s. 5.3)

The Mayor, Council, and City staff

Ontario’s strong-mayor law gives the Mayor responsibility for the proposed budget and authority to direct staff in writing to research and advise on matters connected to mayoral duties. For software, the Mayor sets budget priorities and directs a staff review through the proper written process. Staff provide technical advice and carry out purchasing under the City’s procurement policy. (Municipal Act, 2001, ss. 284.3–284.4 and 284.16)

In Owen Sound, the current Mayor delegated some powers over the City Manager, organizational structure, and committees to Council or the City Manager. The Mayor retained formal budget responsibility. The 2026 budget direction shows this role in practice: the Mayor set targets and directed staff to prepare a budget within them. The City’s procurement policy assigns purchasing leadership to the Purchasing Agent, while departments define their needs. (Owen Sound Mayoral Decisions; 2026 budget direction; Procurement Policy AF009)

The formal 2027 mayoral budget proposal is due by February 1, 2027. My campaign figures are working proposals. If elected, I would set cost and service priorities, seek staff analysis through the proper written process, and bring the formal budget forward for Council’s consideration. (O. Reg. 189/26; O. Reg. 530/22)

I can also use suitable open-source software I have already built on my own computer to organize and analyse budget information. That is part of preparing my proposal; City staff remain responsible for assessing and procuring systems the municipality uses. (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 284.16; Procurement Policy AF009)

My platform calls for machine-readable financial data, searchable public records, and plain-language summaries. Owen Sound already publishes official agendas, minutes, and meeting videos through its meeting calendar. Because HelpOS is open source, Owen Sound could host its own instance on City servers. Staff would assess server capacity, privacy, security, accessibility, records retention, ongoing maintenance, and staff time. Transcripts and summaries would be labelled as supplemental and linked to the Clerk’s approved minutes and official recordings. (Transparency plan; City meeting records)

A note on garbage: Owen Sound already provides weekly Green Bin collection for accepted organics at no extra charge. Using it for food scraps helps prevent food-related odours and keeps organics out of tagged garbage. My current waste plan keeps bag tags. A tested scenario of including one bag with each biweekly pickup would forgo about $515,000 in annual tag revenue at the 6,600-household planning baseline, before added collection and disposal costs. Waste Service and Clean Streets plan

A specific operating-cost target

The clearest specific operating-cost candidate is the $24,840 annual licensing and technical-support amount for the Solution Guidance project-management system, likely ProjectTeam. I would ask City staff to assess bringing project and financial management into one open-source ERPNext transition. ERPNext already has project-management tools that staff could test against City workflows. The $24,840 is a gross annual target; staff would confirm the current payment, contract exit terms, migration work, and ongoing support costs before counting any net saving. (Integrated finance and project management plan; software cost breakdown; ERPNext project tools)

The 2026 budget lists $696,756 for City-wide software maintenance. The working scenario sets a 25% general review target of $174,189, including Euna once. It treats the $24,840 project-management target separately. Together, those are $199,029 in gross targets, or 28.6% of the 2026 budget line. The 25% figure applies to the general review; 28.6% is the combined target with the separate project-management amount. Both targets need contract, transition, and service checks before they become net savings. (Working 2027 budget)

The working budget sets one $120,000 allowance for the integrated finance and project-management transition. It also redirects an existing $164,200 WorkTech/Great Plains capital allocation toward that work. The transition uses existing planned resources, and the annual tax-supported capital transfer stays at the 2026 level. Staff would cost and test the full migration before any system change. (Working 2027 budget)

My staffing plan proposes reviewing a simpler three-layer structure for City Hall administration. Available salary figures suggest a conditional base-pay range of $58,000–$183,000 for four senior positions. A full estimate still needs a verified position register, employer costs, workloads, reporting lines, and service baselines. Salaries would remain unchanged during the first-year review. Any approved change would use vacancies, attrition, succession, and future hiring; the working plan assumes no restructuring layoffs or severance. Results would be checked against cost and service baselines. (Staffing and Administration Plan)

Operating levy, capital plan, and VHT

These figures separate operating-levy changes, capital-plan changes, and estimated vacant-home-tax (VHT) revenue.

Operating levy

Proposed operating-levy change	Amount
Pause the Sustainable Community Initiatives line for review	−$22,500
General software-maintenance reduction target	−$174,189
Project-management licensing/support reduction target	−$24,840
Add the 70-area Local Representation baseline	+$52,605
Add Golden Broom awards and cleanup equipment	+$2,218
Total listed operating-levy reduction	−$166,706

The software amounts are gross planning targets pending contract, transition-cost, and service reviews.

Capital plan

Capital-plan item	Change
2027 Citizen Satisfaction Survey	Remove the planned $25,000 project and use existing participation channels.
WorkTech/Great Plains allocation	Redirect the existing $164,200 capital allocation to the integrated finance and project-management transition; operating savings are listed separately above.

The annual tax-supported capital transfer remains $3,681,731, the 2026 amount.

VHT estimate and uses

The working net-revenue estimate is $144,504 after administration:

VHT funding item	Amount
Estimated net VHT revenue	+$144,504
Civilian crisis-response pilot	−$60,000
OSHaRE mobile-meal pilot	−$25,000
Estimated unassigned balance	$59,504

Council could apply the estimated $59,504 balance to tax relief or another approved use. Compared with the $38,133,221 reference operating levy, the two scenarios are:

Use of VHT balance	Result
Another approved use	Operating levy: $37,966,515, a $166,706 (0.44%) reduction; combined change with the survey-plan removal: $191,706.
Tax relief	Operating levy: $37,907,011, a $226,210 (0.59%) reduction; combined change with the survey-plan removal: $251,210.

Council would set VHT rules before the estimated revenue enters the budget.

Staff compensation proposal

The proposal directs automatic increases to eligible non-union employees below the Grey-Bruce living-wage benchmark until their pay reaches and tracks it. For eligible employees already above the benchmark, automatic cost-of-living increases are set at zero. Binding agreements and arbitration awards remain in force. This protects lower-paid staff and brings public pay closer to resident incomes.

A 3% increase across positive salary-and-benefit lines would add about $587,824. This is a comparison scenario, separate from the operating-levy changes above. (Working 2027 budget scenario)

Budget reviews with residents

My platform proposes rotating reviews of City services and major recurring costs. Each review would start with the service’s purpose, cost, and results, then compare ways to deliver it. Residents could review records and take part through the proposed Public Document Forum and open Council process. (Transparency plan; Participation plan)

Your resident-member Budget Advisory Group is a concrete option. The Mayor’s special committee power covers committees made up only of Council members, so a group with residents would need Council’s ordinary approval. My current platform commits to rotating reviews and public input; a standing advisory group would be a further choice. (O. Reg. 530/22, s. 4)

Development-charge relief and affordable homes

A development charge is a fee on new construction that helps pay for growth-related roads, pipes, sewers, and other infrastructure. My platform supports public reporting on substantial municipal assistance and targeted relief tied to affordable homes that are delivered. When affordability is the reason for relief, written agreements should state the number of units, rents and affordability period, how delivery will be checked, and recovery terms if delivery falls short. (Transparency plan; Housing and homelessness plan)

Provincial law lets a Mayor propose certain development-charge by-laws connected to provincial housing priorities, with Council voting on the proposal. The 25% unit share, 25-year affordability period, and County-list administration you suggest would require a separate policy decision. (Municipal Act, s. 284.11.1, and O. Reg. 530/22, s. 10; Ontario municipal councillor’s guide)

Non-profit housing

My platform supports reviewing surplus City lots, brownfield sites, and suitable developed or underused City land for attainable housing with Grey County and housing partners. A two-year construction target, first-year land acquisition, and set funding schedule would be new commitments. A realistic schedule depends on a suitable site, servicing, a housing provider, project costs, and confirmed funding. (Housing and homelessness plan)

Coordinating social services

My platform calls for a joint City–County action plan with clear roles, timelines, and public results. It connects prevention, outreach, housing, and follow-up. The first-year deadline, a shared site, and a cost-sharing agreement would be additional details for the City and County to develop together after mapping services, responsibilities, and costs. (Housing and homelessness plan)

Residents should be able to follow a decision from its cost to its result. I want public choices to support reliable services, affordable homes, and neighbourhoods where people feel heard and can help shape what happens next.