Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Read by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you Read by hand. We read Richmond Hill's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 12 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Richmond Hill's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 6 similar Ontario places. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$185.51Muncommitted development charges at the end of 2024, up from $162.50 million a year earlier (the city's own statement)
Development charges are fees builders pay so that growth helps pay for the roads, water pipes and other works it needs. The money is held in separate funds that can only be spent on those works. The city's own 2024 statement says the uncommitted balance in these funds grew from $162.50 million to $185.51 million in 2024, and that from 2020 to 2024 the city collected $113.88 million and put $48.39 million into capital projects. The city says the gap between collecting and spending is a matter of timing and should even out over a long period, and that it meets the province's rule on spending or allocating the money. We did not find, in the documents we opened, a year-by-year plan showing when the balance will be spent, or a figure for the end of 2025.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$24Maverage yearly funding gap for tax-supported repairs and replacement, 2025 to 2034 (city's 2026 budget book); backlog of $327 million
The city's 2026 budget book says tax-supported services (roads, parks, community centres, libraries, fire stations) need about $60 million a year in repairs and replacement over 2025 to 2034, and that about $36 million a year is projected to be available, a gap of $24 million a year. It also reports a backlog of deferred work of $327 million. The city calls the backlog manageable today and says more than 85 per cent of its assets are in good or very good condition. It points to a yearly "infrastructure levy" on tax bills ($15 million in 2026). We did not find a plan in the documents we opened that shows how the yearly gap will be closed.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
5.07%projected 2027 city tax rate increase (3.57% operations, 1.50% infrastructure levy), against 3.46% in 2026
The city's 2026 budget book projects the city's tax rate increase for the next three years: 3.46% in 2026 (1.96% for operations and 1.50% for the infrastructure levy), then 5.07% in 2027, 4.37% in 2028 and 3.98% in 2029. The 2027 jump is in the operations part (1.96% to 3.57%). The 2026 budget itself held operations down, partly because its growth and service line was a reduction of $0.97 million. Only about 28 per cent of a Richmond Hill tax bill goes to the city; the rest goes to York Region and the schools.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
6.1%city water and wastewater rate increase effective April 1, 2026, against a 3.3% York Region wholesale increase
The city buys water from York Region and sells it to residents. Its budget book prints the city's combined water and wastewater rate: $5.2629 per cubic metre in 2024 (up 4.00%), $5.6215 in 2025 (up 6.80%) and $5.9629 in 2026 (up 6.10%). The Region's wholesale increase for 2026 is printed as 3.3%. The city says its rates follow a 2024 Water and Wastewater Financial Plan that sets aside money for future pipe replacement, and the 2026 budget moves $11.7 million more into a watermain reserve fund. The city's 2025 annual report also says the Water and Wastewater Fund ended 2025 in deficit because Region water purchases rose more than water revenue.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$55,836,0002025 annual surplus, against a restated budget deficit of $28,282,000
The audited statements compare 2025 actual results with a "restated" budget. The restated budget expected a deficit of $28,282,000. The actual result was a surplus of $55,836,000. Expenses came in at $365,653,000 against a budget of $426,494,000, and revenue at $421,489,000 against $398,212,000. The city explains that the budget is restated from the council-approved budget, and that some items (such as contributed assets and unrealized investment gains) are not budgeted the same way. We did not find a line-by-line bridge from the council-approved budget to the restated one beyond four adjustments, so the large gaps in lines like recreation and environmental services are not explained in the documents we opened.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$321,700added to the 2025 operating budget through Mayoral Decision 21-24 for the city's IT security program
The province gave Richmond Hill's mayor extra powers on July 1, 2023. On July 4, 2023 the mayor delegated three of them: the power to appoint a city manager (to council), the power to set the staff structure (to the city manager) and the powers over committees (to council). The power to propose the budget is not one the mayor may delegate (the city's page marks only the other three with an asterisk). The decisions the city lists are mostly written approvals of by-laws and the yearly budget proposals. One decision, 21-24 (November 5, 2024), directed staff to add $200,000 in the 2025 capital budget, $100,000 in the 2025 operating budget and three security analyst positions (two in 2025, one in 2026), "as described in Confidential Staff Report SRCFS.24.057". The mayor's 2025 budget decision includes "$321,700" for this. We did not find a public description of what the spending buys.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
3 meetingsApril 1, April 22 and May 14, 2020 meetings in which the Ombudsman found the public could not observe all or part of the meeting
The Ombudsman is Richmond Hill's closed meeting investigator. In March 2021 his report on five meetings held in 2019 and 2020 found that council did not break the rules when it discussed a planning matter in closed session, but that "the public was denied the ability to observe all or part of the electronic meetings held by council on April 1, April 22, and May 14, 2020, in contravention of the Act." He made four recommendations, including changes to the procedure by-law. Council said it generally accepted the findings and that any failure was unintentional and came from a rushed move to electronic meetings. The city's 2023 procedure by-law now says a meeting that cannot be livestreamed is delayed until it can be. We did not find the council resolution the Ombudsman said should state how council would address his report.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
1 formal complaintreported on in the Integrity Commissioner's annual report to council, September 24, 2025
At its meeting on September 24, 2025 council received the Integrity Commissioner's annual report. The minutes say she had received three informal complaints, all dismissed, and reported on one formal complaint, an investigation of Regional and Local Councillor Joe DiPaola (complaint number 122024, report dated July 7, 2025). Council received both reports by a recorded vote of 9 to 0 and directed staff to prepare a draft "Council Office staffing and access policy". The minutes do not state the finding. The investigation report is an agenda attachment on the city's meeting site, which blocked our automated downloads, so we could not read it and do not say what it found.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$61,501.81one councillor's total for January to June 2026, against $2,240.92 to $23,119.27 for the other eight members
The city posts each member's expense report every quarter. The reports for January 1 to June 30, 2026 (posted August 31, 2026) use the same layout for all nine members. Regional and Local Councillor Joe DiPaola's total is $61,501.81, including a single entry of $22,661.55 on May 25, 2026 described as "Advertising and Communication". The other members' totals are $2,240.92 (Ward 1) to $23,119.27 (Deputy Mayor Godwin Chan). The reports do not say what each entry bought. We could not open the city's Member of Council Expense Policy, so we do not know the yearly limit each member has.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$142,502,000held in a pooled equity fund at the end of 2025, up from $104,901,000
The audited statements show portfolio investments of $626,761,000 at the end of 2025 (up from $557,503,000). Of that, $185,118,000 is recorded at market value, including $142,502,000 in a pooled equity fund (up from $104,901,000 a year earlier) and $42,616,000 in principal protected notes. The rest, $441,643,000, is held at cost in deposits, bonds and bond funds. The city's annual report says its investment policy puts capital preservation and legal compliance first. The unrealized gain on market-value holdings was $11,412,000 in 2025.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
Richmond Hill spent about $111 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar city spent $0. None of the 6 similar places spent more.
Found automatically from the city's financial reports · 4 sources
$185.51Muncommitted development charges at the end of 2024, up from $162.50 million a year earlier (the city's own statement)
Development charges are fees builders pay so that growth helps pay for the roads, water pipes and other works it needs. The money is held in separate funds that can only be spent on those works. The city's own 2024 statement says the uncommitted balance in these funds grew from $162.50 million to $185.51 million in 2024, and that from 2020 to 2024 the city collected $113.88 million and put $48.39 million into capital projects. The city says the gap between collecting and spending is a matter of timing and should even out over a long period, and that it meets the province's rule on spending or allocating the money. We did not find, in the documents we opened, a year-by-year plan showing when the balance will be spent, or a figure for the end of 2025.
Why it matters
Residents who live next to new development often wait for the roads, parks and pipes it brings. A large balance can mean projects are lined up and paid for, or that they are late. Either way, the public can see which it is only if the timing is published.
It could be because…
Collections are lumpy: the city says permits for a high-density development of approximately 1,713 dwelling units were issued in December 2024, which brought in money before any project could be built.
Big projects take years to design and build, so money is collected first and spent later, as the city says.
The city says it has already allocated about $148 million between 2025 and 2034 to growth projects for water, wastewater and roads, which is the part of the spending the province's rule is about.
Over ten years the city collected only 73% of what it had forecast, so a large balance may reflect caution about spending money that has not arrived.
Questions you could ask
What is the development charge balance at the end of 2025, and how much of it is already tied to approved projects?
What is the planned year-by-year spending of the $185.51 million, and which projects does it fund?
How much of the balance is for services other than water, wastewater and roads?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The city's 2024 reserve fund statement says: "The uncommitted Development Charges Reserve Funds balances increased by $22.66 million in 2024, from an opening balance of $162.50 million to a closing balance of $185.51 million".
On the five years: "totaled $113.88 million" was collected from 2020 to 2024, and capital spending funded from development charges over the period "amounted to $48.39 million".
The city's explanation: "The timing difference between the collection of development charges and expenditure will always exist, but over an extended timeline, it is expected to be net neutral."
On the provincial rule: "Richmond Hill is in compliance with the requirement of development charges allocation set out in the Development Charges Act." The report adds that the city "has allocated approximately $148 million between 2025 and 2034" to growth projects for water, wastewater and highways.
The audited statements show "Obligatory Reserve Funds" (the note says the main ones are the Development Charges Reserve Funds) of 315,877 at December 31, 2025 and 284,413 at December 31, 2024, in thousands of dollars. These include other restricted funds, so they are not the same measure as the 2024 development charge balance above.
$24Maverage yearly funding gap for tax-supported repairs and replacement, 2025 to 2034 (city's 2026 budget book); backlog of $327 million
The city's 2026 budget book says tax-supported services (roads, parks, community centres, libraries, fire stations) need about $60 million a year in repairs and replacement over 2025 to 2034, and that about $36 million a year is projected to be available, a gap of $24 million a year. It also reports a backlog of deferred work of $327 million. The city calls the backlog manageable today and says more than 85 per cent of its assets are in good or very good condition. It points to a yearly "infrastructure levy" on tax bills ($15 million in 2026). We did not find a plan in the documents we opened that shows how the yearly gap will be closed.
Why it matters
Money not set aside now for roads, pipes and buildings is paid later at a higher cost, or shows up as worse roads and more closures. The gap is on top of what growth will cost.
It could be because…
The city calls a backlog of 2.5 per cent of asset value manageable, and the gap is a long-range estimate that is updated each year.
The city adds a yearly levy of 1.5 per cent of the tax rate that goes only to repairs, and plans to keep it at that level in its three-year outlook.
About 70% of core repair needs are already identified in the 2026 budget and forecast, so part of the gap may be a timing gap.
Grants, development charges and cheaper replacement options could cover some of the need.
Questions you could ask
What combination of levy increases, grants and development charges does the city expect to use to close the $24 million a year gap, and by when?
Why does the three-year outlook hold the infrastructure levy at 1.5 per cent a year if the gap stays at $24 million a year?
What happens to the condition ratings if the gap is not closed over the next ten years?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The budget book shows the average yearly gap for tax-supported state-of-good-repair work, 2025 to 2034: funding needed "$60 M", projected available funding "$36 M", funding gap "$24 M". The text says "the $24 million annual funding gap reflects both the need to catch up on past deferrals and to keep pace with ongoing asset degradation".
The book says "a backlog of some $327 million, or about 2.5 per cent of total asset value, represents deferred renewal work", that "more than 85 per cent of assets are rated in good or very good condition", and that "this backlog is considered manageable today".
Over the next ten years the city needs "close to $1 billion in capital renewal investment": tax-supported services "$596 million", water and wastewater "$276 million" and stormwater "$126 million".
"Council approved the CAS Levy at a tax rate equivalent of 1.5 per cent. The levy will generate an additional $2.1 million for future capital asset funding, for a total revenue budget of $15 million."
The book says "ABOUT 70% OF CORE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR ASSETS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE 2026 BUDGET AND FORECAST" against an infrastructure backlog of $327 M.
5.07%projected 2027 city tax rate increase (3.57% operations, 1.50% infrastructure levy), against 3.46% in 2026
The city's 2026 budget book projects the city's tax rate increase for the next three years: 3.46% in 2026 (1.96% for operations and 1.50% for the infrastructure levy), then 5.07% in 2027, 4.37% in 2028 and 3.98% in 2029. The 2027 jump is in the operations part (1.96% to 3.57%). The 2026 budget itself held operations down, partly because its growth and service line was a reduction of $0.97 million. Only about 28 per cent of a Richmond Hill tax bill goes to the city; the rest goes to York Region and the schools.
Why it matters
Voters in October 2026 will choose the council that sets the 2027 budget. An outlook that rises sharply the year after an election is worth understanding before the vote.
It could be because…
The city names inflation, growth, the IT Strategy and the Fire Master Plan as the cost drivers behind the outlook.
The 2026 budget's growth and service line was a reduction of $0.97 million, which may make 2026 lower than a typical year.
An outlook is a planning tool, not a decision; council sets each year's rate in that year's budget.
The city expects other revenue to grow 3 per cent a year and the tax base to grow 2 per cent a year, which would reduce the increase.
Questions you could ask
What are the specific costs behind the rise in the operations part of the rate from 1.96% to 3.57% in 2027?
Which of those costs are decisions council has already made, and which are still open?
What would the 2027 increase be if the infrastructure levy were held where it is and each of those costs were delayed one year?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The three-year outlook chart prints: 2026 "3.46%", 2027 "5.07%", 2028 "4.37%", 2029 "3.98%", with operations pieces of "1.96%", "3.57%", "2.87%", "2.48%" and "1.50%" for the infrastructure levy each year.
The city's explanation: the outlook "considers rising costs due to inflation and the needs of a growing population" and "key initiatives like the IT Strategy, Fire Master Plan, and service enhancements", offset by "non-tax revenue growth of 3 per cent per year from 2027 to 2029" and assessment growth "estimated at 2 per cent".
The 2026 budget "proposes a tax levy increase of $2.76 million, equivalent to a tax rate increase of 1.96 per cent". Its growth and service line is "($0.97 million) or (0.69 per cent)".
6.1%city water and wastewater rate increase effective April 1, 2026, against a 3.3% York Region wholesale increase
The city buys water from York Region and sells it to residents. Its budget book prints the city's combined water and wastewater rate: $5.2629 per cubic metre in 2024 (up 4.00%), $5.6215 in 2025 (up 6.80%) and $5.9629 in 2026 (up 6.10%). The Region's wholesale increase for 2026 is printed as 3.3%. The city says its rates follow a 2024 Water and Wastewater Financial Plan that sets aside money for future pipe replacement, and the 2026 budget moves $11.7 million more into a watermain reserve fund. The city's 2025 annual report also says the Water and Wastewater Fund ended 2025 in deficit because Region water purchases rose more than water revenue.
Why it matters
Water is a bill every household pays. Rates rising faster than the supplier's price are fine if the extra goes to pipes, but residents deserve to see that the reserve is growing as planned.
It could be because…
The city says the extra money funds future watermain replacement under its Financial Plan, so it is saved, not spent.
Rates must also cover city staff, meters and billing, which are not part of the Region's price.
The Region's 3.3% starts April 1, 2026, and city rates also start April 1, so both apply for the same months.
A deficit in one year, driven by purchases above budget, can be covered from the rate stabilization reserve.
Questions you could ask
How large was the 2025 Water and Wastewater Fund deficit, and how was it covered?
How much of the 2026 rate increase goes to the watermain reserve, and what balance does the Financial Plan expect it to reach?
Will the Region's April 2026 increase be passed through in full, and how are the city's own costs shown to residents?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The rate table prints: 2024 "$5.2629" "4.00%", 2025 "$5.6215" "6.80%", 2026 "$5.9629" "6.10%". The text says "The 2026 rates will increase 6.1 per cent effective April 1, 2026" and that rates are "guided by the recommendations set out in the 2024 Water and Wastewater Financial Plan, which call for the City to allocate sufficient funds for future capital renewal needs".
"Starting April 1, 2026, York Region will be passing on a combined 3.3 per cent wholesale rate increase for provision of water and wastewater treatment services."
"The $11.7 million increase in the Transfer to Reserve and Reserve Funds category is mainly the result of the transfer to the Watermain Reserve Fund to account for the increased requirements to fund water infrastructure as recommended in the Water and Wastewater Financial Plan."
The city's annual report says "higher wholesale water purchases from York Region exceeded the additional water revenues and contributed to the fund’s year-end deficit", and "This pressure contributed to the Water and Wastewater Fund deficit". The report does not print the deficit amount.
$55,836,0002025 annual surplus, against a restated budget deficit of $28,282,000
The audited statements compare 2025 actual results with a "restated" budget. The restated budget expected a deficit of $28,282,000. The actual result was a surplus of $55,836,000. Expenses came in at $365,653,000 against a budget of $426,494,000, and revenue at $421,489,000 against $398,212,000. The city explains that the budget is restated from the council-approved budget, and that some items (such as contributed assets and unrealized investment gains) are not budgeted the same way. We did not find a line-by-line bridge from the council-approved budget to the restated one beyond four adjustments, so the large gaps in lines like recreation and environmental services are not explained in the documents we opened.
Why it matters
A budget that is far from the result makes it harder for residents to judge whether money was spent as planned. A published bridge would answer it quickly.
It could be because…
The restated budget is adjusted for amortization (a non-cash charge of $43,252,000) and contributed assets, which behave differently from the cash budget council votes on.
Contributed assets (builders handing over roads and pipes) and developer contributions are recorded as revenue but cannot be reliably budgeted.
Capital spending and transfers to reserves approved in the budget may appear in different places in the statements.
Staff vacancies and timing of projects can leave real savings in a year; the city's year-end operating report would show this.
Questions you could ask
Can the city publish a line-by-line bridge from the council-approved 2025 budget to the restated budget and to actual results?
Which services came in furthest below the restated budget (recreation and cultural, environmental, transportation), and why?
How much of the 2025 surplus was already committed to reserves or capital projects?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The statement of operations (in thousands of dollars) prints "Annual surplus (deficit)" of "(28,282)" in the 2025 budget column and "55,836" in the 2025 actual column; total expenses of "426,494" budget and "365,653" actual; total revenue of "398,212" budget and "421,489" actual.
Note 17 reconciles the adopted budget to the restated budget: decrease in reserves "1,526", amortization of tangible capital assets "(43,252)", acquisition of contributed tangible capital assets "13,507", BIA loss "(63)", giving "Restated budgeted annual deficit" of "(28,282)" (in thousands of dollars).
The city's explanation: "Compared to the 2025 budgeted deficit of $28.3 million, this represents a favourable variance of $84.1 million." and "Budget-to-actual variances can arise when certain items are excluded from the approved budget or cannot be reliably estimated during budget preparation".
$321,700added to the 2025 operating budget through Mayoral Decision 21-24 for the city's IT security program
The province gave Richmond Hill's mayor extra powers on July 1, 2023. On July 4, 2023 the mayor delegated three of them: the power to appoint a city manager (to council), the power to set the staff structure (to the city manager) and the powers over committees (to council). The power to propose the budget is not one the mayor may delegate (the city's page marks only the other three with an asterisk). The decisions the city lists are mostly written approvals of by-laws and the yearly budget proposals. One decision, 21-24 (November 5, 2024), directed staff to add $200,000 in the 2025 capital budget, $100,000 in the 2025 operating budget and three security analyst positions (two in 2025, one in 2026), "as described in Confidential Staff Report SRCFS.24.057". The mayor's 2025 budget decision includes "$321,700" for this. We did not find a public description of what the spending buys.
Why it matters
Strong-mayor powers let one person shape the budget. Residents are entitled to know when they were used and for what, even where details of a security program must stay private.
It could be because…
Cyber security details are sensitive, so a confidential staff report is ordinary practice.
The mayor delegated most of the powers and used the rest in routine ways, such as approving by-laws.
Council still debated and adopted the budget; the mayor's decision only proposed it.
Staff may have asked for the items and the mayor's direction was how the rules required them to be added.
Questions you could ask
Can the city publish a short, non-technical summary of what the $200,000, $100,000 and three positions are for, and what they cost each year?
Which other mayoral decisions in 2023 to 2026 changed the budget or staffing beyond routine by-law approvals?
Did council amend or confirm the cyber security items when it adopted the 2025 budget?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The city’s mayoral decision page says the mayor’s powers include to "Propose the City’s budget subject to Council amendments, a Mayoral veto and a Council override process", and that for the powers marked with an asterisk "The Mayor may choose to delegate these specific powers and duties".
Decision 02-23 (July 4, 2023): the mayor delegates to the City Manager "The power to determine the City of Richmond Hill’s organizational structure" and the employment of department heads.
Decision 03-23 (July 4, 2023): the mayor delegates to council "The power to establish or dissolve committees", "to appoint the chairs and vice-chairs of committees" and "to assign functions to committees".
Decision 21-24 (November 5, 2024) directs staff to include, "as described in Confidential Staff Report SRCFS.24.057": "Addition of $200,000 in 2025 Capital Budget for cyber security projects", "Addition of $100,000 in 2025 Operating Budget for Cybersecurity contracts", and one senior security analyst and one security analyst in 2025 and one security analyst in 2026.
Decision 26-24 (December 6, 2024), the proposed 2025 operating budget: "An increase of $321,700 through Mayoral Decision 21-24" (the rest of the sentence refers to the confidential closed session staff report on the city’s IT security program).
3 meetingsApril 1, April 22 and May 14, 2020 meetings in which the Ombudsman found the public could not observe all or part of the meeting
The Ombudsman is Richmond Hill's closed meeting investigator. In March 2021 his report on five meetings held in 2019 and 2020 found that council did not break the rules when it discussed a planning matter in closed session, but that "the public was denied the ability to observe all or part of the electronic meetings held by council on April 1, April 22, and May 14, 2020, in contravention of the Act." He made four recommendations, including changes to the procedure by-law. Council said it generally accepted the findings and that any failure was unintentional and came from a rushed move to electronic meetings. The city's 2023 procedure by-law now says a meeting that cannot be livestreamed is delayed until it can be. We did not find the council resolution the Ombudsman said should state how council would address his report.
Why it matters
The right to watch council decide things is the base of local democracy. The Ombudsman is the only independent body that has ruled on Richmond Hill's meeting rules.
It could be because…
The meetings were held in the first months of the pandemic, and the Ombudsman himself said the city "is to be commended for many of these practices".
The city says it changed its practice right away (separate video links, restarting the livestream after closed session).
The 2023 by-law responds to the main recommendation: it requires a delay if the livestream cannot start.
Council may have passed the resolution in 2021 and we could not open the 2021 minutes.
Questions you could ask
Did council pass a resolution in 2021 saying how it would address the Ombudsman's four recommendations, and where is it posted?
Does the current by-law require the vote to go into closed session to be livestreamed when the meeting has no other items?
Has any closed meeting complaint been made to the Ombudsman about Richmond Hill since 2021?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Ombudsman's opinion: "However, the public was denied the ability to observe all or part of the electronic meetings held by council on April 1, April 22, and May 14, 2020, in contravention of the Act." He also found council "did not contravene the Act when it discussed the Yonge/Bernard Key Development Area and related appeals in camera on April 16 and May 14, 2019, and April 22 and May 14, 2020."
Recommendation 3: "Council for the City of Richmond Hill should amend its procedure by-law to recognize the public’s right to observe all open meetings, including meetings where the only item on the agenda is an in camera matter."
The city's response: "council expressed that it generally accepted the findings set out in the report, but maintains that any failure to comply with the Act was unintentional". The Ombudsman added that "council should pass a resolution stating how it intends to address this report."
By-law 125-23, section 12.11: "Where the City is not able to Livestream an Electronic Meeting that is not otherwise open to the public for any reason, the start of a Meeting shall be delayed until such time as the City is able to Livestream the Meeting."
By-law 125-23: "The technology used for an Electronic Meeting will permit the City to Livestream the open session portion of a Meeting." Elsewhere: "All Meetings of Council, save and except Closed Session Meetings, may be broadcast live to the public by live audio or video streaming."
1 formal complaintreported on in the Integrity Commissioner's annual report to council, September 24, 2025
At its meeting on September 24, 2025 council received the Integrity Commissioner's annual report. The minutes say she had received three informal complaints, all dismissed, and reported on one formal complaint, an investigation of Regional and Local Councillor Joe DiPaola (complaint number 122024, report dated July 7, 2025). Council received both reports by a recorded vote of 9 to 0 and directed staff to prepare a draft "Council Office staffing and access policy". The minutes do not state the finding. The investigation report is an agenda attachment on the city's meeting site, which blocked our automated downloads, so we could not read it and do not say what it found.
Why it matters
Integrity Commissioner reports are one of the few independent checks on how elected people behave. Residents should be able to find what was decided and what changed afterward.
It could be because…
A complaint can be dismissed, upheld in part, or end in advice only; the minutes do not say which.
The staffing and access policy may be general guidance for all council offices, not a response to one member.
The city may have posted the report on its site in a place we did not look.
Council has not yet finished the policy, which is why we found nothing newer.
Questions you could ask
Where can residents read the July 7, 2025 investigation report and the council decision on it?
When will the council office staffing and access policy come back to council, and what problem does it address?
Can the city post every Integrity Commissioner annual report and investigation report on its Integrity Commissioner page?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The September 24, 2025 minutes, item 13.3: the Integrity Commissioner "noted having received three informal complaints during the reporting period, all of which were dismissed, and reported on one formal complaint", with her report titled "Formal Code of Conduct Complaint #122024 Investigation Report of Regional Council Member Joe DiPaola".
Item 15.4: council received the investigation report "dated July 7, 2025" and resolved "That staff be directed to prepare and report back on a draft Council Office staffing and access policy." The recorded vote was "Carried Unanimously (9 to 0)".
The city's Integrity Commissioner page names no annual report links; it says to "contact the Office of the Clerk" for "Integrity Commissioner Annual Reports".
$61,501.81one councillor's total for January to June 2026, against $2,240.92 to $23,119.27 for the other eight members
The city posts each member's expense report every quarter. The reports for January 1 to June 30, 2026 (posted August 31, 2026) use the same layout for all nine members. Regional and Local Councillor Joe DiPaola's total is $61,501.81, including a single entry of $22,661.55 on May 25, 2026 described as "Advertising and Communication". The other members' totals are $2,240.92 (Ward 1) to $23,119.27 (Deputy Mayor Godwin Chan). The reports do not say what each entry bought. We could not open the city's Member of Council Expense Policy, so we do not know the yearly limit each member has.
Why it matters
Constituency money is public money. In the months before an election, residents reasonably want to know that mailers and ads help them follow the work of council and are within the rules.
It could be because…
Members serve different areas: a regional and local councillor represents the whole city, which is more residents to reach than one ward.
One large print or mailing can be paid in one month and cover the whole year.
The expense policy sets a yearly budget for each member and we do not know if this is within it.
The same member may have spent less in earlier quarters.
Questions you could ask
What is each member's yearly constituency and communication budget under the Member of Council Expense Policy, and how much of it had been used by June 30, 2026?
What did the $22,661.55 entry on May 25, 2026 buy, and was it for one mailing or several?
What rules apply to member advertising and mailings in the months before the October 26, 2026 election?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Regional and Local Councillor Joe DiPaola, expenses January 1 to June 30, 2026 (posted August 31, 2026): total of "61,501.81". A line described as "Advertising and Communication" is dated 25-May-26 for "22,661.55".
$142,502,000held in a pooled equity fund at the end of 2025, up from $104,901,000
The audited statements show portfolio investments of $626,761,000 at the end of 2025 (up from $557,503,000). Of that, $185,118,000 is recorded at market value, including $142,502,000 in a pooled equity fund (up from $104,901,000 a year earlier) and $42,616,000 in principal protected notes. The rest, $441,643,000, is held at cost in deposits, bonds and bond funds. The city's annual report says its investment policy puts capital preservation and legal compliance first. The unrealized gain on market-value holdings was $11,412,000 in 2025.
Why it matters
These investments are mostly reserve money set aside for future roads and buildings. Gains help, but equity holdings can also fall just when the money is needed.
It could be because…
Municipal reserves are long-term money, so some exposure to equities is a normal way to beat inflation.
The fund is run by a professional manager for Ontario municipalities, and the notes are principal protected.
The policy may cap equity at a share of the portfolio that the city is within.
The rise in the equity fund balance may reflect market gains, not new purchases.
Questions you could ask
What share of the portfolio does the Investment Policy allow in equities, and what is it now?
Who approves changes to that share, and how often is it reported to council?
What happens to reserve-funded projects if equity values fall 20 per cent?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Note 3 (in thousands of dollars): reported total investments "626,761" (2024: "557,503"); recorded at market value "185,118", made up of principal protected notes "42,616" and pooled investments, equity fund "142,502" (2024: "104,901"); recorded at cost "441,643". "The change in unrealized gain of $11,412 (2024 - $7,847)" is reported in the statement of remeasurement gains and losses.
The annual report says the Investment Policy: "Investment objectives prioritize statutory compliance, capital preservation, liquidity maintenance and competitive returns."
Richmond Hill spent $35.2M on police, fire and safety in 2019 and $54.9M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of police, fire and safety grow 56% in 6 years?
Police, fire and safety
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%
+56%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Police, fire and safety
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+4%
+1%
2021
+15%
+4%
2022
+19%
+11%
2023
+24%
+16%
2024
+33%
+18%
2025
+56%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
When one area grows much faster than prices, it is either doing more (which may be great) or paying more for the same thing. Residents deserve to know which.
It could be because…
The city added a service, a building or staff that residents asked for.
Costs were moved from another area, so the total did not really change.
Accounting rules changed how costs are sorted.
Large one-time costs, like a study, lawsuit or repair, landed in one year.
Questions you could ask
How much of the increase since 2019 is the 16 firefighters hired from 2022 and how much is overtime and pay increases?
What does the provincial return count as protection that the audited statements do not, to explain $54.9 million against $49.0 million?
How much dispatch revenue from the five other municipalities offsets the cost?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Police, fire and safety: 2019 $35.2M, 2020 $36.8M, 2021 $40.6M, 2022 $41.8M, 2023 $43.8M, 2024 $46.8M, 2025 $54.9M.
The audited statements (in thousands of dollars) show "Protection to persons and property" expenses of "49,047" in 2025 against a 2025 budget of "42,931", and "47,885" in 2024. The statements group fire, by-law and other protection services together and may not be measured the same way as the provincial return behind the 56% figure.
The city explains the 2025 increase as "consistent with Fire and Emergency Services staffing, overtime, shift premium and vehicle and equipment maintenance pressures identified in the year-end operating results".
Fire's 2026 budget increase includes "Year 4 of a seven-year tax rate impact for the 16 new full time firefighter positions approved in 2022", and the division dispatches for "Richmond Hill, plus Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket, and Stouffville".
Richmond Hill spent about $111 per home on garbage, dump and recycling in 2025. The typical similar city spent $0. None of the 6 similar places spent more.
Why it matters
Spending more than neighbours is not wrong by itself. It might buy better service. But it is the first place to look for costs that could be lower, such as contracts that were not competitively bid.
It could be because…
Geography: more roads, more snow, a bigger area or a landfill of its own.
Accounting: some places record the same cost in a different category.
A one-time cost in this year.
Questions you could ask
What did waste collection cost in 2025, and how will the 2026 budget change after the Blue Box transition?
When will the new long-term collection contract come to council, and what does it cost compared with the current one?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Richmond Hill?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Garbage, dump and recycling per home: Richmond Hill $111; typical similar city $0; ranked 1st highest of 7.
The audited statements say "The City continues to be in a contract for the handling of garbage, recycling materials and snow removal", with obligations of "9,289" in 2026 and "19,172" in total (in thousands of dollars).
The city says it oversaw "the transition of the Blue Box recycling program to producers" in 2025, and lists as a 2026 priority "Draft and secure a new, long-term waste collection contract."
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy