The 2026 plan

Build the next
Chatham-Kent.

Three priorities. Measurable commitments. A clear account of what the mayor can start, what Council must decide and what partners must deliver.

The public contract

No promise without a delivery test.

01Publish the problem and current baseline before promising savings.
02Set a numeric target, owner, budget and deadline by day 180 where reliable data does not exist.
03Show what the mayor can initiate, what Council must approve and what administration must deliver.
04Report cost, service results, errors, overrides, appeals, privacy incidents and accessibility together.
05Scale, change or stop the work based on published evidence, and preserve the original commitment when it changes.

Municipal authority

What Randy can actually do.

The mayor can lead, convene, use lawful written directions and propose the budget. That is not the same as unilaterally approving policy, procurement, land or statutory decisions.

mayor

Randy will

Actions the mayor can initiate through public leadership, lawful written directions, convening and the proposed municipal budget.

council

Council decides

Bylaws, spending, procurement, land transactions, policy and other matters requiring a Council vote remain Council decisions.

administration

Administration delivers

Professional analysis, procurement, operations and statutory decisions remain with accountable municipal officials and staff.

partners

Partners are required

Utilities, businesses, colleges, community agencies and other governments must commit the authority, capital or service capacity they control.

Permit Ready CK

A voluntary application pre-check flags missing documents, inconsistent information and defined rule issues before formal submission. It does not approve a permit.

Smart 311

Assist staff with request classification, duplicate detection, routing, deadline flags and plain-language status updates while preserving telephone, in-person and human escalation.

Ask CK

Answer questions from approved bylaws, Council decisions, budgets, service standards and project records, showing the source, date and responsible department with every answer.

Records and red-tape assistant

Help authorized staff search records, compare applications with checklists, assemble routine reports and propose redactions; clerks, privacy staff and statutory officials remain responsible.

First-year delivery

Within 30 days
Ask the CAO to inventory the ten municipal workflows with the largest backlogs, longest waits, highest repeat-contact volume or greatest economic impact.
By day 100
Publish backlog volume and age, median and 90th-percentile completion time, incomplete or returned work, staff handoffs, repeat contacts, transaction cost and access channels; table three first-year pilot charters.
By day 180
Launch controlled Permit Ready CK, Smart 311 and Ask CK pilots with public risk assessments, budgets and numeric targets.
By the end of year one
Publish independently reviewed results and a scale, change or stop decision for each pilot.
Quarterly
Maintain a public digital register showing use, vendor, model or system purpose, data sources, performance, incidents, cost and accountable official.

The public scorecard

Backlog volume and age, median and 90th-percentile completion time.
Incomplete submissions, avoidable rework, staff handoffs and repeat resident contacts.
Cost per completed transaction and independently verified net savings.
Material errors, human overrides, appeals, privacy or security incidents and accessibility outcomes.
Resident and staff use, satisfaction and successful escalation to a person.

Scale, change or stop

Scale a pilot only when it improves the primary service measure without worsening material errors, appeals, privacy, security, accessibility or resident experience. Until the targeted backlog is cleared, propose directing verified net savings to frontline access and backlog reduction—not staffing changes based on forecasts.

Funding path

Start with the systems CK already owns.

Begin with existing CityView, 311, records and public-information systems. Use capped pilots, competitive procurement, reusable municipal data and full lifecycle costing before proposing permanent funding.

Responsible use

Govern before production.

Complete and publish an algorithmic impact assessment proportionate to risk, plus privacy, security, accessibility and human-rights reviews before production use.
Use approved municipal records, deterministic rules where possible, source-linked answers, bounded retries and a clear 'not enough information' response.
Train affected employees before a pilot changes their work and include staff and unions in workflow design, testing and evaluation.
Require audit logs, accountable officials, human override, appeal or correction routes, incident reporting, data-retention limits, portability and vendor-exit rights.

Who does what

Randy will

Set the public service standard, request lawful administrative analysis, publish written mayoral directions and propose costed pilot resources through the budget.

Council decides

Approve budgets, procurement and municipal policies, and review results before material expansion.

Administration delivers

Select lawful workflows, operate services, retain professional and statutory decision authority, manage vendors and report performance and incidents.

Partners are required

Residents, applicants, staff, unions, accessibility advisers, privacy and security experts and technology providers test the service and its safeguards.

Evidence and public sources

9 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

CK employers are moving toward AI

The Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board's 2025 EmployerOne results reported that local employers were about twice as likely as employers across Canada to say they intended to implement AI technologies over the next 12 months.

Technology must improve real work

The local employers interviewed described early, experimental use focused primarily on analysis, workflow and productivity—not significant headcount reduction over the next five years.

Skills turn tools into capability

Among the 103 employed residents surveyed, people with practical workplace experience were generally more favourable; 60 per cent of respondents using AI at work reported formal employer training.

Trust must be built in

Local employers emphasized human oversight, approved tools, privacy, confidentiality and governance as adoption moves beyond experimentation.

The modernization commitment

A Practical Modernization Plan

Modernize how residents and businesses access municipal services, equip people for new digital work and help local employers adopt useful technology with confidence.

Move high-friction municipal services into clearer digital formats, beginning where online access, status updates and fewer handoffs can reduce delays and red tape.
Use responsible AI and automation to reduce repetitive administrative work, improve response times and support staff—while keeping accountable people in charge of consequential decisions.
Expand practical AI and digital-skills training for employees and small-business owners so local employers can adapt, compete and create opportunity in a new digital economy.
Give local businesses practical, vendor-neutral implementation support for AI, cybersecurity, digital workflows and productivity tools so adoption produces measurable value.
Work with the Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board, colleges, libraries, workforce organizations, labour and employers to expand hands-on learning and connect training to real local demand.
Publish service standards and modernization results—including response times, completion rates, user experience and costs—and expand only what delivers measurable improvement.

Evidence boundary: This is locally relevant, directional research—not a public-opinion poll or a guarantee of future job impacts. The household survey included 103 employed residents and was supplemented by interviews with 10 employers and 12 workforce-development experts. Employer intentions, technical exposure and verified adoption outcomes must be reported separately.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

01Proposed commitmentCK Circular Industry DistrictCreate a commercially credible district where data centres, greenhouses, food processors, biofuel operations, cold storage and utilities share infrastructure and convert waste streams into local economic inputs.

The problem

Large industrial projects can consume substantial power, water and land while producing too few permanent local jobs or leaving reusable heat and materials stranded.

The new approach

Map the physical system first, invite the market to respond, independently test public value and environmental limits, then use a competitive process. Municipal support would be conditional on measurable community benefit rather than the size of an announcement.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Map suitable employment land, grid and fibre capacity, water and wastewater constraints, transportation, waste-heat sources and potential agricultural heat users.
By day 180
Issue a public request for information to data-centre, greenhouse, food-processing, energy and infrastructure operators.
Within 12 months
Table a costed feasibility and go/no-go report covering infrastructure, environment, jobs, public contribution and commercial partners.
By the end of 2028
If the evidence supports proceeding, complete a competitive partner process and seek at least one conditional anchor agreement.
By the end of term
Have one integrated project under construction or publish the evidence showing why the proposal was rejected.

How progress is measured

Permanent jobs, construction jobs and indirect estimates reported separately.
Developer and partner capital committed for each municipal dollar proposed.
Published energy, water-use and energy-reuse effectiveness measures.
Signed local heat, water or material off-take agreements before incentives are final.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Proceed only when independent analysis confirms infrastructure capacity, a credible end user for recovered resources, enforceable public benefits and a risk-adjusted municipal return. Otherwise change the design or stop.

Who does what

Randy will

Convene utilities and industry, direct a municipal feasibility report where authorized, and include a costed proposal in the mayor's budget.

Council decides

Approve land transactions, incentives, servicing commitments, procurement and required municipal policies or agreements.

Administration delivers

Complete technical, planning, legal, environmental, financial and procurement work and administer statutory approvals independently.

Partners are required

Utilities, proponents, greenhouse and food operators, Indigenous communities, regulators and senior governments must confirm capacity, capital and operating commitments.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Begin with existing economic-development and planning capacity, then seek developer-funded studies and provincial or federal infrastructure support. Any municipal land, incentive or utility contribution would require a public business case, performance security and Council approval.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Developer-funded utility upgrades unless an independently reviewed public return justifies another arrangement.
Closed-loop, reclaimed or non-potable cooling wherever technically feasible, with published water and energy measures.
Grid-reliability, noise, backup-generation, emissions, e-waste, emergency-response and data-security plans.
Local supplier, apprenticeship, clawback and performance-security commitments.

Evidence and public sources

5 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

02Proposed commitmentCK Future Work and Small Business NetworkGive businesses across CK practical, vendor-neutral help with workflow improvement, responsible technology adoption, cybersecurity, e-commerce, export, succession and procurement through existing community facilities and partner organizations.

The problem

Small businesses need practical help adopting new tools, reaching markets and finding skilled people, but support is often fragmented or concentrated in one location.

The new approach

Build a distributed network in libraries, service centres, colleges, business organizations and available downtown spaces. Begin with the business problem, assess privacy and security, test technology only where it fits and measure implemented improvements and contracts—not workshop attendance alone.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Inventory existing business-support programs, community facilities, partner capacity and unmet demand by community.
Within 12 months
Open three partner-operated pilot service points, assist an initial 40 small businesses through documented workflow, privacy, cybersecurity or market-access assessments, and issue the first three municipal challenge procurements.
By the end of 2028
Operate six service points if demand and business outcomes support expansion.
Annually
Publish business outcomes, partner contributions and the next set of municipal challenge procurements.

How progress is measured

Businesses completing an actual technology, export, succession or procurement implementation.
Documented staff time, administrative cost or processing delay removed without reducing service quality or worker safeguards.
Reported productivity, revenue, export, job and wage change with appropriate privacy protection.
Twenty-four-month business survival and follow-on investment.
Local firms qualifying for and winning municipal or partner contracts.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Expand only where service-point demand produces verified implementations and business outcomes at a reasonable public cost; combine or close underused offerings.

Who does what

Randy will

Convene delivery partners, set the outcome standard and propose a capped pilot through the budget.

Council decides

Approve municipal funding, procurement policy changes and any use of municipal facilities.

Administration delivers

Design fair program criteria, procurement challenges, privacy controls and performance reporting.

Partners are required

Libraries, colleges, business groups, employers and funders provide locations, expertise, referrals and matching resources.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use partner facilities and instructors first, combine existing economic-development and workforce funding, and pursue provincial, federal and private sponsorship before requesting new permanent municipal overhead.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

No municipality-held commercial secrets or customer data beyond what a program lawfully requires.
Vendor-neutral advice, plain-language risk and total-cost comparisons, and transparent procurement rules.
No business is pressured to adopt a technology or purchase from a participating vendor.
Publish participation and outcome measures without identifying individual businesses unless they consent.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

03Proposed commitmentValue-Added Agriculture PipelineCreate a partner-ready pipeline for co-packing, commercial kitchen, food-processing, cold-storage and distribution capacity tied to real operators and markets.

The problem

CK produces substantial agricultural value, but more processing, storage, packaging and product development could happen closer to where food is grown.

The new approach

Test shared infrastructure and operator models before committing public capital. The municipality acts as land, servicing, permitting and partnership enabler rather than the default operator.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Convene growers, processors, logistics providers, institutions and potential operators to define capacity gaps and demand.
Within 12 months
Complete a partner-led business case identifying the preferred operating model, site, market, infrastructure and go/no-go conditions.
By the end of 2028
Advance at least one viable facility or shared-service project to financing, approvals or construction.

How progress is measured

Private and partner capital leveraged.
Local farm products processed or stored through supported capacity.
Permanent jobs, wages, customers and export sales.
Operating break-even path without an unfunded municipal subsidy.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Advance only a project with a qualified operator, demonstrated customer demand, a viable operating plan and affordable infrastructure requirements.

Who does what

Randy will

Bring producers, operators and governments together and require a decision-ready business case.

Council decides

Approve municipal property, infrastructure, incentives or financing participation.

Administration delivers

Assess sites, servicing, approvals, finances and procurement options.

Partners are required

Producers, processors, logistics firms, colleges, lenders and senior governments establish demand, operate projects and supply capital.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Prioritize operator and industry investment, agriculture and regional-development programs, and recoverable servicing arrangements. Municipal capital requires a costed Council decision.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

No permanent municipal operating commitment without a separate approved business case.
Food safety, water, wastewater, traffic and environmental requirements remain part of the formal review.
Competitive and conflict-managed partner selection.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

04Proposed commitmentCK Workforce Readiness PlanHelp workers adapt before technology changes the job, align training with documented local demand and require supported major projects to show how CK residents can enter and progress in the work created.

The problem

Technology is changing tasks faster than many workers, students, small businesses and training programs can confidently respond. Waiting until a worker or employer reaches a crisis point leaves people exposed and training disconnected from actual local demand.

The new approach

Create a standing partnership among the Workforce Planning Board, employers, workers, labour, education and training partners. Use a fast lane to identify changing tasks, a middle lane for short-duration training and a longer lane for curriculum alignment—while strengthening judgement, communication, problem-solving and other human skills.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Ask the Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board to co-convene an employer-worker-education transition table, including labour and small-business voices, and identify the first three sector priorities.
By day 180
Publish the baseline for adoption, changing tasks, entry-level requirements, training capacity and gaps; agree on shared measures, privacy rules and data responsibilities.
Within 12 months
Launch three short-duration sector training pilots and offer places to an initial 150 workers, job seekers or students, subject to partner capacity and Council-approved funding.
Annually
Publish an occupational transition map and report training completion, workplace application, placements, retention, wage progression and worker confidence.
By the end of 2028
Expand only the training streams that meet published completion, workplace-use and employment-outcome thresholds; redesign or stop those that do not.

How progress is measured

Participants enrolled and completing each training stream, with an initial completion threshold of 80 per cent.
Participants applying the skills in work, job search or further training within 90 days, with an initial threshold of 60 per cent.
Placements in related local work, twelve-month retention and wage progression.
Worker confidence before and after training and the share of affected municipal employees trained before a system launches.
Employer vacancies filled, apprenticeships created and supported major projects with a lawful workforce-impact, local recruitment and training plan.
Privacy, security, material-error, grievance and human-override outcomes.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Continue a training stream only when at least 80 per cent of participants complete it, at least 60 per cent report relevant workplace, job-search or further-training use within 90 days, and longer-term placement, retention or wage results justify the cost. Publish the evidence and redesign or stop programs that miss the test.

Who does what

Randy will

Ask the Workforce Planning Board to co-convene the partnership, bring employers, workers and educators to the table, and tie proposed municipal support for major projects to transparent workforce commitments where lawful.

Council decides

Approve municipal pilot funding and lawful workforce conditions attached to incentives, procurement or agreements.

Administration delivers

Coordinate municipal participation, aggregate data, agreements, privacy controls, program evaluation and economic-development requirements.

Partners are required

The Chatham-Kent Workforce Planning Board, Ridgetown Campus, St. Clair College, school boards, workforce organizations, employers and labour identify demand and deliver training, placements and current evidence.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use partner facilities and instructors first, combine existing education, workforce and employer resources, and pursue Employment Ontario, federal skills and project-specific training funds. Any new municipal contribution begins as a capped Council-approved pilot with employer matching where appropriate.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Publish aggregate labour-market results without exposing personal employment records.
Train affected municipal employees before a new system changes their work and include staff and unions in workflow design and pilot evaluation.
Do not base a municipal staffing decision on forecast technology savings; require verified service and workforce evidence.
Keep consequential employment decisions under accountable human authority with a clear review route.
Do not promise hiring outcomes the municipality cannot require.
Separate employer forecasts from verified jobs and placements.

Evidence and public sources

3 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

01Proposed commitmentPublic Land and Permanent Affordability BankCreate a transparent pipeline of housing-ready sites with long-term affordability protected through the agreement, not assumed from the initial project announcement.

The problem

Public and partner-owned land can remain underused while affordable-housing projects struggle with land cost, servicing and slow site decisions.

The new approach

Inventory and rank sites, then use long-term ground leases, nonprofit and co-operative partnerships, community-land models and enforceable affordability where financially viable.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Publish an inventory of municipal and willing partner-owned land potentially suitable for housing.
By day 180
Rank sites by servicing, amenities, environmental constraints, development readiness and public value.
First full budget
Table a land-disposition and investment policy with clear affordability and performance terms.
Annually
Report land activated, units approved, units under construction, completed units, affordability period, public contribution and delay reasons.

How progress is measured

Housing-ready sites released through a public process.
Units approved, under construction and completed reported separately.
Depth and duration of affordability.
Municipal contribution per completed home.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Prioritize sites that can deliver enforceable affordability and construction on a credible schedule; remove or re-rank sites when servicing, environmental or financial barriers make delivery unrealistic.

Who does what

Randy will

Request the inventory, propose funding and bring a disposition policy to Council.

Council decides

Approve property disposition, leases, capital contributions and housing agreements.

Administration delivers

Complete valuation, due diligence, planning, servicing, procurement and agreement monitoring.

Partners are required

Nonprofits, co-operatives, developers, lenders and senior governments finance, build and operate approved projects.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use land value strategically, pursue CMHC and provincial housing programs, and require a project-level capital and operating plan before Council commits property or funds.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Public valuation, conflict controls and transparent disposition criteria.
Affordability covenants, construction milestones and reversion or remedy clauses.
Environmental, servicing and accessibility requirements remain visible in site ranking.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

02Proposed commitmentHousing Pattern Book and Fast PathMake accessory homes, duplexes, fourplexes, stacked homes, modular construction and accessible small homes easier to understand and submit without weakening statutory review.

The problem

Smaller housing projects can face repeat design costs, incomplete applications and avoidable review cycles even when the same common building forms are proposed.

The new approach

Build on CK's planned pre-screened accessory-dwelling designs, CityView and permit dashboard. Offer reusable designs and an optional pre-submission check that flags missing or inconsistent material before submission; staff still make every formal decision.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Publish the current permit baseline and select the first eligible housing forms for the fast path.
By day 180
Table service targets and pilot safeguards, including error, appeal, privacy and accessibility measures.
Within 12 months
Publish reusable design packages and launch the voluntary pre-check for a defined set of applications.
Within 18 months
Identify demonstration sites and publish the first performance report.

How progress is measured

At least 20% fewer incomplete submissions in the eligible pilot scope.
At least 15% improvement in 90th-percentile first-review time within two years.
Material review errors, appeals attributable to the tool and privacy incidents.
Applicant use, accessibility and satisfaction across online and assisted channels.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Expand only when the pilot reduces incomplete submissions and review time without increasing material errors, appeals, privacy incidents or access barriers.

Who does what

Randy will

Set the service-delivery expectation and propose resources through the budget.

Council decides

Approve material procurement, budget and policy changes.

Administration delivers

The Chief Building Official and professional staff define the lawful pilot scope, validate rules and retain decision authority.

Partners are required

Designers, builders, residents, accessibility advisers and technology providers test usability and accuracy without replacing statutory officials.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use existing Housing Accelerator Fund, CityView and digital-permitting work first. Any new vendor or design cost requires a capped procurement and public cost-benefit report.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Participation is voluntary and does not change formal application requirements.
Municipal staff conduct the complete review and make every final decision.
Security and privacy assessments, Canadian data handling where required, accessible alternatives and a vendor exit plan.
The tool reports uncertainty and cannot guarantee approval or a review time.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

03Proposed commitmentDeliver the Existing Housing PlanTreat Chatham-Kent's existing housing commitments as delivery obligations and report progress from approved plan to occupied home.

The problem

A strategy only matters when approved projects move through funding, tender, construction and occupancy with delays made visible.

The new approach

Use a public delivery table for Westcourt, Sandys Street and the broader ten-year pipeline, distinguishing proposed, funded, tendered, under-construction and occupied units.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Publish a reconciled project baseline, funding status, delivery owner and critical path for the approved housing pipeline.
Through early 2028
Track the targeted delivery of 72 Westcourt homes in Wallaceburg, including 50 affordable and 22 attainable homes.
Within 12 months
Report a decision path for the proposed 40 to 50 supportive homes on Sandys Street, including capital funding and operating support.
Quarterly
Publish changes in unit count, budget, schedule, risk and corrective action.

How progress is measured

Units proposed, funded, tendered, under construction and occupied.
Affordable and supportive units by affordability level and duration.
Schedule and budget variance with corrective action.
Capital and operating funding secured.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Continue projects with a funded, deliverable path; publicly reset scope or schedule where evidence changes. Housing Services must reconcile the official plan's 190-unit phase-two summary with listed projects that appear to total 170 to 180 before using 190 as a validated claim.

Who does what

Randy will

Keep delivery on the public agenda, propose required budget resources and convene funding partners.

Council decides

Approve capital plans, property decisions, agreements and material project changes.

Administration delivers

Reconcile targets, procure and manage projects, report risks and administer housing programs.

Partners are required

Housing providers, support agencies, builders, CMHC and Ontario supply capital, operations and delivery capacity.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use already identified municipal, CMHC and partner funding and bring any gap or scope change to Council with lifecycle operating costs.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Do not count an approval, announcement or funding application as a completed home.
Publish changes rather than overwrite the original target.
Confirm supportive-housing operating capacity before construction commitments become irreversible.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

04Proposed commitmentHousing Acquisition and Preservation FundPreserve viable rental housing through a capped revolving fund and qualified operating partners where acquisition is more effective than replacement.

The problem

Creating new affordable homes is slower and more expensive when existing lower-cost rentals are lost to disrepair, conversion or displacement.

The new approach

Identify at-risk buildings, establish public acquisition criteria and require a complete repair, operating and affordability plan before purchase.

Action timeline

By day 180
Complete an at-risk rental inventory and table acquisition criteria, partner capacity, capital needs and funding options.
First full budget
Propose a capped revolving pilot fund for Council consideration.
Annually
Report units preserved, displacement prevented, repair status, affordability period and public cost per unit.

How progress is measured

Rental homes preserved and occupied.
Tenants displaced or stabilized during acquisition and repair.
Public contribution per home and capital leveraged.
Building-condition and affordability compliance.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Acquire only where due diligence confirms a viable building, qualified operator, funded repairs and durable affordability at a defensible per-home cost.

Who does what

Randy will

Propose the capped fund and require transparent acquisition criteria.

Council decides

Approve the fund, acquisitions, financing and housing agreements.

Administration delivers

Complete due diligence, procurement, tenant protection, financial analysis and compliance monitoring.

Partners are required

Qualified nonprofit or cooperative operators, lenders and senior governments provide operations, financing and program support.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Cap municipal exposure, recycle repayments or proceeds where lawful, and seek nonprofit, lender, CMHC and provincial participation for each acquisition.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

No distressed acquisition without funded capital repairs and an operating plan.
Independent valuation, building-condition review and tenant-protection plan.
Public affordability terms and annual compliance reporting.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

05Proposed commitmentHome First CKCreate a rapid-rehousing and prevention pathway that connects landlord outreach, stabilization, support and discharge planning while protecting public spaces and individual rights.

The problem

Fragmented crisis responses can count contacts and temporary placements without showing whether people reach and retain stable housing.

The new approach

Use lawful head leases, rent supplements, deposits, move-in support, mediation, housing search and partner coordination. AI may match services or identify missing referral information but cannot score people or decide access.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Publish the homelessness inflow, placement, retention, service-wait and public-space baseline using privacy-protected measures.
By day 180
Table a costed pilot with a numeric housing target, delivery partners and provincial or federal funding request.
Within 12 months
Report stable housing transitions, six-month retention, returns to homelessness and cost per durable outcome.
By the end of 2028
Scale, redesign or stop each intervention based on housing retention and community-safety evidence.

How progress is measured

Stable housing transitions and six- and twelve-month retention.
Returns to homelessness and new inflow.
Partner-reported service access and wait time.
Aggregate repeat emergency interactions and public-space conditions where lawfully available.
Cost per durable housing outcome.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Expand interventions that improve housing retention and reduce repeat crisis use at a sustainable cost; redesign or stop activity that produces contacts without durable outcomes.

Who does what

Randy will

Convene the outcome table, propose municipal resources and advocate for provincial treatment and operating support.

Council decides

Approve municipal programs, budgets, property use and partner agreements.

Administration delivers

Housing and social-service professionals design eligibility, privacy, delivery and reporting; statutory and clinical decisions stay with responsible officials.

Partners are required

Housing providers, landlords, health and addiction services, police, hospitals, corrections and community agencies deliver their respective responsibilities.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Align existing homelessness programs, Reaching Home eligibility and partner resources; seek provincial health and supportive-housing operating funds for responsibilities outside municipal control.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

No predictive risk score, criminality prediction, facial recognition or automated service denial.
Consent-based coordination and minimum necessary personal information.
Preserve lawful appeal, complaint and human-review routes.
The mayor cannot direct police operations or create provincial treatment capacity.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

06Proposed commitmentSeniors Property Tax RebatesBring forward a targeted property-tax rebate proposal for eligible Chatham-Kent seniors as part of the cost-of-living plan.

The problem

Seniors living on limited incomes can face pressure from property taxes and other everyday costs, making it harder to remain in their own homes.

The new approach

Use Nova Scotia's Property Tax Rebate for Seniors as a starting point for a locally designed policy. Its 2026 program rebates 50 per cent of eligible municipal residential property taxes paid for 2025, up to $800, for qualifying homeowners receiving or eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement or Allowance. Ontario already offers eligible senior homeowners a grant of up to $500. Assess how a CK rebate could complement existing support; Nova Scotia's amounts and eligibility are an example, not a promised CK benefit.

Action timeline

Policy development
Ask administration to review existing relief, local need, lawful delivery options and the Nova Scotia model, with input from seniors and community organizations.
Before a Council decision
Bring forward a costed proposal with eligibility, rebate options, funding, application support and a recommended implementation schedule.
If Council approves
Publish the final rules and start date, offer accessible application help and report aggregate uptake, relief delivered and administration costs.

How progress is measured

Eligible households assisted and total rebates delivered.
Average relief per approved household.
Application processing time and administration cost.
Program uptake and barriers to access, reported without identifying applicants.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Review whether the approved program reaches eligible seniors and delivers meaningful relief at a sustainable cost; bring any changes to eligibility, benefit levels or funding back to Council.

Who does what

Randy will

Request the options report, champion the proposal and bring a funding recommendation to Council.

Council decides

Decide whether to approve the program, eligibility, budget and any required by-law.

Administration delivers

Verify legal authority, estimate costs, design accessible delivery and administer any approved program with privacy safeguards.

Partners are required

Seniors organizations and community agencies inform program design and help residents understand existing benefits; provincial and federal agencies retain responsibility for their own programs.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Publish the estimated rebate and administration costs, funding source and impact on the municipal budget before seeking approval. No rebate amount, eligibility threshold or launch date is committed until the costed proposal is approved.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Target relief through clear eligibility rules rather than assuming all senior homeowners have the same financial need.
Review Ontario legal authority and interaction with existing benefits before finalizing the policy.
Provide plain-language information and an assisted application route for residents who cannot apply online.
Keep income and property-tax records out of campaign systems; any approved municipal program must protect applicant privacy.

Evidence and public sources

3 sources

Campaign sourceRandy Hope campaign: proposed seniors property-tax rebate, supplied by the campaign owner October 1, 2026
Public evidenceGovernment of Nova Scotia: Property Tax Rebate for Seniors (2026 program; provincial example)https://www.novascotia.ca/apply-property-tax-rebate-property-tax-rebate-seniors
Public evidenceGovernment of Ontario: Senior Homeowners’ Property Tax Grant (existing provincial support)https://www.ontario.ca/page/senior-homeowners-property-tax-grant

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

01Proposed commitmentCK Living Infrastructure MapGive residents one source-linked view of asset condition, funded work, responsible department, schedule and material project changes.

The problem

Residents often see projects, service requests, budgets and asset plans in separate systems, making it difficult to understand what is funded, delayed or at risk in each community.

The new approach

Connect existing GIS, asset-management, budget, 311 and project records before considering a costly digital-twin platform.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Inventory available data, ownership, update frequency, gaps and public-release restrictions.
Within 12 months
Launch a public minimum viable map covering funded capital projects and selected high-value asset classes.
By the 2028-31 budget cycle
Display every funded capital project with community, budget, schedule, status and responsible department.
Quarterly
Publish material budget or schedule changes and the corrective action or deferral rationale.

How progress is measured

Share of funded capital projects represented with current status.
Data freshness and unresolved data-quality exceptions.
Project budget and schedule variance.
Resident use and reduction in repeat status inquiries.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Add new asset classes only when source data has an accountable owner and reliable update process; do not purchase a broad platform to mask unresolved data quality.

Who does what

Randy will

Set the transparency expectation and propose implementation resources.

Council decides

Approve budget, procurement and capital-reporting policy changes.

Administration delivers

Own source data, privacy and security review, integrations, explanations and correction processes.

Partners are required

Utilities, contractors and public agencies provide agreed project and infrastructure updates where information can lawfully be public.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use existing GIS, asset and budget systems for the first release. Any new licensing or integration requires a costed business case, open standards and an exportable data model.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Do not expose security-sensitive infrastructure or personal service-request information.
Show data date, source, completeness and correction path.
Require data portability and vendor-exit rights.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

02Proposed commitmentPredictive Infrastructure MaintenanceUse bounded sensor and data pilots to identify leaks, deterioration or abnormal conditions earlier and direct inspections where they can prevent failures.

The problem

Reactive maintenance is expensive, disruptive and difficult to prioritize across a geographically large municipality.

The new approach

Select three evidence-based pilots from water, wastewater, bridges and culverts, drainage, roads or facility energy. Technology creates an inspection priority; qualified staff validate the condition and action.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Rank candidate pilots using failure cost, data readiness, public safety, geographic coverage and potential lifecycle value.
Within 12 months
Launch three pilots with pre-declared baselines, budgets, test periods and decision thresholds.
After 12 pilot months
Publish a scale, redesign or stop decision for each pilot.
By the end of term
Integrate successful tools into the asset-management program and budget rather than leave them as demonstrations.

How progress is measured

Avoided failures and unplanned closures.
Warning time before validated intervention.
Lifecycle cost and staff response time.
False alerts, missed conditions and geographic coverage.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Scale only when validated warnings improve safety, service continuity or lifecycle cost after accounting for false alerts, staff time, connectivity and vendor cost.

Who does what

Randy will

Request the pilot comparison and propose funding aligned with the asset plan.

Council decides

Approve budgets, procurement and material changes to service levels.

Administration delivers

Engineering and operations staff select technical methods, validate alerts and retain maintenance authority.

Partners are required

Utilities, conservation authorities, vendors, researchers and funders contribute infrastructure data, expertise and funding under municipal controls.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Start with capped pilots within approved asset-management priorities and pursue utility, infrastructure or energy grants. Long-term cost belongs in the asset lifecycle plan.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Human inspection validates consequential maintenance decisions.
Cybersecurity, data ownership, interoperability and vendor-exit requirements.
No surveillance of identifiable residents or workers.
Publish false-alert and failure-detection performance, not just estimated savings.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

03Proposed commitmentCommunity Service and Resilience HubsUse existing libraries, arenas and service centres as practical access points for municipal help, business support, connectivity and emergency resilience.

The problem

Residents outside central Chatham can face longer travel and weaker access to municipal, business, digital and emergency services.

The new approach

Adapt existing facilities and partner schedules rather than construct a new network of civic buildings. Each pilot combines everyday use with tested emergency functions.

Action timeline

By day 180
Assess candidate facilities, community service gaps, connectivity, accessibility and emergency capability.
Within 12 months
Select three pilots in different community contexts with budgets, partners and service schedules.
By the end of 2028
Operate and emergency-test all three hubs.
By the end of term
Publish utilization, service outcomes, readiness, operating cost and expansion decisions.

How progress is measured

Residents completing municipal or partner services through each hub.
Business-support use and implemented outcomes.
Connectivity availability and accessibility performance.
Emergency test results, capacity and operating cost.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Expand services that show sustained use or a defined emergency-readiness value; change schedules or locations when utilization does not justify cost.

Who does what

Randy will

Convene municipal and community partners and propose the pilot budget.

Council decides

Approve facility use, operating resources and service-level changes.

Administration delivers

Assess facilities, accessibility, staffing, emergency requirements and performance.

Partners are required

Libraries, community organizations, business groups, emergency agencies and connectivity providers deliver agreed services.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use existing facilities, partner staffing and emergency-preparedness or connectivity grants first. New operating costs require a public pilot budget and Council decision.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Maintain in-person and telephone access for residents who cannot use digital services.
Accessibility and emergency functions tested with community users.
No collection of personal information beyond the service being delivered.

Evidence and public sources

2 sources

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

04Proposed commitmentFour-Year Community Infrastructure PlansPublish a four-year infrastructure plan for each community area showing priority roads, drainage, parks, facilities, housing-enabling infrastructure and service-access needs under one fair scoring system.

The problem

Communities need visibility into local priorities without replacing municipality-wide evidence with ward-by-ward promises.

The new approach

Make geography visible while ranking every project through common criteria: safety, condition, people served, housing and economic enablement, climate resilience, lifecycle cost and readiness.

Action timeline

First 100 days
Publish the proposed scoring criteria and current funded-project baseline by community cluster.
By day 180
Hold public and technical review of needs, data gaps and project readiness.
First full budget
Publish the first four-year community plans alongside the proposed capital budget.
Annually
Report completed, delayed, re-ranked and newly funded projects without deleting the prior commitment.

How progress is measured

Priority projects with a published score, funding status and delivery owner.
Project completion and material schedule variance by community cluster.
Asset-risk and service-gap change.
Public corrections and re-ranking explanations.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

A public plan is useful only if it changes with verified condition, readiness and funding evidence while preserving the record of what was previously promised.

Who does what

Randy will

Use the proposed budget and public reporting to make community priorities visible.

Council decides

Review and amend the capital budget and approve service levels and projects.

Administration delivers

Apply professional asset, engineering, finance and readiness analysis consistently.

Partners are required

Residents, utilities, conservation authorities and senior governments provide local evidence, coordination and funding decisions.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

These plans organize the existing capital plan and identify external funding opportunities; they do not create an unfunded entitlement. Every funded project remains subject to the adopted budget.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Use the same criteria across CK and publish exceptions.
Do not count advocacy or an application as funded construction.
Preserve prior versions so deferrals and changes remain visible.

Evidence and public sources

1 source

Public evidenceMunicipality of Chatham-Kent: Asset Management Plan and 2026 updatehttps://www.chatham-kent.ca/localgovernment/budget/Pages/Asset-Management-Plan.aspx

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

05Proposed commitmentCK Civic Challenge FundCreate a small, accountable procurement channel that buys tested outcomes rather than hosting innovation events without adoption.

The problem

Local firms, farms, nonprofits and students rarely receive a clear, bounded route to test solutions against defined municipal problems.

The new approach

Publish a limited number of municipal challenges with open criteria, milestone payments, data protections and a pre-declared scale-or-stop decision.

Action timeline

First full budget
Propose a capped pilot fund and procurement framework for Council consideration.
Within 12 months
Issue the first three challenges and publish selections, conflicts and milestones.
After each pilot
Publish the result, total cost and scale, procurement or stop decision.

How progress is measured

Challenges awarded, completed and adopted into operations.
Municipal outcome improvement against the baseline.
Local and external capital leveraged.
Pilot cost, procurement conversion and vendor concentration.

Scale, change or stop

The decision test

Fund only challenges with a measurable municipal problem, accountable data owner and realistic adoption path; stop pilots that cannot demonstrate the stated outcome.

Who does what

Randy will

Propose the capped fund and challenge areas.

Council decides

Approve budget and procurement-policy changes.

Administration delivers

Define problems, conduct procurement, protect data and evaluate outcomes.

Partners are required

Local firms, farms, nonprofits, students, researchers and funders build and test solutions under municipal agreements.

Funding path

Cost it before committing it

Use a capped first-budget allocation and pursue partner sponsorship or grants. Milestone payments limit exposure and no pilot creates an automatic long-term contract.

Public safeguards

Conditions that do not move

Open evaluation, conflict declarations and published selection criteria.
Municipal data, privacy, cybersecurity and intellectual-property terms defined before access.
No automatic sole-source follow-on contract.

Evidence and public sources

1 source

Campaign sourceHope for CK public websitehttps://www.hopeforck.com/

Official records and named public sources support factual context. Campaign sources identify candidate-owned positions and do not replace independent evidence.

Across every commitment

Show the plan. Report the progress. Own the results.
Open. Transparent.

01Baseline

Publish the current result, backlog, cost and responsible owner.

02Fund and act

Show Council decisions, partners, milestones, risks and safeguards.

03Measure

Report outcomes—not announcements, activity counts or estimated savings.

04Correct

Scale, change or stop the work and preserve the reason on the public record.

Current status

A detailed plan I stand behind.

These are commitments that, as your next Mayor, you can hold me accountable to. They set out what I will lead, what Council must decide and how progress will be measured publicly. Experience - Reflection - Forward Thinking

Shape the next four years

What should CK measure—and what result would earn your confidence?

Tell the campaign

Build the nextChatham-Kent.

No promise without a delivery test.

What Randy can actually do.

Randy will

Council decides

Administration delivers

Partners are required

Permit Ready CK

Smart 311

Ask CK

Records and red-tape assistant

First-year delivery

The public scorecard

Start with the systems CK already owns.

Govern before production.

Who does what

Evidence and public sources

CK employers are moving toward AI

Technology must improve real work

Skills turn tools into capability

Trust must be built in

A Practical Modernization Plan

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

How progress is measured

The decision test

Who does what

Cost it before committing it

Conditions that do not move

Evidence and public sources

Action timeline

Build the next
Chatham-Kent.

Show the plan. Report the progress. Own the results.
Open. Transparent.