As Ontario cities call for a new financial relationship with Queen’s Park, Richmond Hill’s own experience with housing, infrastructure and provincial funding is putting the issue close to home ahead of the 2026 municipal election.
By City Desk
Ontario municipalities are renewing calls for a new financial deal with the province, arguing that their responsibilities are growing faster than the revenues available to pay for them.
And Richmond Hill is already making a similar case.
At this week’s Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in Ottawa, municipal leaders called for a reworking of the financial relationship between cities and Queen’s Park. Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe suggested options could include giving municipalities a dedicated share of the HST, while AMO argues cities need more predictable funding for infrastructure, housing, homelessness, health and social services.
AMO says Ontario municipalities funded about 80% of municipal infrastructure costs in 2024, while property taxes accounted for half of municipal revenues. The organization argues municipalities are increasingly paying for responsibilities that traditionally belong, at least partly, to senior governments.
Richmond Hill is making its own funding pitch
Mayor David West is attending the AMO conference and, in a post Tuesday, said Richmond Hill’s delegations were discussing the Yonge North Subway Extension and provincial funding for local traffic-calming measures.
That follows other recent comments from West about municipal finances. In a recent post following the Richmond Hill Board of Trade AGM, West said he was determined to advocate for Richmond Hill to receive “necessary funding solutions” as municipalities shoulder more of the burden associated with the housing crisis.
The concern is not new in Richmond Hill.
When Ontario passed Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, City staff estimated changes to development charges, community benefits charges and other growth revenues could cost Richmond Hill approximately $329.8 million over 10 years, equal to about 49% of the growth-related revenues it had forecast at the time. The province was simultaneously asking Richmond Hill to accommodate 27,000 additional homes by 2031.
The City warned that if growth-related revenues disappeared without another source replacing them, some of the cost of infrastructure required for new development could ultimately fall on property taxpayers.
The pressure is already visible in the budget
Richmond Hill’s 2026 budget includes a 3.46% increase in the City portion of the property tax rate, including a 1.5% Capital Asset Sustainability Levy intended to maintain infrastructure. The City is also investing $121.1 million in capital projects as it prepares for an estimated 25,000 additional residents by 2031.
Richmond Hill notes that it controls only about 28% of the residential property-tax bill, with approximately 52% going to York Region and 20% to school boards.
The City is nevertheless responsible for costly local infrastructure ranging from roads and sidewalks to parks, recreation facilities, stormwater systems, watermains and fire services. It says Richmond Hill, like other municipalities, faces a continuing gap between what is required to maintain infrastructure and the funding available to do it.
But a new deal could also mean more provincial control
There is another side to the debate. In his TVO analysis, John Michael McGrath argues that while municipalities are asking Queen’s Park for more money, recent provincial actions point toward another possible future: greater provincial control over municipal decision-making rather than simply giving municipalities new revenue sources.
That matters locally because municipalities ultimately operate under provincial legislation. Ontario has already expanded strong-mayor powers, including in Richmond Hill, giving mayors additional authority in areas tied to provincial priorities.
The tension, therefore, is not simply about how much money Richmond Hill receives. It is also about who makes the decisions.
An election question for Richmond Hill
With municipal voting approaching in October, the provincial-municipal funding debate raises a question candidates may increasingly have to answer:
How should Richmond Hill pay for growth and maintain its existing infrastructure without continually shifting more of the burden onto property taxpayers?
Should the City push for a permanent share of revenues such as the HST? Should senior governments provide predictable infrastructure transfers? Should development continue to fund more of the infrastructure required by growth? And if Queen’s Park provides more money, how much provincial direction over local decisions should Richmond Hill be willing to accept?
Those choices may sound like arguments between governments.
Ultimately, they show up much closer to home, in residents’ tax bills, the condition of local infrastructure and the services Richmond Hill can afford to provide.