Can Richmond Hill Freeze Property Taxes? The Missing Question Is the Tax Base

ELECTION SERIES: HOW TO EVALUATE A CANDIDATE

Richmond Hill voters are asking for tax relief, and local candidates have raised freeze proposals. The City’s financial plan shows why those promises need a budget path—and why residents should also ask how to grow a more productive tax base.

By City Desk

In a social media poll shared with Strong Richmond Hill, residents were asked what issue was most pressing ahead of the municipal election. The screenshot shows 31 per cent of the votes for cost of living and 29 per cent for rising property taxes. It captures a real concern in that local discussion, but it is a small, self-selected group—not a citywide poll.

The demand for a freeze has also come up in a separate social media question Strong Richmond Hill recalls running about what residents want from candidates. The remembered response was overwhelmingly in favour of a freeze or reduction. We are trying to recover the original post and tally so the article can report it accurately.

Candidates have raised different kinds of tax-freeze ideas. Ward 5 candidate Richard Rupp pointed to Vaughan in an Instagram post: “Vaughan did a 0% Property Tax Freeze this year. Why can’t Richmond Hill?” Ward 5 candidate Ray Behroozian lists “Advocate for a property tax freeze for seniors and pensioners” as a campaign priority.

Those are not the same proposal. Rupp’s post makes a comparison but does not include a Richmond Hill budget plan. Behroozian’s is targeted relief for seniors and pensioners, not a citywide freeze. Both raise a fair question: what would a freeze cover, and how would the City pay for it year after year?

What does “freeze” mean on a Richmond Hill bill?

Richmond Hill’s 2026 residential property tax bill is divided among three governments: approximately 28 per cent stays with the City, 52 per cent goes to York Region, and 20 per cent goes to school boards. Richmond Hill Council can set only the City’s portion. A local freeze would not hold the Region or education portions steady. Nor would it freeze separate water and wastewater charges.

The word “freeze” can also mean different things. A candidate might mean no increase to the City’s tax rate, no increase to the total amount the City collects, or no increase to a particular household’s full bill. Those are different commitments. Assessment changes and the other levels of government can affect a household bill even when Richmond Hill holds its own rate steady. New assessment growth can also change how much revenue a flat rate brings in.

Voters should ask candidates to say whether they mean a rate freeze, a levy freeze, or a promise about the household bill—and whether the Capital Asset Sustainability Levy is included. They should also ask which years the commitment covers.

What does Richmond Hill’s financial plan say?

The City’s adopted 2026 budget gives voters a current baseline: a 3.46 per cent increase to the Richmond Hill property tax rate, made up of 1.96 per cent for operating costs and 1.5 per cent for the Capital Asset Sustainability Levy. For an average single-detached home assessed at $1.146 million, the City calculated this as $6.29 more per month on the City portion of the bill.

The longer-term picture is tougher. Richmond Hill’s 2026 Financial Master Plan models average annual City tax-rate increases of about 6 per cent from 2027 to 2035, or 4.2 per cent after accounting for new assessment growth. These are forecasts based on the City’s financial model, not tax increases Council has adopted.

The report also tests what happens if rates stay flat. Under the model, a 0 per cent annual tax-rate increase produces a notional cumulative funding gap of $438.8 million by 2035. Even a 2 per cent annual rate increase leaves a modelled gap of $270.1 million. The report says holding the increase to 2 per cent would require that much in operating or capital spending cuts over the 10-year forecast period, before inflation.

That is the reality a citywide freeze candidate has to address. The forecast is not proof that a freeze is impossible: a new council could change service levels, capital priorities, revenues, or the assumptions in the plan. But a candidate needs to show which changes close the gap, in recurring dollars, and what residents would give up or gain as a result.

A local debate about the cost of freezing

Rupp’s Vaughan comparison deserves a direct answer. Vaughan Council adopted a zero per cent local property-tax increase for 2026 and said it would make no service cuts. That shows a freeze can be delivered in a particular year and budget. It does not show that Richmond Hill can make the same choice without changing its own spending, asset-renewal plans, or revenue assumptions. A useful comparison would identify the specific Vaughan choices that could work here and what they would save.

Ward 5 incumbent Karen Cilevitz offers a counterargument on her campaign website. She writes that “the zero-increase baseline in 2022 created budget deficits that fueled higher-than-inflation municipal hikes in 2023 and 2024.” Richmond Hill’s adopted budgets did set rate increases of 3.72 per cent in 2023 and 4.7 per cent in 2024. Those figures confirm the sequence, but they do not by themselves prove that the 2022 freeze caused the later increases. That causal claim is the candidate’s interpretation and should be weighed alongside the City’s budget records.

For targeted help, Richmond Hill already offers a $454 Senior Tax Assistance Grant in 2026 to eligible residents who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The City also offers qualifying seniors and people with disabilities an interest-free deferral of eligible year-over-year tax increases until the home is sold or transferred. A candidate calling for a freeze for seniors should explain whether they would expand the grant, change eligibility, or propose a different program—and show its annual cost.

The missing lever: grow a more productive tax base

A tax freeze can hold down the rate in the short term. By itself, it does not make the City’s services or infrastructure less costly to provide. If road, pipe, park and building repairs still need to happen, an unfunded freeze can push costs into future budgets, reduce services, or leave assets in worse condition. A lasting reduction in tax pressure requires the City to lower its recurring cost to serve residents, grow a more productive tax base, or do both.

Richmond Hill’s Financial Master Plan gives this question a local starting point. In 2023, residential properties made up 90 per cent of the City’s weighted assessment and non-residential properties 10 per cent. The selected GTA municipalities in the report averaged 80 per cent residential and 20 per cent non-residential. That is a comparison of weighted assessment, not a ready-made target or a promise of lower bills. The report cautions that it would be difficult for the City to meaningfully change the non-residential share, and that York Region’s relatively low non-residential tax ratios limit the fiscal effect compared with municipalities where those ratios are higher.

Strong Richmond Hill draws on Strong Towns, an organization focused on financially resilient communities. One of its central questions is simple: does each place create enough lasting value to support the services and infrastructure residents rely on? For Richmond Hill, the practical opportunity is to add more homes and local businesses on land already served by roads, pipes and other infrastructure—and to ask whether large surface parking areas are using that land productively.

That points toward four practical tests for candidates:

1. Add homes to serviced land. More housing units—through small infill, multiplexes, apartments and mixed-use buildings—can add assessed value without extending the same length of road and pipe for every new household. Candidates should name the zoning, parking or permitting changes that would make that possible. More units do not automatically cut anyone’s bill; the test is whether net new revenue exceeds the full cost of added services and future repairs.
2. Make room for small businesses without making parking the main use. Street-front shops, offices and services can add employment and taxable value. Zoning should allow useful commercial space and homes without requiring every use to consume large areas in surface parking. On a site dominated by parking, the City could compare current weighted assessment per acre with a mixed-use alternative using shared or less land-intensive parking. That is a question to test with local parcel data, not a dollar saving to assume in advance.
3. Protect maintenance and replacement funding. Ask whether each new project or service can be maintained and eventually replaced within the community’s ongoing revenues. Richmond Hill’s 2026 budget includes a 1.5 per cent Capital Asset Sustainability Levy for this purpose. A candidate who would freeze that levy should identify the alternative funding source or the work they would defer.
4. Name recurring savings, not just “efficiencies.” A one-time reserve withdrawal, delayed repair, or grant may soften one year’s bill, but it does not close a continuing budget gap. A credible plan names the recurring savings or revenue, gives a dollar estimate, and explains how residents can check whether it happened.

This is also why “bring in more businesses” or “build more homes” is not a complete answer. Candidates should show where growth would occur, what infrastructure and services it would require, how much durable assessed value it would add per acre, and how long it would take for the additional revenue to exceed those costs. The same test applies to parking requirements and City-led projects.

Questions for every candidate promising a freeze

• Is the promise to freeze the City tax rate, the City’s total levy, or a household’s full bill? Does it include the Capital Asset Sustainability Levy?
• How many years would the freeze last, and what recurring savings or revenue would pay for it? What is the dollar amount?
• What would change in services, repair schedules, staffing, or capital projects if the City followed the proposal?
• If the plan relies on growth, what is the estimated tax value per acre after accounting for maintenance, replacement and service costs over time?
• What zoning, parking and permitting changes would allow more homes and small businesses on already serviced land? How would the City measure the net fiscal result?
• If the plan is targeted to seniors or other residents, who qualifies, how much would each household receive, and what would the program cost annually?

The test is not whether Richmond Hill can announce a zero per cent increase for one year. It is whether the City can sustain the places and services residents value without sending an unfunded bill to future taxpayers. A freeze may be a reasonable short-term choice; a credible campaign promise needs to show how Richmond Hill would keep the underlying system affordable over time.