RANDY MILLIS — CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE OK, Let’s Vote — 2026 Election Guide Office: Kelowna City Council Submitted: Sep 29, 2026 03:30 PM (time displayed by CRM) Reviewed for publication September 30, 2026 Answers supplied by the candidate or authorized campaign representative with publication authorization. These are attributed statements, not independently audited facts or outcomes. Hypothetical answers about earlier council motions are not recorded votes. Private contact details and internal identifiers are excluded. 01 · Your candidacy and priorities Answer: I am seeking election as a Kelowna City Councillor. Campaign information is at https://www.randymillis.ca/ and public contact information is at https://www.randymillis.ca/contact/ Give a short biography focused on experience relevant to the office. What would you bring that voters cannot learn from a job title? Answer: I bring experience in multimedia journalism, radio, information technology, community and shelter support work, and approximately ten years running my own small consulting business. Those experiences taught me to investigate problems, communicate complicated issues, troubleshoot systems, work within limited resources and listen to people whose experiences are often overlooked. I also bring lived experience of disability and housing instability, which gives me perspective on accessibility, housing, transportation and public services. I would bring that combination of analytical skills, communication, adaptability and community experience to Council. What are your three highest priorities for the next term? For each, give a first-year action, a measurable result and a realistic timeline. Answer: • Affordability, housing and homelessness: Preserve and expand rental housing, use City land strategically, and strengthen partnerships that help prevent people from losing housing. I would also measure whether City-supported programs are actually improving housing stability and reducing homelessness. • Accessibility and transportation: Identify recurring accessibility barriers and review sidewalks, transit routes, stops, scheduling and connections where people are not being served well. New infrastructure should be designed to work for the people who actually need to use it. • Community resilience: Strengthen wildfire, heat and flood preparedness while supporting climate-conscious land-use and transportation planning and protecting the urban tree canopy. I would focus on practical measures within City authority and whether they produce measurable local results. How would you handle conflicts of interest, lobbying, gifts, campaign support, closed meetings and recusal? What additional disclosure or independent oversight would you support? Answer: I would clearly explain major decisions: what problem Council is trying to solve, what it will cost, what alternatives were considered and what results are expected. I would also report back on whether those results were actually achieved and whether costs stayed on track. Residents should have reasonable opportunities to bring legitimate matters before Council, and if something is not working, I would acknowledge it, explain why and be willing to change course. Disclose business ownership, employment, directorships, development interests, paid advisory roles or other financial interests relevant to the office. Give public sources and explain how you would handle related decisions. Do not include home addresses, account numbers or confidential documents. Answer: I am running as an independent candidate and do not represent a political party or political camp. 1. The City should shorten and simplify the process for approving new homes. Answer: I support removing unnecessary delays and duplication, but not at the expense of building-code safety, neighbourhood impacts, infrastructure capacity, accessibility or environmental considerations. I would first identify which parts of the approval process are actually causing unnecessary delays, then streamline those while keeping necessary safeguards. Your answers — Quick positions for Candidate Match Answer: [No answer supplied] 2. The City should reduce development cost charges on new housing. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should reduce development cost charges on new housing. Answer: I would first assess whether the current temporary DCC reduction is actually helping needed housing move forward. Further reductions should be weighed against the need to fund growth-related roads, water, sewer, drainage and parks, so those costs are not simply shifted elsewhere or left unfunded. 3. Restrictions on short-term rentals should be loosened. Answer: Conditional / Depends Restrictions on short-term rentals should be loosened. Answer: I would want to know whether loosening short-term rental restrictions would materially reduce the supply of housing residents rely on. Some existing short-term rentals may not be realistic long-term options for lower- or middle-income households, so the impact should be measured rather than assumed. Going forward, I want Kelowna to encourage a broader range of housing types and price points, including simple, attainable homes—not just higher-end units. 4. The City should pursue expanded public transit service. Answer: I support expanding public transit after careful consideration of cost, demand, accessibility and how it connects with other transportation options. Transit should be part of planning complete neighbourhoods where people can reach the services and daily needs they rely on without having to depend on a car for every trip. The City should pursue expanded public transit service. Answer: [No answer supplied] 5. Infrastructure and service capacity should be ready before major additional growth is approved. Answer: I support coordinating growth with infrastructure and service capacity. Major growth should not outpace roads, transit, water, sewer, drainage, parks or emergency services, but I would assess existing capacity, planned upgrades, costs and timing rather than require every improvement to be completed before growth can proceed. Infrastructure and service capacity should be ready before major additional growth is approved. Answer: [No answer supplied] 6. The City should advocate for expanded involuntary addiction-treatment capacity. Answer: I believe voluntary treatment should come first. Before expanding involuntary care, I want to know whether the voluntary system has enough detox, treatment, continuing care, harm-reduction and housing capacity, because in my view treatment cannot be assessed in isolation from what happens afterward. If someone is stabilized and then returned to homelessness, an unstable shelter environment or another high-risk situation, we have not put all the pieces in place for recovery. I asked Interior Health for current treatment capacity, wait-time and transition information during this campaign. Those figures were not provided in its response; I was directed to public resources and the FOI process for non-public records, with further engagement offered after the election. I would support stronger City advocacy to the Province and Interior Health for transparent data and adequate voluntary capacity first. Involuntary care may have a role where appropriate clinical and legal criteria are met, but I do not support rushing expansion without safeguards, housing and continuity of care in place. The City should advocate for expanded involuntary addiction-treatment capacity. Answer: [No answer supplied] 7. The City should invest in wildfire prevention and preparedness. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should invest in wildfire prevention and preparedness. Answer: I support investing in wildfire prevention and preparedness, but priorities should be reviewed as conditions change. Council should assess what we are already doing, what is working, where the gaps are, what risks are changing, and then redirect resources where they will have the greatest practical effect. Preparedness should be an ongoing process of measuring results and adjusting, not a one-time yes-or-no decision. 8. The City should carry out additional spending audits or operational reviews. Answer: Yes / Support The City should carry out additional spending audits or operational reviews. Answer: [No answer supplied] 9. The City should make individual councillors’ voting records easier to find and search. Answer: Yes. Subject to legal, privacy and confidentiality requirements, I support making individual councillors’ voting records easier for residents to find and search. If I vote for or against something in public session, I should be prepared to explain and defend that decision. The City should make individual councillors’ voting records easier to find and search. Answer: [No answer supplied] 10. Would you have supported the October 27, 2025 electoral-reform study and conditional referendum-preparation motion? This bundled decision did not implement wards. Answer: Undecided Would you have supported the October 27, 2025 electoral-reform study and conditional referendum-preparation motion? This bundled decision did not implement wards. Answer: [No answer supplied] 11. Would you have supported the March 16, 2026 second and third land-use and rezoning readings for part of Kelowna Springs? These were not final adoption. Answer: No / Oppose Would you have supported the March 16, 2026 second and third land-use and rezoning readings for part of Kelowna Springs? These were not final adoption. Answer: [No answer supplied] 12. Would you have supported the April 20, 2026 financial-plan and tax-funding motion, with its stated average net property impact of 4.40%? Individual bills vary. Answer: Undecided Would you have supported the April 20, 2026 financial-plan and tax-funding motion, with its stated average net property impact of 4.40%? Individual bills vary. Answer: [No answer supplied] 13. The City should help expand co-operative housing and community land trusts. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should help expand co-operative housing and community land trusts. Answer: In principle, I support expanding co-operative housing and community land trusts. Before committing City resources, I would want to review the specific proposal, costs, financing, land requirements, partners and expected public benefit to make sure it is workable and provides genuinely attainable housing. 14. The City should strengthen protections for tenants displaced by redevelopment or renovations. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should strengthen protections for tenants displaced by redevelopment or renovations. Answer: I support strengthening tenant protections where the evidence shows current protections are inadequate. Kelowna already has tenant-protection requirements, so I would first assess how well they are working, where tenants are still being displaced without adequate support, and what additional measures the City can legally and practically provide. 15. The City should allow more small shops and cafés within residential neighbourhoods. Answer: Yes / Support The City should allow more small shops and cafés within residential neighbourhoods. Answer: [No answer supplied] 16. The City should advocate for a second bridge crossing of Okanagan Lake. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should advocate for a second bridge crossing of Okanagan Lake. Answer: A second crossing would require coordination and negotiation between the City and Province, and I would want evidence showing the actual transportation and emergency-safety need before supporting it. Traffic disruption alone is different from a demonstrated risk to life safety or inadequate evacuation capacity. Any proposal would also need a full assessment of costs, alternatives, environmental impacts, affected communities and lands before Council should advocate for a specific crossing. 17. The City should invest in filling gaps in its sidewalk and cycling networks. Answer: Yes / Support The City should invest in filling gaps in its sidewalk and cycling networks. Answer: [No answer supplied] 18. The City should expand foot patrols in commercial areas experiencing crime and disorder. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should expand foot patrols in commercial areas experiencing crime and disorder. Answer: Foot patrols cost money, so I would want evidence that expanding them would actually improve safety rather than simply increase visible presence. From my own experience downtown, I have sometimes seen security personnel doing little beyond remaining in the area, but that is only one perspective. I would want to hear from businesses, residents, people using downtown public spaces, outreach workers, police, bylaw and others with different experiences, then look at crime and service data before deciding where additional resources would have the greatest effect. 19. The City should support expanded non-police response teams for suitable mental-health and substance-use calls. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should support expanded non-police response teams for suitable mental-health and substance-use calls. Answer: I support expanding non-police response for suitable non-violent mental-health and substance-use calls, but I want the current model evaluated for effectiveness, hours of coverage and cost before expanding it. We should also examine models used elsewhere and what evidence shows has actually worked. For violent or higher-risk situations, police may still be necessary, potentially working alongside mental-health professionals; the response should match the actual risk and need. 20. The City should increase access to public washrooms. Answer: I support increasing access to public washrooms that are accessible, available 24 hours where practical, and maintained frequently enough to remain safe and usable. This should be basic public infrastructure for everyone—families with children and changing needs, seniors, people with disabilities, visitors, workers and people experiencing homelessness—not treated only as a homelessness issue. If public urination and defecation are recurring concerns, adequate washroom access should be part of the response. The City should increase access to public washrooms. Answer: [No answer supplied] 21. The City should prioritize protecting agricultural land when making land-use decisions. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should prioritize protecting agricultural land when making land-use decisions. Answer: Agricultural land is important and should be protected, but land-use decisions should consider the actual agricultural capability of a site as well as housing and other community needs. I would consider alternative or temporary uses on lower-value agricultural land where they are legally permitted and can be done without unnecessarily damaging future agricultural potential, after reviewing environmental, servicing and community impacts. 22. The City should strengthen protection for existing trees. Answer: I support stronger protection for healthy existing trees where they do not present a safety hazard. Protection should also account for infrastructure conflicts and other site-specific risks rather than treating every tree as something that must be preserved regardless of circumstances. The City should strengthen protection for existing trees. Answer: [No answer supplied] 23. The City should limit annual property-tax increases to inflation. Answer: Conditional / Depends The City should limit annual property-tax increases to inflation. Answer: I would not support a rigid inflation-only cap without understanding what it would mean for services, infrastructure and other priorities. Each budget should be assessed on its actual needs, with spending scrutinized, priorities triaged and taxpayers shown clearly what would have to be reduced, deferred or changed to achieve a lower increase. 24. Mayor and council pay increases should take effect only after the next election. Answer: Conditional / Depends Mayor and council pay increases should take effect only after the next election. Answer: Council compensation should be fair enough that serving is financially realistic for people from different backgrounds, while recognizing that public service should be the primary motivation. I would want compensation reviewed transparently against comparable municipalities and the responsibilities of the job rather than automatically supporting increases; changes should also be structured so councillors are not simply setting their own pay for personal benefit. 25. Would you support a ward system for Kelowna, where residents elect councillors to represent defined geographic areas? Answer: I support moving toward a ward or neighbourhood-constituency system. Kelowna is large and diverse enough that councillors representing defined areas could develop a deeper understanding of each neighbourhood’s particular needs and challenges, while still working together as Council on decisions affecting the whole city. The boundaries and structure would need to be developed carefully and fairly. 25. Please explain your conditional position (optional). Answer: [No answer supplied] Which actions would you prioritize to make housing more affordable in Kelowna? Answer: I would not choose a one-size-fits-all set of priorities without a detailed assessment of what housing is needed, where it is needed, infrastructure capacity, costs and expected outcomes. Depending on the project, the right mix could include faster approvals, appropriate density, partnerships for non-market or co-op housing, protecting rentals, and strategic use of City-owned land. Public land should not be undervalued or automatically sold; retaining ownership or partnering on it may provide greater long-term public benefit. Beyond housing, which actions would you prioritize to make everyday life more affordable in Kelowna? Answer: Everyday affordability requires a combined approach rather than a single program. I would look at municipal spending and fees, affordable and accessible transportation, complete neighbourhoods where daily needs are closer to home, local jobs and business opportunities, and partnerships on services such as childcare and recreation. The mix should depend on evidence, cost, jurisdiction and which measures provide the greatest practical benefit to residents. What important issue did we miss? Add any policy position, clarification or response to the existing guide that you want voters to consider. Answer: My approach to Council is deliberate and consistent: define the problem, determine what the City can actually do, hear from the people affected and professionals involved, examine the evidence, costs, alternatives and trade-offs, and then make a decision I can explain and defend publicly. I will not rubber-stamp proposals or vote for something simply because it is popular, familiar or presented as the obvious answer. I am willing to change my position when better evidence or a stronger argument changes the picture, but I will not abandon that decision-making process. If a voter wants a councillor who will simply approve decisions without asking hard questions and demanding adequate information, that is not the kind of councillor I intend to be.