As a community, we can absolutely choose to be a low-tax jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep taxes affordable. But a tax percentage, on its own, doesn’t tell us very much about a municipal budget. A municipal budget is a series of choices about what we can afford to maintain, what we can invest in, what needs to wait and, sometimes, what we decide we no longer need. The important question isn’t just “How much will taxes go up?” It’s “What are we getting for that tax increase — and what are we giving up if we keep it lower?”
The cost of running a municipality
The cost of running a municipality doesn’t stand still. Insurance, fuel, materials, utilities and contracted services change over time. Our current collective agreement provides for a 2.75% increase, which also applies to non-union positions. And some significant costs, including the OPP, Health Unit, Au Château and DNSSAB requisitions, are outside Council’s direct control.
Inflation isn’t one number that applies equally to everything, either. Canada’s CPI was 3.0% year-over-year in August 2026, but a municipality has a very different cost basket. We maintain roads and buildings, purchase equipment and materials, employ people, insure municipal assets and contract for specialized services. Some costs rise faster than CPI; others are driven by contracts or market conditions.
So when we talk about putting a maximum on annual tax increases, we also need to talk about what happens on the other side of that equation.
A tax increase isn’t the same as a budget increase
Yvon Duhaime has said that “the annual tax increase should be capped at 2%,” and that it would take a lot to convince him that 2.5% was necessary. Mr. Duhaime was also on Council during the previous term. In 2022, that Council approved a 1% tax levy increase. That sounds straightforward until you look at the whole budget.
A 1% tax increase did not mean a 1% increase in the cost of running the Municipality. Expenditures increased by approximately 5.6%, with the difference covered in part by reserves, prior-year surpluses and other non-tax revenues. Approximately $1.2 million was funded from reserves. Using reserves isn’t inherently wrong. Reserves are an important financial tool. But they are not ongoing revenue. A reserve can be used once. It can’t fund the same cost year after year.
So if we choose to keep taxes below the growth in our costs, we need to be honest about what makes up the difference.
Every choice has a consequence
That might mean using reserves. It might mean finding efficiencies. It might mean reducing a service, delaying a project, increasing a user fee, finding outside funding, reducing staffing or selling an asset. Each of those choices has consequences. And those consequences aren’t always obvious when we’re looking at a spreadsheet.
If savings come from reducing staff, what work or services change? If projects are deferred, when will they be done, and what will the increase in cost be because of the delay? If reserves are used, what happens when they’re depleted? If an asset is sold, what are we giving up for that one-time revenue? “Find efficiencies” is important, but it isn’t a financial plan on its own. We need to be able to explain what the savings are, where they come from and what changes as a result.
The cost of waiting
West Nipissing has significant infrastructure needs. Our 2023 Road Needs Study identified 70.6 kilometres of roads with structural needs, estimated at $18.2 million, along with approximately $4.5 million annually in resurfacing and preservation needs and another $1.8 million annually in capital needs over 10 years.
We’ve seen the consequences of deferred maintenance in our facilities, too. The gym at the Verner Municipal Building was demolished in 2018 after years of deterioration. These aren’t problems created by one budget or one Council. They are reminders that putting off investment doesn’t make the underlying problem disappear. Sometimes it makes the eventual bill bigger.
When savings become service changes
We’ve also seen in other communities how a budget decision can look very different once residents experience the resulting change in service.
Regina’s 2026 budget included reductions to parks and open-space maintenance, including less frequent mowing in some areas. Those changes subsequently generated complaints from residents and discussion among councillors about service levels.
Read the CBC story about Regina’s 2026 budget and parks maintenance
The point isn’t that Regina made the wrong choice. The point is that every budget choice has a real-world consequence. If we reduce spending, something changes. If we defer maintenance, something waits. If we use reserves, there is less available for something else. If we reduce staffing, some work or service has to change. If we sell an asset, we no longer have that asset. And if we don’t make an investment today, we need to be honest about what that may cost us later.
More than a number
That’s why I think the conversation about taxes needs to be bigger than a percentage. If we want to be a low-tax community, we need to be equally clear about what we are willing to give up to make that possible.
Keeping taxes affordable matters. So does maintaining the roads, buildings, equipment and services residents depend on. And so does making sure today’s savings aren’t simply passed on to tomorrow’s taxpayers through bigger repairs and more expensive problems.
Campaigns make it tempting to reduce complicated issues to simple numbers and easy sound bites. “Cap taxes at 2%” sounds straightforward. But without explaining what gets cut, deferred, reduced or funded from reserves to achieve it, it’s not a complete financial plan. Residents deserve more than a number. They deserve to understand the choices behind it, the trade-offs that come with it and what those choices mean for our community.