Nobody likes paying more taxes. I don’t think that’s controversial, and I don’t think the goal of municipal government should be to raise taxes simply because we can. Keeping taxes affordable matters. But there is a difference between keeping taxes affordable and promising a tax number without explaining what it will take to get there.
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 simply, “How much will taxes go up?” It’s also, “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, operate facilities, 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.
That’s why I think we need to be careful about treating inflation and municipal tax increases as though they are automatically the same thing.
Yvon Duhaime has said, “I think we should have maximum 2% tax increases, to match inflation, and I’ve always said that.”
A 2% maximum is a policy position. But saying it will “match inflation” assumes that the cost of providing municipal services will also stay within that same 2%. That’s not necessarily how municipal budgets work. And if the cost of providing the same services increases by more than 2%, the difference doesn’t disappear. It has to come from somewhere.
A tax increase isn’t the same as a budget increase
We saw this in West Nipissing in 2022. That Council approved a 1% tax levy increase. On its own, that sounds straightforward. But municipal expenditures increased by approximately 5.6%. The difference was covered in part by prior-year surpluses, other non-tax revenues, and approximately $1.2 million from reserves.
Using reserves isn’t inherently wrong. Reserves are an important financial tool, and there are times when using them is exactly the right decision. But reserves are not ongoing revenue. You can use the same reserve dollar once; you can’t use it every year to permanently hold down the tax levy.
And there is a reason this matters beyond a single year’s budget. When reserves are repeatedly used to keep tax increases artificially low, it masks the gap between what it costs to operate a municipality and what its ongoing revenues can support and it removes any financial safety net. As seen in the Township of Fauquier-Strickland this summer, exhausting $1.4 million in reserves to delay tax hikes eventually pushed the community to the brink of financial collapse, threatening a total shutdown of municipal services and massive retroactive tax spikes.
You can read the CBC story about Fauquier-Strickland here.
Situations like this can develop much quicker than people think. A municipality can appear to be keeping taxes under control while using reserves and other temporary measures to cover the difference. Eventually, those tools run out.
That doesn’t mean reserves should never be used. It means we need to know whether we are using them strategically for a specific purpose or using them year after year to make the tax rate look lower than the underlying cost of providing services.
So when we talk about keeping taxes below the growth in our costs, we need to be honest about what makes up the difference.
Maybe it’s efficiencies. Good. We should always be looking for them. But “find efficiencies” 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.
Maybe it’s reducing a service. Maybe it’s delaying a project. Maybe it’s increasing a user fee, finding outside funding, reducing staffing, using reserves or selling an asset. These are all tools a municipality can use, but each comes with a consequence.
If staffing is reduced, what work or services change? If a project is deferred, when will it actually be done, and what might it cost by then? If reserves are used, what happens when they are needed for something else? If an asset is sold, what are we giving up in exchange for a one-time source of revenue?
There is nothing wrong with making difficult choices. But residents deserve to know what those choices are.
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.
Deferred maintenance isn’t free maintenance. It is a decision to deal with something later, when the cost, circumstances or available options may be different.
When savings become service changes
We can also look at what happens in other communities when budget reductions reach the level of day-to-day services.
Regina’s 2026 budget included reductions to its parks and open-space maintenance budget. About $2.1 million was removed from the department’s budget request, resulting in changes to park classifications and lower maintenance levels in many areas. Some parks went from weekly mowing to every two weeks, and irrigation was eliminated in some locations.
The decision didn’t just remain a line item in a budget document. Residents noticed the difference. Councillors subsequently heard complaints about weeds and uncut grass, and city staff reported an increase in service requests related to parks and open spaces.
The point isn’t that Regina made the wrong decision. The point is that a reduction on a budget spreadsheet becomes a change someone experiences in real life.
You can read the CBC story about Regina’s 2026 budget and parks maintenance here.
That’s true here, too. 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
I believe we can be fiscally responsible while still keeping taxes affordable. But fiscal responsibility means looking at the whole picture — not choosing a number first and figuring out the consequences afterward.
If we want to be a low-tax community, that is a legitimate choice. But we need to be equally clear about what comes with that choice. What services are we prepared to reduce? What maintenance are we prepared to defer? What projects are we prepared to postpone? What reserves are we prepared to draw down? What assets are we prepared to sell?
Those are the questions that should accompany any promise to cap taxes. Because you can’t reduce the revenue side of a budget without eventually making choices on the spending side. “Maximum 2% tax increases” is easy to understand. The harder part is explaining how that number will work when the cost of providing services, maintaining infrastructure and meeting obligations doesn’t stay within 2%.
That is the conversation residents deserve. Not just how low can we make the tax increase? But what are the choices behind that number, and what will those trade-offs mean for our community?