MattersFinanceFirst seen Jan 31, 2025Last discussed May 12, 2026
Public input on the 2026 budget
CompletedThe City received 383 survey responses and other feedback on its proposed 2026–2030 Financial Plan. The input gives residents a way to raise questions and concerns about the City’s planned spending and revenues.
Where it stands: Report received for information Mar 17, 2026.
Background
Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.
Dec 9, 2025
2026 budget tax options
Staff were asked to prepare 2026 budget options showing property-tax increases of 3%, 6%, 9% and 11%. Comparing these choices helps residents see different potential tax levels before the financial plan is set.
Feb 11, 2026
2026–2030 financial plan and tax options
A presentation concerns the proposed 2026–2030 financial plan and options for reducing the proposed 2026 tax increase. The options matter because they show alternatives for the city’s budget and the tax increase residents may face.
Feb 11, 2026
2026–2030 financial plan
The proposed five-year financial plan covers 2026 through 2030. It sets out the city’s planned finances for that period, shaping the funding available for services and other priorities.
Feb 24, 2026 – Apr 7, 2026
2026–2030 financial plan
The amended budget sets a 10.47% proposed municipal property-tax increase for 2026 and funds City services and capital work. It includes funding for four additional RCMP officers, with two to be hired immediately, and shifts $155,000 to temporary power for Bear Mountain Parkway.
Mar 17, 2026
2026 budget adjustments
The proposed 2026 budget included a 15.13% property-tax increase, and staff presented options to reduce it. Budget changes included cutting City Hall staffing costs, removing the e-bike program, deferring a garbage-can retrofit, reducing staff travel and training, and seeking more non-property-tax revenue.
Apr 20, 2026 – May 12, 2026
2026–2030 financial plan and tax rates
The five-year financial plan sets out projected revenues and spending for 2026–2030, while the tax rates determine property taxes for 2026. Together, they guide city services and investments and set the municipal tax levy residents pay.
Timeline
Every time this matter appeared in council records, newest first.
One member of the public spoke regarding concerns about the financial plan.
Staff presented public feedback on the proposed financial plan
Council received a summary of public feedback (383 survey responses) on the proposed 2026-2030 Financial Plan.
Discussion
Councillors and members of the public questioned survey representativeness, potential demographic skew (e.g., retirees overrepresented), and requested better context in future surveys; staff explained platform capabilities and offered to report back on demographics and response validation.
Decision: Received the report for information.
Passed 7–0
- Frazer JohnsonConcerned · Budget survey and internal debt
Questions the survey’s usefulness and urges more context, then calls for repaying internal debt to restore the city’s financial stability. - A residentConcerned · Budget, crossing guards, and truck routes
Questions proposed crossing-guard cuts given child-safety commitments and renews concerns about missing truck-route signs and low survey participation. - M. Morton (Phelps Avenue)Opposes · Budget and affordability
Opposes further tax increases as unaffordable for seniors, citing cumulative hikes and neglected street conditions. - Lisa FoxallOpposes · Budget and internal debt
Opposes rising taxes and spending choices, and asks where the $1.7 million medical-clinic transfer appears in the budget. - T. DamidianosSupports · Financial plan and budget survey
Supports the 2026 financial plan and argues accessible surveys may better include working families and produce representative feedback. - N. McNeelySupports · Budget options
Supports continued investment and endorses the 11% or 9% budget options as balanced approaches that avoid delaying essential costs. - S. RossanderConcerned · Budget survey reliability
Questions whether survey responses came from verified residents or unique respondents and urges caution until data integrity is confirmed. - A residentAsks · Woodlands Park remediation
Requests disclosure of Woodlands Park remediation costs, citing prolonged unanswered information requests and potential contamination with budget implications.
- Frazer JohnsonConcerned · Budget survey and internal debt
Members of the public spoke on the proposed financial plan and reduction options (items 6.1 and 6.2).
- S. Rossander (Langford)Asks · Budget questions and survey
Asks council to answer budget-email questions and explain safeguards against bias and repeat submissions in the Let's Chat survey.
- S. Rossander (Langford)Asks · Budget questions and survey
- S. RossanderConcerned · Budget survey and spending
Urges council to give less weight to the biased, repeatable budget survey, limit spending amid tariff uncertainty, and provide answers through a budget FAQ. - Mike WignellAsks · Budget and sidewalks
Questions how prior forecasts account for listed costs and CRD levies, urges spending within available means, and asks about Woodlands valuation and temporary sidewalks. - Lisa FoxhallConcerned · Budget cost savings
Urges budget savings through reduced administration costs and City Hall renovations, developer contributions for sidewalks, and protection from further tax increases. - Andrew EllenAsks · E-Comm 911 fee
Questions why the anticipated E-Comm 911 cost was absent from recent five-year financial plans despite provincial signals since 2019. - Derek FergusonConcerned · Budget, survey, and E-Comm 911
Urges needs-based spending, more open-ended budget survey questions, and collective advocacy against the E-Comm 911 cost. - Josh RalphConcerned · Budget, survey, and E-Comm 911
Urges needs-based spending, an E-Comm contingency, and a less biased survey with open input and separate vehicle and bike infrastructure questions.
- S. RossanderConcerned · Budget survey and spending