Mayoral candidates’ promises worthless without price tags, payment plans

Winnipeg’s mayoral candidates have plenty to say about what they want to do for the city. But there’s one question they haven’t answered very clearly: how much are they prepared to raise property taxes to pay for it?

It’s an important question, because almost everything candidates are promising — more police officers, better transit, safer buses, improved roads, expanded library hours and better-maintained infrastructure — costs money. And in a city with limited revenue sources and growing expenses, that money has to come from somewhere.

City hall can’t even pay for what it does now with existing revenues — it has been drawing down reserve accounts in recent years just to balance the books.

So far voters haven’t heard much — if anything — from candidates about what they would do with property taxes. Would they raise them every year? By how much? Would they freeze them? Cut them?

Anyone promising a freeze or a cut should explain how they would pay for it. Because under Winnipeg’s current financial circumstances, a property-tax freeze, or a cut, is pure fantasy unless it’s accompanied by significant spending reductions or a new source of revenue.

Winnipeg isn’t the federal or provincial government. It doesn’t have access to a broad range of revenue streams that grow naturally with the economy, such as personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and sales taxes. Its finances are far more constrained, and property taxes are its main source of revenue.

That’s a fundamental problem for a city with expenses that keep rising.

Collective agreements push up salaries and benefits. Fuel and other energy costs fluctuate and rise. Construction costs make infrastructure projects more expensive. Roads deteriorate, water and sewer systems need upgrading and public facilities require maintenance.

These pressures don’t disappear because a mayoral candidate wants to keep taxes down.

Scott Gillingham faced criticism for raising property taxes by 5.95 per cent in 2025, higher than the 3.5 per cent he pledged in 2022. The mayor and city council had little choice, other than to slash city services, which no one wants. (The tax increase returned to 3.5 per cent this year).

No one likes paying more taxes, particularly when household budgets are already under pressure. But the increase has to be considered against the city’s financial realities. When costs rise, revenues have to rise, as well, unless council is prepared to cut services, defer necessary work or find another source of money.

Gillingham can be challenged on whether he has managed the city’s finances effectively, whether spending priorities are right and whether taxpayers are getting value for money. Those are legitimate questions. But simply attacking a tax increase doesn’t make the underlying bills go away.

And those bills are only part of the problem. Winnipeg residents are demanding more from their municipal government.

Many want more police officers on the streets. They want better security on buses, more frequent and reliable transit, safer neighbourhoods, better roads and expanded library hours. They want the city to address homelessness, improve public spaces and deal with deteriorating infrastructure.

Those are all reasonable expectations. But they aren’t free.

Any candidate who promises to deliver more services while freezing or cutting property taxes would need to explain where the savings would come from. Would they reduce the municipal workforce? Cancel projects? Cut programs? Delay road repairs? Reduce service levels elsewhere?

If the answer is that they would eliminate waste and find efficiencies, voters deserve specifics. Every government should look for savings. But efficiency is not an inexhaustible source of revenue. It cannot be invoked indefinitely to cover every new demand and every increase in operating costs.

That doesn’t mean the city should raise taxes without restraint. Council has an obligation to scrutinize spending, set priorities and make difficult choices. Taxpayers should expect discipline and transparency. They should also expect candidates to distinguish between essential services and projects that can wait.

But pretending that Winnipeg can maintain its existing services, improve them and renew aging infrastructure without steadily increasing revenues is not fiscal responsibility. It’s wishful thinking.

There is another solution, but it requires a conversation that goes beyond city hall.

Winnipeg needs a more sustainable revenue-sharing arrangement with the provincial government. The province has access to growth revenues that the city doesn’t.

A share of provincial sales-tax revenue, or another dedicated revenue source tied to economic growth, would give Winnipeg a more reliable way to pay for services and infrastructure as the city grows.

But that can’t happen without provincial approval. And so far, there appears to be little to no appetite on Broadway to move in that direction.

In the meantime, city hall still has bills to pay.

Either way, candidates owe voters an honest answer. If they believe property taxes can be frozen or cut, show us the numbers. If they believe taxes must rise, tell us by how much, what that money will pay for and how they would keep spending under control.

Winnipeg homeowners deserve more than slogans about affordability. They deserve a realistic plan for paying for the city they want.

tom.brodbeck@winnipegfreepress.com