‘Our job’

11 per cent budget crosses first obstacle

The councillor from Wellington wanted to know the impact—the trade-offs—required to reduce the 2026 budget from 11 per cent to the cost of living, or about 2.5 per cent. Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer asked his council colleagues to join him in sending the proposed budget back to staff to a) determine how to do that, and b) determine what the impact would be on the business of local government.

“I want to acknowledge the work staff have put into this budget,” said Engelsdorfer. “It’s complex and gets harder to balance each year. However, an 11 per cent increase is something our residents cannot absorb. Many households earn less than what is considered a living wage. They are already struggling to pay for transportation. While some businesses are scaling back, the Storehouse Foodbank is serving more clients every year. People are stretched. This motion asks us to take a disciplined approach to budgeting. I want to understand the trade-offs needed to get there,” said Engelsdorfer.

The Wellington councillor got support from some around the council table.

Councillor Brad Nieman noted that a survey of residents showed that 58 per cent were willing to live with fewer municipal services if it meant lower property taxes.

“We need to really look at this,” said Nieman.

Others said that staff were best placed to recommend budget cuts.

“We are not here full time,” said Councillor Chris Braney. “We don’t have the knowledge our staff does. They know what can be cut and what can’t.”

David Harrison agreed.

“I have confidence in staff’s expertise—to find savings,” said the North Marysburgh councillor. “I would like to hear that. I would be more confident once I’ve heard that to know that we are making the right decisions.”

Phil Prinzen wanted to see the impact of limiting the budget increase to the cost of living.

“We are told this is bare bones, but we don’t know,” acknowledged the Bloomfield Hallowell council member.

But others were adamant that Engelsdorfer’s motion would not succeed. It was council’s job to wade through the budget documents and reach consensus on what should stay and what could go, according to this cohort.

Mayor Steve Ferguson led the pushback on Engelsdorfer’s motion.

“I encourage council to follow this process, to see if we can get to a reasonable number,” said Ferguson, before tipping his hand as to where he was leaning. “As far as I can tell, staff have got the budget down to the bone.”

Councillors Janice Maynard, Phil St-Jean, John Hirsch and Sam Grosso echoed Mayor Ferguson’s comment.

“It’s our job now,” said Councillor St. Jean. “Staff have presented a bare bones budget. I don’t know what they would provide. Our community is not going to be in agreement with anything we do.”

Hirsch had earlier pointed out that affordability was a defining factor in the consideration of the municipal budget.

“We have in place a municipal financial relief grant program, which we have massaged to include property taxes and water rates for those who can least afford them,” said the South Marysburgh councillor.

To wit, Councillor Harrison responded, “That’s all fine and dandy—but the fact of the relief program is an indicator of our residents’ inability to pay.”

Near the end of the debate on Engelsdorfer’s motion, Mayor Ferguson mused about using ‘strong mayor powers’ accorded to him by the province last year. He asked staff to confirm that he could pass the budget on his own with these powers.

The answer was, yes, he could do that.

But Mayor Ferguson quickly assured his colleagues he wasn’t going to do that. But that he could.

“I have committed not to do that,” said Ferguson. “I’m used to a collaborative approach. That’s what I want to see.”

The councillor’s motion failed. Councillors Prinzen, Braney, Harrison, Nieman, Pennell and Engelsdorfer supported the proposal to send the budget back to staff to find savings. Mayor Ferguson, along with councillors Hirsch, Bill Roberts, Sam Branderhorst, St-Jean, Grosso, Kate MacNaughton and Maynard.