COUNCILLORS VOTE TO REDUCE THE 2026 TAX INCREASE BUT WILL IT SURVIVE THE MAYOR’S VETO?

COUNCILLORS VOTE TO REDUCE THE 2026 TAX INCREASE BUT WILL IT SURVIVE THE MAYOR’S VETO? TWO SOCIALISTS AND A HALF-WIT DID ALL THEY COULD to maintain higher taxes, but in the end, council voted to accept a proposal by Ward 5 councillors Brian Nicholson and John Gray that would result in lowering the projected 2026 property tax increase to less than 4%. Mayor Dan Carter has been seeking a tax hike of 4.68% - which, when added to last year’s increase, would see residents of Oshawa paying a whopping 12% more since the Mayor’s previous 2025 budget was passed. The very idea brought about a mutiny of sorts between the two south Oshawa councillors who sought to overturn what they considered to be unacceptable increases. Their amendment proposed reducing next year’s contribution to what is known as the Infrastructure Reserve account by a little more than $1-million, which councillor Nicholson said, “…means we’re taking less money from our taxpayers to simply add more money to our bank account.” He spoke in detail of an elderly constituent in his ward who he said is going without certain necessities as a way to make ends meet. He took pains to remind his colleagues that “thousands of residents are hitting the wall right now” as they struggle with unprecedented cost of living increases. His colleague John Gray suggested the amount of revenue being sent to reserve accounts should be temporarily decreased due to already high taxes and a tough economic climate, telling his colleagues, “There are times when we simply can’t make the kinds of reserve contributions that we’d like to, and this is one of them.” Of course, the usual pushback came from certain councillors, some of whom are more inclined toward a tax-and-spend way of thinking. Ward 4 councillor Derek Giberson quickly labelled the amendment as “irresponsible” saying any reduction in topping up the reserve account would be paramount to allowing the city’s infrastructure needs to go unmet. Mere hours after the vote, he took to social media, suggesting “…this is one of the most reckless and shortsighted motions during my 8 budgets I've ever seen. And... it passed.” The ward 4 councillor was undoubtedly in a state of mourning after having failed to get his colleagues to actually increase spending on external agencies such as the McLaughlin Art Gallery. Ward 2 councillor Jim Lee, who also voted against the amendment to reduce the property tax rate, took the unusual step of by-passing the Mayor during the meeting and directly asking councillor Nicholson, “Looking at the amount you brought forward, being one million and fifty thousand dollars, what was your rationale behind this, or did you simply pull that number out of the air?” Of course, the more erudite among his council colleagues would have seen the proposed reduction in reserve contributions as being equal to the amount required to somehow bring the tax hike to below 4%. Also voting against the amendment was Ward 1 councillor Rosemary McConkey, who suggested the reduced contribution amount could have been used for roads and other short term capital expenditures right now. She and her Ward 1 colleague John Neal had already joined forces to place a number of amendments of their own onto the agenda, however, five were deemed by the Mayor to be “out of order” and the remaining two were defeated. The details of their amendments are hardly worth sharing here, but you can be certain they were mostly a waste of time. In fact, councillor Neal would end up challenging the Mayor’s ruling on at least two occasions, but to no avail. An earlier proposal brought forward by councillor Nicholson and Ward 2 councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri also found the support required to ultimately carry with a majority vote, being a direction to staff to remove overtime wage costs from certain City operations. The idea appeared to be supported by staff and would see a potential reduction of $200,000 which is significant. Of course, council Giberson was quick to pounce on the idea, suggesting it represented a likely reduction in service standards. At one point he and Dan Carter even seemed to be arguing over that prospect, with the Mayor going as far as to provide specific examples to support the amendment - which was ultimately successful. At the end of the meeting, the Mayor was asked point blank if there was anything brought forward in the budget meeting that he would be likely to veto, an option made available to him by the Strong Mayor Powers he now enjoys, however he said only that he would let council know in a “few days”. Should the Mayor decide to veto (deny) the amendments that were carried by a majority of councillors, they may request yet another meeting to override such a veto by a two-thirds vote. As to that prospect, we’ll simply have to wait and see. At this stage, I would like to acknowledge a presentation given during a previous budget meeting by Oshawa resident Greg Milosh, who once said, “Taxation is not theft, but it does mean taking people’s money from them by force. “Before they decide to make so much more of our money, at a time when household budgets are already strained, the people who govern us are obliged, at the least, to show there is no better alternative.” Mr. Milosh told councillors that, when considering an organization’s financial status, one of the questions that are often asked is, does the organization have a spending problem, or a revenue problem? He was correct in telling councillors that Oshawa City Hall has a spending problem by way of staff remuneration. The average cost to taxpayers for every municipal employee five years ago was $123,000. Fast forward to 2025 and that same employee now costs Oshawa taxpayers an average of $153,000. Back in 2020, the total compliment of City employees was around 700, a number that has ballooned to around 950 today. The message Mr. Milosh was sending to councillors and to the taxpaying public is that this kind of expansion in local government is completely unsustainable. He’s right about that. If current trends continue, wages and benefits will take almost the entire tax revenue stream and leave precious little for the actual physical component needed to maintain community infrastructure. We’ll see in the coming days whether the attempts made to lower taxes during what was the last budget meeting prove successful.