After a series of cuts and draws from reserves to bring it in low, city council members capped 2026 budget deliberations with a 3.9-per-cent tax levy hike on Wednesday.
Greater Sudbury Police Service’s 10.21-per-cent budget hike accounts for more than half of this total, accounting for a 2.3-per-cent tax levy hike on its own.
The owner of a house assessed at $230,000 (near the city’s median, with assessed value different from retail value) will be expected to pay an additional $152 on municipal property taxes next year.
Of this $152 total, $52 is attributable to the municipality, $89 is GSPS and $12 is due to other service partners (Greater Sudbury Public Library, Public Health Sudbury and Districts, Conservation Sudbury).
The final approved 3.9-per-cent hike came after two days of deliberations at the Lionel E. Lalonde Centre in Azilda (click here for a story on Day 1). The two days of meetings began with a 5.2-per-cent tax levy hike within the city’s base budget and increased as members approved business cases.
By the time business cases were dealt with and the tax hike hit 5.6 per cent on Wednesday morning, Mayor Paul Lefebvre tabled six successful amendments to help bring it down.
Although he expressed support for city council’s decisions and priorities, particularly when it comes to community safety and infrastructure, he said the tax levy hike was too much.
“What we’re faced with is a complex set of compromises we have to do on a case-by-case basis,” Lefebvre said, introducing the first of his six amendments which city council members appeared to be unanimous in supporting.
(There was not a recorded vote, but all members appeared to lift their hands in support and none of them spoke against the amendments.)
The six amendments were as follows:
1. Cancel funding to the College Street underpass project
This cuts $1,644,900 from the operating budget, and Lefebvre’s motion also requests an alternative funding plan.
Although Lefebvre affirmed, “It’s a project that needs to be done,” he also said the city is asking taxpayers to pay for something that’s not happening yet.
The expenditure was set up to service debt the city hasn’t taken out yet, city Finance director Margaret Karpenko said.
The city has been advocating for federal funding toward the $24-million project, which aims to rehabilitate the structure, built in 1949 and is the city’s oldest bridge yet to be rehabilitated.
City Engineering Services director David Shelsted said the city will have detailed design and will be ready to proceed with the project next year, pending funding.
“The commitment’s always been to do the advocacy for funding, see where that is, and continue to update council on where we’re at and a way forward,” he said.
2. Pause capital funding to the Healthy Community Initiative Fund
This fund is open to community-led projects throughout the city, and is available for infrastructure efforts on city-owned property.
The Healthy Community Initiative program is being rejigged next year as part of the city’s shift away from the Community Action Network system, as approved by city council last month.
As such, Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier said, now’s a good time to do it.
There’s also approximately $1 million sitting in the fund for the meantime.
Event funding will remain in place.
This one-year pause cut $350,000 from the city’s budget.
3. Funding cuts to the Greater Sudbury Development Corporation
The city is cutting $500,000 in core funding to the Greater Sudbury Development Corporation (GSDC) and cutting an additional $623,390 from their arts and culture operating and capital grants.
Alongside these cuts, Lefebvre’s motion commits the city to working with the organization to apply available municipal accommodation tax funding to maintain arts and culture grants.
The municipal accommodation tax is a six-per-cent fee applied to stays at hotels and other short-term accommodations of 30 days or less.
City Economic Development director Meredith Armstrong said the GSDC board “get it.”
“They are rising to the challenge of doing more with less,” she said.
With funding slashed, Armstrong said the GSDC will have $460,000 going into 2026, and by 2027 would drop to $280,000.
With assurances the arts and culture grants would proceed via the municipal accommodation tax, city council voted to approve the amendment.
4. Parks and Recreation revenue hike
The city’s Parks and Recreation department is being charged with increasing revenue in 2026 by $300,000.
City Parks and Recreation Services director Jeff Pafford said some of the areas staff would look at increasing user fees include fitness centre memberships, summer day camp and neighbourhood playground camps.
The city will also look at means of easing financial barriers, including subsidies and payment plans.
A detailed plan with proposed user fee rate adjustments will be presented to city council members early next year.
5. Eliminate an internal repayment
Karpenko brought this one forward, describing it as “an accounting entry,” meaning it’s on the books without an actual exchange of cash outside of city hall.
In this amendment, an internal repayment of $350,000 toward an unfunded liability with a balance of $1,850,000 would be eliminated and the liability would be funded by the capital finance reserve fund.
6. Reduced contribution to the capital levy
The city is reducing its contribution to the capital levy by $1,850,000, and will instead draw from reserves.
City CAO Shari Lichterman said that although “this is not something we’d recommend on an annual basis,” she’s comfortable recommending this action within the 2026 budget.
Lefebvre clarified that no projects are being delayed as a result of this draw from reserves, adding, “Timing wise, I feel, why go back to the taxpayer to raise their taxes on something we have in the accounts that can be used this year.”
---
These six amendments brought the 2026 tax levy increase down to 4.1 per cent.
Soon after these amendments were made, city council went into closed-session. They came out of the closed session resolving to pull up to $500,000 from the city’s tax rate stabilization fund to help pare the tax hike down to its final 3.9 per cent.
Throughout budget deliberations, city council members drew a total of $7,084,895 from reserves to help keep the tax levy increase down.
Reserve draws included $950,000 from the tax rate stabilization reserve, $4,134,895 from the capital financing reserve fund general, and $2 million from the industrial reserve fund.
The city’s reserves were on the low end going into budget deliberations. The city’s target amount for uncommitted funds in the capital financing reserve fund is $58 million (they had $24.48 million in September), and the target for the tax rate stabilization reserve’s uncommitted funds were $11.4 million in September, which is slightly greater than the $11.31-million target.
A motion by Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin early in budget deliberations saw city council members focus their energy on the 2026 budget, plus the final two years of a four-year capital budget ending in 2027.
This cut the 2027 operating budget out of the equation (they typically tackle a two-year operational budget as part of a multi-year budgeting process), but the 2027 budget impacts were still tracked by staff.
By the time deliberations capped off on Wednesday afternoon, the 2027 tax levy hike hit 6.8 per cent, “but you’ve got a whole year to bring it down,” McIntosh said.
At 3.9 per cent, the 2026 tax levy hike is the lowest in the current city council’s four-year mandate. They notched a 4.6-per-cent hike in 2023, which was followed by 5.9 per cent and 4.8 per cent in 2024 and 2025 respectively.
The relatively low tax levy hike for 2026 is in keeping with a longstanding trend of city councils posting low tax levy increases during an election year (a civic election is set for Oct. 26, 2026).
Crunching tax levy hike percentages since 2003, Sudbury.com found that of the previous five city councils, three recorded their lowest tax-levy increase during an election year. The two city councils that didn’t both recorded their second-lowest tax-levy hike during an election year, including one which was only 0.1 percentage point shy of tying with their lowest increase.
City council members also approved a 4.8-per-cent water/wastewater rate increase. Baked within the budget they approved is a significant jump in tipping fees due in large part to the city renewing what was described as “outdated pre-COVID contracts” which jumped by 34 per cent.
Tipping fees are being hiked across the board, with notable increases including a flat fee for waste up to 100 kg increasing from its present $3.50 to $4.25 in 2026 and $4.75 in 2027, representing a total hike of more than 35 per cent. As for loads exceeding 100 kg, the tipping fee for general waste will jump from its present $106 per tonne to $135 in 2026 and hit $150 by 2027, representing a total increase of more than 41 per cent.
On Wednesday, Fortin tabled a motion to cancel the tipping fee hikes at a cost of $1,330,000, but later withdrew it.
“My concern is, where is the money going to come from?” Ward 1 Coun. Mark Signoretti said, highlighting the chief point of concern in reaction to Fortin’s motion. “In this case, the tax levy.”
“I’m concerned,” Fortin said after announcing plans to withdraw her motion. “People will be unhappy, but at least we’ve had some kind of discussion on it.”
With city council members making dozens of decisions in the past two days, Sudbury.com will dig deeper to narrow in on key decisions and themes in future stories to be published this week.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.