{"id":34984,"date":"2026-09-17T13:28:25","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T17:28:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=34984"},"modified":"2026-09-17T13:28:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T17:28:25","slug":"collingwoods-2026-municipal-election-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/collingwoods-2026-municipal-election-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Collingwood’s 2026 Municipal Election, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"Tax<\/p>\n

\"Scene<\/a>H<\/span>ow much more can you afford to pay in property taxes? Well, now think about paying more. A lot<\/em> more.<\/strong> And paying a lot<\/em> more every year.<\/strong> That’s what is forecast for the town<\/a> just to keep up with rising costs, hiring more and more and more staff, and meeting the promises that politicians are making to get themselves elected. As noted in CollingwoodToday<\/a>, the increase is meant to “keep up with all the plans and projects on the town\u2019s books without dragging the town into significant debt.” But the report itself warns, “…if all currently identified projects proceeded within the timing presently contemplated, future borrowing requirements could exceed the Province’s prescribed Annual Repayment Limit.”*<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yet those election promises<\/a> keep adding to that debt. A new recplex<\/strong> is top of Mayor Hamlin’s free-spending election promises. Estimated cost for this gilded palace is $97.6 million<\/strong>, not including the costs to operate it (and, from what I’ve seen, may not include the costs of the property purchase<\/a>, installing services, a new water pumping station, sidewalks, upgrading the road, a turning lane or a traffic signal, and trails, changes to bus service and police patrols, changes to snowplow schedules). The palace will be located far enough from most of the town’s residential areas that users will need a vehicle to get to it, adding more pollution, noise, and traffic to our town.**<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

At council, Mayor Hamlin said the financial model is “more a tool for town staff, rather than for council and the public.” But does anyone believe that it won’t<\/em> be implemented, and that the proposed increase won’t<\/em> be passed, and maybe even much higher? We’ve got to pay for all those promises and all that extra staff somehow! And taxpayers are the money tree the town keeps picking from.<\/p>\n

While it’s easy to pretend the cost will be “entirely funded through development charges,” the income from those charges is based on optimistic growth predictions over a lengthy time period, and growth can stall any day. Growth can be affected by factors outside municipal control, like Trump’s continued attacks on our national economy, inflation, rising construction and fuel costs, and higher interest rates. Higher municipal taxes will also deter buyers. Plus, those development charges also have to go to pay for new servicing, roads, and upgrades for that very development. The town still needs to borrow the money to get it built, adding to our debt. To top it all off, the town will hire a lot of new, well-paid municipal staff to run it every day. Taxpayers will shell out for them for many, many more years after the building is completed.<\/p>\n

Then there’s the proposed palatial arts centre<\/strong>: a 43,000 square-foot building with a theatre for up to 600 people. That’s estimated to cost $67.4 million<\/strong>. The town\u2019s portion is “only” supposed to be $10-$13 million of taxpayers’ money (around the same as it cost the town for Saunderson’s Vindictive Judicial Inquiry<\/a>, a vendetta that produced a USB and a stern admonition to do better…), but is the other funding secured<\/strong>? Is there money in the bank? Is the extra in any way guaranteed? No?<\/em> Then who will be on the hook for the rest (more than $50 million!)? Right: taxpayers<\/strong>. And who will end up paying to hire staff and operate it? Taxpayers again, methinks.<\/p>\n

Consider how high your taxes will be after eight years of cumulative increases. t the lowest proposed increase, you’ll be paying more than 45% extra<\/strong> in taxes in eight years. At 6%, you’ll be paying almost 60% more.<\/p>\n

And what if the town needs to increase taxes even higher to cover other costs, like the overrun costs for the water treatment plant, the promised arts centre, the operational costs of the recplex, the upgrades to the wastewater plant, a second fire hall, increases to the police contract…? The image above shows some calculations based on 2026 taxes of $4, 5, 6, and 7K annually, over the next eight years (at 4.8, 5, 5.5 and 6% annual increases).<\/p>\n

Such tax hikes will disproportionately affect everyone making low or minimum wages, seniors on government pensions, people on disability allowances, or people on other fixed incomes. Some of those incomes increase by the rate of inflation once a year, but that still leaves a gap between income and tax hikes. Businesses hit with big tax hikes may have to choose between keeping staff or cutting services to pay the extra.<\/p>\n

Do taxpayers need “Taj Mahal” services like a new recplex or arts centre more than we need improvements in our existing infrastructure? What about upgrades to our fire service to maintain and improve community safety? What about a second fire station to better serve the east end of town? What about proper community-wide traffic calming, including more all-way stop signs to reduce traffic speeds on residential streets (simply erecting 30km\/h signs without any pretense at enforcement didn’t work: even town buses and trucks ignore them!). What about much-needed tiered parking downtown?***<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What about the Terminals<\/strong>? In 2022, council pledged to build the infrastructure and upgrade the road to the private, for-profit condo and hotel development, at an estimated cost of more than $16 million (in 2022; and since then has decided to donate 85% of publicly-owned Millennium Park to the developers so they can have a private parking lot…). That’s still to be done and paid for.<\/p>\n

What about the hospital’s redevelopment<\/strong>? The town still has to build the infrastructure and road upgrades for the new site.<\/p>\n

Who is paying to tear up all the paving in the parkette on Hurontario Street<\/strong> across from Town Hall, and turn it into another grassless, hard-surface heat sink<\/a>? Taxpayers already paid $1.7 million for the property instead of selling it to a tax-paying business that could have provided downtown housing, office space, and employment. How much more will taxpayers have to pay for it?<\/p>\n

And what about the expensive but unnecessary reconstruction of Third Street<\/strong>? Town Hall plans to cut down all its mature trees to make it into a speedway across town like they’re doing with Sixth Street. That will cost taxpayers millions and add more noise, more pollution, more traffic and less safety to the community.<\/p>\n

But wait there’s more:<\/em> the town just purchased the “federal building”<\/a><\/strong> at 44 Hurontario Street for an undisclosed amount (nothing like transparency from Council at election time… how very Trumpian…). No plans for what to do with it, no estimates to upgrade it, to repair or maintain it. Taxpayers are going to pay for all of it, though.<\/p>\n

Collingwood deserves better.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Notes<\/h5>\n

*<\/strong><\/span> Good luck finding the document on the town’s user-hostile website. It took me a while because the inadequate search feature failed to identify it under any term or phrase I entered. But here it is: pub-collingwood.escribemeetings.com\/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=11271<\/a>. The staff report that accompanied the document is here: pub-collingwood.escribemeetings.com\/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=11270<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Users can’t search the town’s website properly, and what results you do get cannot be sorted in any relevant way, such as date, department, or author. Worse, the names retrieved are usually just the filenames of the documents, rather than a description, so you get incomprehensible names like:<\/p>\n