Every Tax Dollar Should Have a Job

9/17/2026

That’s not surprising. Families are paying more for groceries, housing, utilities, insurance and almost everything else. When the municipal tax bill goes up too, residents quite reasonably ask a simple question:
What am I getting for that money?
I think that is exactly the question City Council should be asking as well.
My approach to municipal spending can be summed up in one sentence:
Every tax dollar should have a job.
That does not mean cutting for the sake of cutting. It also does not mean assuming that every existing program or expense should continue simply because “we’ve always done it that way.”
It means being clear about what we are trying to accomplish, what it costs, and whether residents are getting reasonable value for the money being spent.

Start with the Basics

Municipal government has some very basic responsibilities.
Residents expect roads and sidewalks to be maintained. They expect snow to be cleared. They expect safe parks and recreation facilities. They expect reliable fire protection, sensible planning, functioning infrastructure and responsive local services.
Those basics need to come first.
Cambridge’s 2026 budget funds more than 140 programs and services. The City’s portion of the average residential property tax bill supports everything from fire services and parks to roads, libraries, bylaw enforcement, planning and capital projects.
When budgets are tight, Council needs to distinguish between what is essential, what is valuable, and what may simply be nice to have.
That is not always easy. But making those choices is part of the job.

There are times when spending money today saves significantly more money tomorrow.
Failing to maintain a road, bridge, building or piece of infrastructure may make the annual budget look better temporarily, but the eventual repair bill can be much larger.
Cambridge currently uses an infrastructure renewal levy as part of its budget to help fund the maintenance and replacement of municipal assets. In the approved 2026 budget, that levy represented one percentage point of the City’s 2.44 per cent tax increase.
That is the kind of spending Council needs to evaluate carefully.
The right question is not simply, “Can we cut this?”
It is, “What happens if we do?”
Responsible budgeting means looking beyond the next tax bill and considering the long-term cost to taxpayers as well.

Growth brings pressures. More residents mean more demand on roads, recreation facilities, fire services, parks and other infrastructure.
But growth also expands the tax base.
That matters.
A growing city should be adding new taxpayers, new businesses and new investment so that the cost of municipal services is spread across a broader base. Council should be continually asking whether growth-related revenues, development charges and other funding sources are being used effectively so existing residents are not carrying an unreasonable share of the cost.
Growth cannot simply mean more houses and more traffic.
It has to mean a stronger city financially as well.

They are sometimes less good at going back several years later and asking whether those programs actually delivered what they were supposed to deliver.
I would like to see a stronger culture of measurement at City Hall.
When Council approves a new initiative, we should know what success looks like.
- Did it improve the service?
- Did it reduce wait times?
- Did it attract investment?
- Did it solve the problem it was created to address?
- Did it save money somewhere else?
If the answer is no, Council should be willing to change course.
Residents should not have to accept “we spent the money” as proof that something worked.

Saying we can simply cut our way to dramatically lower taxes sounds appealing, but residents would notice very quickly if those cuts meant deteriorating roads, reduced fire protection, closed facilities or deferred infrastructure repairs.
At the same time, Council cannot treat annual tax increases as inevitable.
Every increase has an impact on households, particularly seniors on fixed incomes and families already dealing with rising costs.
The 2026 Cambridge budget increased the City levy by 2.44 per cent. But the City collects property taxes not only for its own services, but also on behalf of the Region of Waterloo and school boards. In the City's approved 2026 budget documents, only about 35 cents of each residential property-tax dollar was attributed to the City of Cambridge itself.
That does not make affordability concerns any less real. It does mean residents deserve clear information about which level of government is responsible for which portion of the bill.

Municipal government will always involve choices.
There will never be enough money to do everything everyone would like to do.
That makes priorities important.
My goal would not be to make the cheapest decision every time.
It would be to make the decision that delivers the best long-term value for Cambridge residents.
Because whether it is one dollar, one thousand dollars or one million dollars, taxpayers deserve to know what that money is accomplishing.
Every tax dollar should have a job.