Winnipeg Budget: The facts behind the Spin Part-2: New Fees Expose City Hall Budget Games

This is Part 2 in our ongoing look at Mayor Scott Gillingham’s budget and the political spin wrapped around it. Winnipeggers deserve straight facts, not talking points shaped to soften the reality of higher costs and shifting responsibilities. When politicians say they are “holding the line” on taxes, most people assume that means their overall household burden is being kept stable. In Winnipeg, that assumption no longer holds. The numbers prove it, and the pattern is getting harder to ignore.

One of the clearest examples is the way waste collection is being billed. Last year, garbage and recycling pickup formed part of your property tax bill. You paid for it the same way most Canadian cities do, particularly in the West and Ontario. Under Mayor Gillingham, that model disappeared. As of April 1, 2025, the city introduced a new Waste Management Fee that now stands among the highest in the country.

A typical Winnipeg household will pay $254 a year. Last year it was $93. That’s a 173 percent increase for the same service, dressed up under the banner of “utility transparency,” even though the real driver was a multi-million-dollar deficit the city had no plan to absorb. Multi-unit homes pay $127 per unit, which may look smaller on paper but still reflects the same shift: a cost once covered by taxes is now a direct bill with no tax reduction to offset it.

When I compared Winnipeg’s new fee to similar-sized cities, the picture became even clearer. Calgary, with a population far larger than Winnipeg, charges about $202 a year for garbage, recycling, and organics combined. Alberta’s Extended Producer Responsibility system reduced their recycling fees. Ottawa charges about $201 a year through a blend of a direct fee and a tax-funded diversion levy. Hamilton, a city roughly our size, embeds waste costs directly into property taxes and estimates the average household share at about $150. Even Edmonton’s higher $468 fee includes organics and is tied to voluntary cart sizes, giving residents more control over their cost structure.

Winnipeg’s $254 fee doesn’t reflect innovation or better service. It reflects a decision to take something you were already paying for and bill you for it again, only this time at a much higher level and outside your property tax bill. The city didn’t lower property taxes to compensate. This was not a rebalancing. It was an added charge, introduced so City Hall could avoid pushing residential property tax increases even further above the almost six percent hike already in place for 2025.

This is the same budgeting approach behind the new water fee Gillingham introduced. Rather than absorb increasing infrastructure costs within the tax framework, the city pushed those costs directly onto ratepayers. Instead of transparency, we ended up with fragmentation. Instead of efficiency, we got layered fees that disguise the true pace of tax increases. Residents understand a basic household truth: you can change where you label an expense, but you still pay it. The city is hoping residents won’t notice the growing number of line items replacing what used to be included in basic taxation.

Since winning the election in 2022, Gillingham has raised taxes almost 16 percent. Ask yourself whether you’ve seen a 16 percent improvement in the services you rely on. Are your streets clearer in winter? Are roads lasting longer? Are police response times improving? Are recreational amenities more accessible? Are permits issued faster? Most residents would say no. The only thing that has grown consistently is what you pay.

Removing waste collection from the property tax bill matters because it breaks a long-standing social contract between municipalities and homeowners. Property taxes are meant to fund core civic services: roads, parks, public safety, water, and waste. When governments start charging separately for the basics, they are also shifting how taxpayers evaluate performance. If you pay a direct waste fee, you expect better service. You expect investments in diversion, modern equipment, and reliable collection. There is no sign that Winnipeggers will receive any of that. The shift was not about modernization. It was about money.

City Hall frames the change as moving toward a “self-sustaining utility.” But a utility model only works when it is paired with strong cost controls, efficient operations, and transparency in long-term planning. Right now, the city is filling shortfalls by creating new fees rather than doing the harder work of restructuring departments, reforming procurement, or reducing administrative bloat. Those are not ideological views. They are practical expectations any business leader would apply in a time of budget pressure. If a company introduced new fees every year to keep its books balanced, shareholders would demand accountability. Taxpayers should expect the same.

There is still time for course correction. If the city wants to be honest with residents, it should begin with three steps. First, commit to publishing full cost-benefit analyses for any new fee before implementing it. If a fee replaces a tax-funded service, taxpayers should see a precise accounting of the impact and savings. Second, balance the budget using targeted operational reform rather than shifting costs to households. This includes reviewing staffing levels, reducing duplication between departments, and updating procurement rules that leave money on the table. Third, develop a long-term infrastructure plan that ties tax increases to real, measurable service improvements, not to the growth of the civic bureaucracy.

Winnipeggers understand the need to maintain essential systems. They also understand the difference between responsible budgeting and the convenient reshuffling of costs. What they are getting today is a patchwork of fees that raise the total household burden without delivering the value residents expect.

This waste collection fee is not simply a change in billing. It is part of a broader pattern that deserves close attention. You will see more of this pattern as we continue our deep dive into the numbers behind Gillingham’s budget claims.

Stay tuned for Part 3 in our series examining the difference between political spin and the financial reality facing Winnipeg taxpayers next Saturday in the Winnipeg Sun.

Look for Part 3 in next Friday’s Winnipeg Sun as we continue to track where your money is going and what the city isn’t telling you.