Port Moody approves provisional 2026 budget with 4.25% tax hike, but eyeing more cuts

Port Moody council unanimously approved a provisional budget that would see residential property taxes rise by 4.25 percent in 2026, while deferring decisions on several contentious revenue sources and service cutting proposals.

The decision, unanimously approved at a Jan. 20 committee meeting, provisionally approves the city’s 2026 budget and capital, while directing staff to return in April with a formal bylaw and tax rate bylaw for final consideration.

Several members of council indicated their desire to slash more from the budget.

“I am not comfortable with a 4.25 percent increase,” said Mayor Meghan Lahti. “I don’t know if I could support this budget as it is.” 

The proposed residential tax increase is the lowest this council has ever considered since taking office, having approved increases totalling 21.6 percent over the last three budget cycles.

Council began the 2026 budget deliberations in October considering a 8.65 percent tax increase, before whittling that figure down. Under the revised January budget figures, the city is looking at a $4.38-million operating increase next year, driven primarily by wage, benefit, operating cost increases and transfers to reserves, partially offset by new growth and budget refinements.

After accounting for additional assessment growth and internal adjustments, the estimated tax impact was reduced to 5.29 per cent, before council-directed reductions on Tuesday brought it down further to 4.25 per cent.

Paid parking expansion deferred

A significant portion of the evening’s debate centred on proposed expansions to the city’s paid parking program.

Staff has identified $350,000 in potential revenue from the program, including recognizing higher base revenues from existing paid parking and expanding the program to Murray Street and Inlet Field.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki objected to approving projected revenues tied to parking expansion without first holding the policy discussions council had previously committed to.

She said council has still not had a fulsome debate around expanding the program, a potential residents pass, nor what to do with the revenues.

“The budget is not a planning tool,” Lurbiecki said. “If we vote on these numbers, we are telling the public we are deciding to do this without having those conversations.”

Coun. Callan Morrison agreed, raising concerns about the impacts to any expansion on nearby businesses and families, particularly without clarity on resident passes, seasonal rates, or how projected revenues would actually be achieved.

“We have a dollar amount listed here about how much revenue we’re going to be generating, without understanding how we’re going to make that money,” he said.

Lurbiecki moved to remove three paid parking items from the list of potential budget reductions. 

Council, however, voted to keep the increase in base paid parking revenue – which staff described as simply reflecting existing 2025 actuals – but unanimously removed the two proposed expansions.

Lahti supported that distinction.

“I do believe we have had discussions about expanding the program, it’s just that we haven’t really nailed down where and how that might look,” she said. “We’ve also had discussions about tweaking the program . . . so we still have to explore that further.”

Community programs and events spared

Council also removed several proposed service cuts tied to community programming and civic participation, including eliminating the Play-in-Parks program and reducing the number of polling stations in future elections.

Coun. Diana Dilworth spoke forcefully against those options, pointing to the modest cost and high participation rates of neighbourhood park programming.

She cited staff data showing the Play-in-Parks cost just $14,000 annually while drawing strong attendance across neighbourhoods.

“I do not support these options at all whatsoever. . . . We have a significant return on investment for that low cost,”  Dilworth said. “This is staff going into parks for a couple hours and offering free programs, and it keeps families in their neighborhoods instead of them getting into a car and driving to some of our signature parks.”

Council also declined to proceed with proposed reductions to major community events, including turning Car Free Day into a biennial event, cancelling the 2026 event; scaling back Indigenous Peoples Day programming, Cheer at the Pier, or the Holiday Train.

Morrison warned against making decisions about popular festivals over what he described as a relatively small tax impact.

“We’re getting into really deep conversations about each of these individual events that are really popular to our community over a quarter-percent tax increase,” he said.

Mayor Lahti agreed, noting that staff had also brought forward new funding requests for additional events.

“This tells me that we have a lot of decisions to make around how we fund festivals in the city,” Lahti said. “I don’t think we should be doing this during a budget discussion.”

The only event-related reduction council allowed to stand was the removal of a headlining performance from Canada Day celebrations, due to the holiday falling mid-week in 2026.

Asset levy left intact

Council also rejected proposals to reduce the city’s capital asset levy, which funds long-term maintenance and replacement of infrastructure.

Staff analysis showed that eliminating the planned $619,000 asset levy increase would reduce the average residential tax bill by about $30, but would push the city’s asset reserves into deficit within the five-year planning window.

The financial modeling showed that a 100 percent reduction to the levy in 2026 would leave the reserve $835,000 in deficit by 2030, forcing projects to be delayed or cancelled. Even a 75 percent reduction would result in a negative reserve balance.

Coun. Samantha Agtarap cautioned that cutting the levy would amount to deferring costs onto future taxpayers, pointing to recent water main failures in Calgary as examples of the risks associated with deferred maintenance.

“Deferring maintenance will always cost us more,” Agtarap said. “The decisions that we’re making today about this asset levy don’t only impact today’s taxpayer but also future generations.”

Knowles agreed, noting council had already eliminated the 1 percent climate levy for 2026 and warning against further erosion of infrastructure funding.

“We need this money for investment in our city,” Knowles said. “We’ve got infrastructure that needs to be replaced constantly.”

More discussions to come

Several other councillors remarked they would also like to see further reductions.

The provisional approval allows staff to continue budget work while giving council time to hold further policy and public discussions before finalizing Port Moody’s 2026 tax rate.

Coun. Amy Lubik introduced a motion directing council to hold a future strategic planning discussion on the funding, scope, and purpose of large city-supported events.

Dilworth noted that council has directed staff to explore additional revenue options and that deferred items – including paid parking expansion – could still be reconsidered before final budget approval in late May.

“We could, after further debate, have this brought down under four percent,” she said.