MAYOR IN HINDSIGHT: “YES” votes mean our property taxes will increase

By Nolan Crouse

There are 10 questions on the ballot on Oct. 19, 2026. Question 10 is about a vote on whether to vote on a separation question. Of course, a yes vote on that question has only downside for municipalities and no upside.

There are 10 questions on the ballot on Oct. 19, 2026.

Question 10 is about a vote on whether to vote on a separation question. Of course, a yes vote on that question has only downside for municipalities and no upside.

But questions 1 to 9 also have significant municipal impact; all negative.

Question 1 relates to Alberta restriction on immigration: “Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?”

This will happen organically with the recent policy shifts by the federal government, so this is a useless question. However, local governments rely on population growth to expand tax bases, spur housing development, and attract commercial investment. If Alberta overtly restricts immigration to lower levels, mid-size and growing municipalities could see slowed population gains and cooling local construction markets. Prioritizing economic migration and native-born workers could create labour pinches in key municipal sectors. Local transit systems, public works, municipal recreation programs, and local hospitality businesses that rely on immigration pipelines could face recruitment shortages.

Questions 2 and 3 are focused on restricting provincially funded social programs and setting a 12-month waiting period for non-permanent residents. Non-permanent residents excluded from provincial income or housing supports will still reside in municipalities, driving higher demand for municipal emergency shelters, local food banks, and municipal social assistance programs.

Questions 2 and 4 suggest charging premiums or restricting non-permanent residents’ access to public education, and this directly impacts school boards. School districts would face complex administrative hurdles tracking student immigration status, collecting fees, or absorbing enrolment shifts if families relocate out of the municipality. The cost would show up on the education tax on our property taxes. Questions targeting access to “provincially funded programs and social services” create ambiguity for municipally managed services that receive provincial grants or transit transfers. Municipalities might need to audit user eligibility for subsidized transit passes, low-income recreation access, or community library initiatives.

Questions 2 and 4 address non-permanent residents facing premiums or loss of coverage for provincially funded healthcare. Individuals would defer routine care and rely instead on municipal first responders. Municipalities would likely experience an uptick in 911 calls, paramedic dispatching, and emergency room drop-offs, thereby increasing municipal emergency services costs.

Municipal and School Board Elections (Question 5) where requiring strict proof of citizenship (e.g., passport or birth certificate) to vote in provincial elections, on the surface looks like a good idea. Election clerks and local returning officers will face higher administrative costs, voter queue delays, and specialized training to audit proof of citizenship at local polling stations. This will clearly be a municipal cost and will further delay election result announcements. Requiring physical proof of citizenship at the ballot box disproportionately impacts student populations in university locations (e.g., Edmonton, Calgary, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Lethbridge etc.), low-income residents, and rural populations who may lack passports or access to birth certificates. This can skew local voter turnout and change municipal electoral demographics.

Regarding Questions 8 and 9, if Alberta opts out of federal programs with full cash compensation or asserts provincial priority over federal law, Ottawa’s ability to fund municipalities could be disrupted. Federal programs like the Housing Accelerator Fund, green transit infrastructure grants, or local climate resiliency grants—often negotiated directly between Ottawa and municipalities—could be blocked or rerouted through provincial control.

Questions 6-9 which assert greater provincial autonomy over federal laws and courts sets up jurisdictional battles. Municipal councils often operate in areas governed by both federal environmental standards and provincial land-use rules. Protracted provincial-federal legal disputes create regulatory uncertainty for local infrastructure mega-projects, transit expansions, and environmental planning.

Folks, that is how things will really work. Let’s be careful what we wish for. A yes vote on these nine questions means our property taxes will increase. There is no doubt about it. Count on it; it’s a slam dunk.

Nolan Crouse, former mayor of City of St. Albert