After years of advocating for better financial management at City Hall, I'm cautiously optimistic about a potential step forward. This week, City Administration will present a report to Council on implementing zero-based budgeting for the 2027-2030 budget cycle. While this isn't a silver bullet for all our financial challenges, it's an essential tool that could help restore accountability in how our city manages taxpayer dollars.

What is Zero-Based Budgeting?

Zero-based budgeting is straightforward: instead of starting with last year's budget and simply adding more (which is how we currently operate), we start at zero. Every expense must be justified. Every program must prove its worth. Nothing is assumed to continue just because "that's how we've always done it."

Think about your own household budget. You don't automatically increase what you spend on groceries by 6% each year regardless of need. You evaluate what you actually need and adjust accordingly. 

Why This Matters to Edmonton Taxpayers

In December, City Council approved a 6.1% property tax increase for 2025, which I voted against. But the overall impact on many Edmontonians is significant:

• The cumulative property tax increase from 2023 to 2025 will be 21.3%
• With rising house values, the average single family homeowner will see their tax bills climb even higher than the 6.1% being reported
• The City's property tax revenue will jump from $1.78B in 2022 to $2.28B in 2025—a staggering $500M increase

Where is all that money going? That's exactly the question zero-based budgeting will help answer.

Zero-Based vs. Priority-Based Budgeting

Some of my colleagues have suggested priority-based budgeting instead. This approach sounds good - focus spending on what matters most. But here's the problem: we can't decide what's truly important until we understand exactly what we're spending money on today. 

It's like trying to reorganize a cluttered closet without first taking everything out to see what you actually have. Zero-based budgeting is about emptying the closet first, examining each item, and only putting back what we truly need.

Priority-based budgeting only works when we have alignment on our priorities. And to get to meaningful priorities, we need to first start with the discipline of zero-based budgeting to force hard choices, priority-based approaches tend to label everything as important.

A History of Broken Processes

Throughout my time on Council, I've consistently pushed for better financial management:

• Last term, I promoted Priority Based Budgeting, but Administration returned with "Prioritized Based Budgeting"—where nothing was actually prioritized
• In 2021, I campaigned on a line-by-line budget review, which was transformed into an Administration-led process that produced very few significant changes
• I've recommended specific actions like halting major new projects until we get cost management under control and creating an Infrastructure Committee with private sector experts

The resistance I've faced reinforces what I've been saying all along: our current budget process is fundamentally broken. Administration's standard response that "any budget reduction means service cuts" misses the point entirely. Yes, we need to reduce services we can't afford or don't need right now and correspondingly reduce the amount of money we take out of people's pockets. That's exactly what responsible governance looks like.

The Problem with Our Current Approach

Our current budget process involves cherry-picking random items to cut without any strategic framework. It's like trying to save money by skipping breakfast while ignoring the fact you're paying for three streaming services you never watch.

I've seen firsthand how this approach fails. When I proposed reducing Neighborhood Renewal spending, it mysteriously disappeared from the group submission by budget day. And when I tried to put it back in, I wasn’t allowed to.  When I suggested reducing employment positions in certain departments, I was told these reductions would not be supported.

This haphazard approach to budgeting is exactly why I've championed being "Tough on Taxes" - not because I'm against investing in our city but because I believe we need to be strategic and accountable with every dollar.

Looking at Administration's Proposal

The report coming to Council next week outlines Administration's approach to implementing zero-based budgeting. While there are positive elements, I'm concerned about how watered down this could become.

Administration is suggesting:

• Using Executive Committee instead of creating a dedicated Budget and Finance Committee
• Branch-by-branch presentations throughout 2026
• Transitioning toward a "results-based budget" over the 2027-2030 cycle

This is a start, but we need to ensure this remains a true reset of our budget process, not just a rebranding of business as usual. I'm particularly concerned that Administration seems to be pushing back against implementing a true zero-based budget. Their report states:

"Zero-based budgeting is a more time-intensive process than the City's current budget methodology and practice... The time and effort to complete zero-based budgeting exceeds the current resource capacity and additional software tools may be required."

This is exactly the kind of resistance that has prevented meaningful reform in the past. Yes, proper budgeting takes time and resources - that's the point. Managing a $4 billion operation should be rigorous and thorough.

Who Should Lead This Process?

Let me be absolutely clear: this process needs to be Council-led, not Administration-led. We need a Council sub-committee that generates its own review and reports, informed by third parties reporting directly to that subcommittee.

We cannot accept watered-down Administration reports appended to an already crowded committee agenda. We cannot accept Administration filters on what gets presented to Council. We need actual reform, not lip service.

Council should employ independent consultants who report directly to Council, not to Administration. Council decides the parameters, scope, and implementation. That's the only way to ensure this process delivers the transparency Edmontonians deserve.

What Zero-Based Budgeting Could Mean for Edmonton

If implemented properly, zero-based budgeting would:

1. Create full transparency about where every tax dollar goes
2. Force hard conversations about what services are essential versus nice-to-have
3. Identify inefficiencies that current budget practices hide
4. Provide taxpayers with confidence that their money is being spent wisely
5. Help us prioritize infrastructure maintenance over new projects with uncertain returns

Back to Basics: Being Tough on Taxes

Being "Tough on Taxes" means ensuring every tax dollar spent delivers real value to Edmontonians. It means economic growth should be driven by entrepreneurs starting up and scaling their businesses here in Edmonton. Most importantly, it means taxpayers should know exactly where their money is going and that our spending aligns with what Edmontonians truly need and value.

My Commitment

As a city Councillor - and hopefully your next Mayor - I remain committed to fiscal responsibility. The current approach of ever-increasing tax rates, accumulating debt, and deferring infrastructure maintenance is unsustainable.

Edmonton deserves leadership that respects taxpayers and provides essential services efficiently. Zero-based budgeting is an important tool in achieving this goal, but it will only work if Council stays vigilant and committed to real change.

I look forward to discussing this report at Council next week and pushing for the strongest possible implementation of zero-based budgeting. While it won't solve all our problems overnight, it's an important step toward rebuilding trust and ensuring your tax dollars are respected.

What do you think about zero-based budgeting? Share your thoughts with me by e-mail or join the conversation on social media.

Update: Standing Firm on Financial Accountability

March 19, 2025

Today, City Administration presented their recommendations for implementing the zero-based budgeting motion that Council passed in December. While there are some positive aspects to their proposal, I had serious concerns about key elements that fundamentally alter what Council directed.

What Administration Gets Right

I'm comfortable with Administration's first steps, including having initial budget presentations on a department by department basis at Executive Committee. This provides a starting point for the deeper dive we need into city finances.

Where Administration's Proposal Falls Short

Administration's recommendation called for "transitioning towards a results-based budget over the course of the 2027-2030 budget cycle." I voted against this recommendation for several key reasons:

1. It's far too slow. Edmontonians can't wait until 2030 for the financial accountability they deserve. We need comprehensive change now, not a drawn-out transition that spans multiple Council terms.
2. It changes the entire focus. Results-based budgeting focuses on outcomes rather than financial constraints. While that sounds positive, it's actually backward. This approach typically sets goals first, then determines what funding is needed to achieve them—essentially justifying tax increases to meet those goals.
3. It ignores financial reality. Zero-based budgeting, by contrast, starts with what we can afford and works within those means—exactly how you manage your household budget. You don't determine what you want to buy first and then figure out how to increase your income to match; you figure out your income and then decide what you can afford.
4. It keeps Administration in control. Perhaps most concerning, this approach keeps the process Administration-led rather than Council-led. The point of zero-based budgeting is to have elected officials directing a comprehensive examination of all expenses, not having Administration decide what information to present and how to present it.

What Real Zero-Based Budgeting Requires

True zero-based budgeting demands that we:

• Start from zero for every department and program
• Require justification for every dollar spent
• Have Council, not Administration, lead the process
• Complete the review comprehensively, not piecemeal over years
• Ensure independent analysis free from Administration's filters

Where Do We Go From Here?

My vote today isn't the end of this issue. I remain committed to pushing for real financial accountability and proper fiscal management at City Hall. 

Edmonton taxpayers deserve better than a watered-down approach to financial accountability. We need a genuine budget reset that examines every dollar spent and ensures your tax dollars are respected.

I'm frustrated that Administration has once again tried to dilute Council's direction, but I'll continue advocating for the comprehensive financial review Edmonton needs.