Council released Brampton’s 2026 budget late last week and began celebrating a headline figure: a 1.5% increase in the City’s portion of the property tax bill. We’re told this is among the lowest in the GTHA and below inflation, which is hovering around 2%. On its face, that sounds like a remarkable achievement, especially at a time when municipalities across Ontario are grappling with cost pressures, infrastructure backlogs, and now the aftershocks of provincial policy changes like Bill 17 which poses significant cash flow challenges.
But dig a little deeper, and that tidy 1.5% doesn’t tell the whole story.
The math problem at the heart of the budget
According to the budget, the overall impact on the average homeowner’s property tax bill is $111. Using the City’s own assumptions (a home assessed at $543,506, which is the average value used in the 2026 budget—a figure that should surely be updated) the average homeowner paid about $2,854 last year in the City’s portion of property taxes. A $111 increase on $2,854 is not 1.5%. It’s closer to 3.9%.
Elsewhere in the document, the numbers tell a similar story. On page 37, total property tax revenue is shown rising from $630.5 million to $659.0 million. That’s a 4.5% increase in revenue collected from property taxes. Some of this increase may be explained by assessment growth, but the budget does not clearly break this out. This detail matters.
The claim is that reporting the impact on the total tax bill makes comparisons with single-tier cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and London easier.
But my view is actually the opposite. We’ll never be able to perfectly compare two-tier and single-tier systems. Focusing only on the City’s portion of the bill inevitably understates the real size of large budget increases. Single-tier cities like Toronto and Ottawa fund 100% of the municipal services residents rely on, while Brampton funds about 40%. If Toronto reported only 40% of its increase, it could claim a much smaller tax impact, somewhere around 0.9%, but we would rightfully dismiss this as misleading.
To be clear, the 1.5% figure is not inherently a problem. Many two-tier municipalities report in this way. The City is likely emphasizing the 1.5% figure because most residents ultimately care about the number on their final tax bill, not the internal nuances of proportional increases within two-tier governments.
When you combine the City’s 1.5% increase with Peel Region’s already-approved 3.31%, the average Brampton household is looking at a 4.81% overall property tax increase.
Yet, Peel Region’s own budget clearly outlines both numbers: a net tax levy increase of 9.7% with an average household impact of 4.2% among the three municipalities. Providing this kind of context is not unusual. It’s informative. Milton, which is part of Halton Region, reports a 6.94% increase that translates to a 2.989% increase. Richmond Hill is reporting a 3.46% increase in their annual tax rate and with a combined York Region tax increase of 4.28%, the overall average tax bill increase will be 3.92%. This is not difficult to communicate.
My main issue is that City is claiming Brampton’s increase is below inflation and among the lowest in the GTHA. Toronto’s property tax increase, for example, is 2.2%, much lower than Brampton’s overall increase once regional taxes are factored in. Even Brampton’s year-over-year increase in the city’s taxes, which again is 3.9%, is nearly double the rate of inflation and still higher than Toronto and Richmond Hill. The omission of the regional figure is needless and misleading.
The budget also positions Brampton as having the second-lowest “tax burden” in the GTA, behind Milton. But this figure is presented on a per-capita basis.
Property taxes are not paid per capita. They are paid per assessed property. Brampton has a large renter population, as evidenced by Brampton’s RRL program. Not everyone pays property taxes, so looking at population statistics obscures the fact that taxes are ultimately borne by property owners. Per-capita figures are important to illustrate the need in a community, and in my opinion, having the second lowest per capita number is not something to brag about. In reality, it demonstrates that Brampton is potentially underfunded, implying lower than necessary service levels or an over-reliance on other funding sources like transfers. The BMA study originally cited for the per capita numbers notes that the average Brampton property tax bill for a two-storey home is $6,195—higher than the GTHA average of $5,767, according to 2024 numbers. For all intents and purposes, Brampton’s property taxes are relatively high.
Transit Concerns
Layered onto all of this is the growing uncertainty around development charges (DCs). As a result of Bill 17, DCs are now collected at occupancy rather than at the building permit stage. The City is projecting zero DC revenue in 2026 and plans to issue roughly $50 million in DC-funded debt to keep projects moving.
Several DC-funded projects have now been deemed inactive until new funding becomes available. This includes key transit initiatives such as the Queen Street BRT preliminary design and TPAP and the Higher Order Transit project on Steeles Avenue. Though, in the City’s Business Roundtable on the Budget, they committed to seeing the BRT study to fruition. In addition to uncertainty with capital investment, transit operations in Brampton remain underfunded despite its growing importance.
Brampton Transit operations are supported through a mix of operating revenues, municipal property taxes, and provincial gas tax contributions. Notably, the revenue-to-cost ratio (the proportion of operating costs covered by farebox revenue versus public subsidy) has consistently exceeded the City’s 50% target—56% in 2023, 54% in 2024, and 52% as of September 2025. By comparison, Toronto’s ratio typically sits around 42-46% in the same period, while Mississauga reported 45% in 2023 which 2024 and 2025 projections looking to remain stable or slightly increase. Brampton is overly reliant on farebox revenue, which is great from a fiscal discipline standpoint but leaves us vulnerable to ridership decline. Nobody thought about closing lanes when traffic declined during the pandemic. Why apply this logic to transit?
A $26 million shortfall driven by a 20% decline in ridership, though assuaged by gas tax funding to be sure, effectively amounts to service reductions and potential stalling capital investments. We know from employers in the city that current state is insufficient for employees, particularly shift workers relying on overnight transportation. Brampton is a 24/7 city, and we welcome the city’s collaboration in understanding the implications of transit service adjustments on the business community. We have outlined several advocacy priorities in our transportation whitepaper.
A budget that raises more questions than answers
All in all, this budget is not offensive from a line-item perspective. Instead, the process by which the public is consulted on it, and the manner in which this information is presented, leaves much to be desired. Even something as simple as joining other municipalities and the Region in providing impacts for small business, commercial, and industrial tax bills will go a long way in ensuring that the budget understands its implications on business. We also would strongly prefer a longer lead time to comment and debate the budget. We hear from council consistently that there is only 30 days to pass the budget once it is proposed. The legislation allows for 30 days for council to provide resolutions and amendments, 10 days for for mayoral veto, and 15 days for a two-thirds majority vote override mayoral vetoes. Even if we operated within the 30 day amendment period, the budget was proposed on January 9th and intends to be passed on January 27th—that is just 18 days.
Here are a list of recommendations for next year’s budget:
BBOT Recommendation:
The City should report the combined property tax impact (City + Region) alongside the City-only increase in all public-facing budget materials, similar to other municipalities and the Region. Include impacts on more than just residential tax bills.
Why this matters to business:
Businesses plan years in advance. Incomplete or selective reporting undermines predictability, complicates financial planning, and weakens investor confidence, particularly for commercial and industrial ratepayers whose final tax bill may sway decisions about investment and scaling.
BBOT Recommendation:
Clearly break out assessment growth, tax rate changes, reserve balances and total revenue growth in the budget.
Why this matters to business:
Employers need to understand whether cost increases are structural or temporary, and how reliant we are on reserves. This transparency helps businesses assess long-term cost exposure when making location, expansion, or hiring decisions and helps the business community join the City in advocacy.
BBOT Recommendation:
Move away from per-capita “tax burden” claims and instead emphasize comparable residential, commercial, and industrial property tax jurisdictions.
Why this matters to business:
Property taxes are paid per property, not per person. Per-capita framing masks the real cost borne by employers and landowners and can obscure affordability pressures that affect wage demands and retention. It also obscures the need for joint advocacy on fair share funding for Brampton. Underfunded services—particularly transit, roads, and infrastructure—ultimately increase costs for employers through congestion, absenteeism, and reduced workforce accessibility.
BBOT Recommendation:
Provide clarity on Queen Street BRT and Steeles Avenue Higher Order Transit, with clear milestones and funding pathways.
Why this matters to business:
Transit investment supports labour market access, intensification, and downtown revitalization. Confusion around the status of these projects increases reluctance to invest in Brampton, adding to future costs and signals uncertainty to investors. We need more development in Brampton, and higher order transit is needed to attract those developers.
BBOT Recommendation:
Partner with BBOT to advocate to senior governments for stable, multi-year transit operating funding. Provide clarity on the Dedicated Transit Fund and/or develop a dedicated transit operating stabilization fund or reserve, similar to other core municipal services and the reserve Toronto uses for TTC ridership declines. Reassess Brampton Transit’s revenue-to-cost ratio target to better align with peer cities. Engage employers directly when considering transit service adjustments, particularly affecting overnight, industrial, and shift-based employment.
Why this matters to business:
Brampton’s heavy reliance on farebox revenue leaves transit exposed during downturns. Service cuts function as a hidden tax on businesses whose employees rely on transit to get to work. When ridership is great, the farebox can cover most of our operations, but we need predictable subsidy when ridership is low so we do not regress. Operational cuts may also compromise our case for larger capital investment from the Province and Feds.
Let me know your thoughts and vsingh@bramptonbot.com.
Council will be holding special meetings to discuss the 2026 Budget on these dates:
- Monday, January 19, 2026 – 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
- Tuesday, January 20, 2026 – 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM
- Friday, January 23, 2026 – 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
- Tentative Budget Approval: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 – 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM
- Friday, January 30, 2026 – 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM (if needed)
If you wish to delegate, the form is here.
Email sonya.pacheco@brampton.ca and/or cityclerksoffice@brampton.ca with a completed form at your earliest convenience.
