Sarnia Needs to Abandon the Old Strategies

I am not running for mayor, nor am I endorsing any candidate. But as someone seeking a seat on council, I believe it is my responsibility to comment on past actions, policies, and decisions, and to explain plainly what I think needs to change.

This may run long, but the foundation matters.

Strong Mayor Powers: A Structural Shift

Section 284.16(1) of Part V.1 of the Municipal Act came into force in 2022. It states:

“In accordance with this section and subject to the regulations, the powers and duties of a municipality with respect to proposing and adopting a budget are assigned to the head of council of the municipality.”

This, along with related sections, represents a tectonic shift in how local government operates. It limits council’s traditional role as the “collective voice of the community” in setting budgets and places that authority in the hands of one individual, namely the mayor.

Before strong mayor powers, Ontario municipal budgets were built through a collaborative council process. The mayor held one vote among equals. Fiscal priorities were shaped through committee work, staff analysis, and majority approval. Spending, taxation, and capital allocations were determined collectively.

The new legislation replaces that shared authority with concentrated executive control. The mayor can now propose and veto budgets directly. It fundamentally changes who holds the pen (and the eraser) on municipal finances.

How the New Process Works

The mayor now directs the entire budget process. Council may propose amendments within 30 days. The mayor then has 10 days to veto any of those amendments. If a veto occurs, council has 15 days to attempt an override, which requires a two‑thirds majority.

If the override fails, the budget stands as the mayor alone has set it.

At best, this imposes a constraint on the democratic process. When used indiscriminately, it risks undermining it altogether.

The Issues

With the legal framework out of the way, let’s look at how this new regime affects local politics.

When I engage in political debate, I focus criticism on actions, not on the character of any individual.

Recently, the incumbent mayor released a 36‑second video promoting “The Bradley Basics” as his governing philosophy: “good government,” “low taxes,” and “not borrowing.”

He highlighted several achievements he attributes to this approach:

• “Not borrowing so we can take all the money we pay bankers and put it back into the community.”

• Two new splash pads, two new libraries, two new bus terminals, and “massive” investment in arenas, parks, and roads.

• “Record spending” on roads and infrastructure.

• And finally: “That’s what I would continue; the Bradley Basics that make Sarnia stronger without crippling it in debt.”

  
  

Let’s examine this philosophy.

1. Low Taxes and “Not Borrowing”

Municipal taxes rose roughly 4% for 2026. More importantly, the City Treasurer warned that council’s use of reserves ($30.2 million over four years) has created a serious problem for next year.

With reserves depleted, council will face a no‑win scenario in the 2027 budget. A much higher tax increase is likely. This is not the result of unavoidable circumstances; it is the result of the “Bradley Basics” approach the mayor celebrates.

The Reality: Council has been borrowing

Using reserves to artificially suppress tax increases is borrowing. Those reserves must be replenished. They were intended for capital projects, emergencies, and long‑term financial stability, not for routinely masking tax pressure.

2. Infrastructure Underfunding: The Hidden Liability

Reserves also exist to help fund capital projects. Sarnia owns $4.6 billion in infrastructure. To maintain it properly, we need to reinvest 1.8% annually, about $83 million.

The 2026 budget allocates $65 million. That’s an $18 million shortfall this year alone.

This shortfall has been happening for years. It has accumulated to roughly $300 million, and it is still growing.

Calling the spending “massive” or “record‑breaking” rings hollow when it doesn’t even meet the yearly maintenance threshold and the deficit keeps growing.

That is a major liability.

When a city underfunds infrastructure, it creates a liability. And liabilities don’t disappear; they turn into debt later, with interest.

This is the real cost of the “zero‑debt” philosophy. It doesn’t eliminate debt. It defers it and makes it more expensive.

3. “Not Borrowing”

I have already spoken about borrowing as part of a responsible strategy to get Sarnia back on track and to support new business development. Nobody can deny that London and Strathroy are advancing far more aggressively than Sarnia when it comes to growth and visible development.

Here is the projected total year‑end debt from London’s current multi‑year budget:

• 2026 – $484,454,000

• 2027 – $671,919,000

• 2028 – $844,455,000

• 2029 – $904,144,000

• 2030 – $923,984,000

Here is the chart from London's 2024-2027 multi-year budget:

The 2026 number places London’s per‑capita municipal debt load somewhere above $1,000 per resident. Debt servicing costs for 2026 are forecast to be $60,834,000.

London's budget documents provide the following rationale for borrowing:

To put it simply, borrowing money to pay for big infrastructure projects makes sense because those projects last for many years. Instead of charging today’s taxpayers all at once, the city spreads the cost over time so the people who use and benefit from the roads, bridges, or facilities also help pay for them while they’re enjoying them. It’s a way to keep things fair between generations and manage large expenses more smoothly.

That’s London's thinking; debt lets the cost of long‑term improvements match the lifespan of their benefits.

Strathroy, based on available financial data, is currently carrying roughly $250 per capita in municipal debt, not including any new borrowing planned for 2026.

Many people I’ve spoken with during this early stage of my campaign have expressed frustration over the visible contrast in comparison to Sarnia: new subdivisions, commercial builds, and serviced development lands are easy to spot when driving past Strathroy on the 402. The same is true in London. I seem to notice new development every time I travel there.

Both cities, I am told, aggressively prepared development lands to be “shovel‑ready” by installing the necessary infrastructure up front. This proactive approach attracts new ventures. In Sarnia, by contrast, we often wait for a business or industry to commit before contemplating upgrades to a potential development site. That reactive posture drives opportunities away.

In short, the other two cities along the 402 are strategically using debt to finance infrastructure upgrades to successfully attract new businesses, thus promoting growth in the process.

Meanwhile, Sarnia points to two new splash pads, a claim of two new libraries, two new bus terminals, and what has been described as “massive” investment in arenas, parks, and roads.

This raises some questions: How does this list of our relatively minor endeavours compare to London and Strathroy? Are they true indicators of growth, job creation, and economic momentum?

A drive through London or Strathroy (both of which use strategic borrowing) does not bring to mind the word “crippling.” Both maintain strong credit ratings while borrowing and continuing to grow. They include debt management as a long-term plan to deal with this.

Continuing with council’s economic policies of the past, with a singular focus on achieving “zero debt” as the mayor’s ad proposes, is not a growth strategy. It is a recipe for decline. The greater concern is how strong mayor powers, if not actively challenged by council, could entrench our decline for years to come.

Remember this: strategic borrowing, used responsibly, as London, Strathroy, and other growing communities do, is only one tool to promote renewal and economic growth. The next council must also aggressively pursue grants from upper levels of government and examine every budget area for reasonable, responsible trimming.

As election day approaches, I ask residents to consider not only what has been done, but what must change for Sarnia to move forward.

Chris Oram