Editorial: If This Continues, Some Alberta Municipalities Won’t Survive

For the past several weeks, I have had conversations with mayors across Alberta. They represent communities of every size. Some lead cities have thousands of residents. Others serve villages where everyone knows each other by name and where council meetings still feel like town halls rather than formal proceedings. Despite their differences, they all share one message, delivered with varying degrees of urgency but remarkable consistency. Their municipalities are under financial strain, and the strain is getting worse.

This is not an abstract concern. It is not theoretical. It is not political theatre. It is the lived reality of the communities that form the backbone of this province.

Municipal leaders are doing what they have always done. They are reviewing budgets line by line. They are weighing priorities. They are asking difficult questions about what services they can sustain and what sacrifices they may be forced to make. But increasingly, those questions are not about whether to build a new recreation facility or repave a road. They are about whether their municipalities, as independent entities, remain viable at all.

The most recent flashpoint came in December, when the Government of Alberta implemented changes to the municipal police funding formula. The new calculation significantly increases the amount municipalities must contribute to policing costs, in some cases resulting in projected increases exceeding 300 percent over five years. For large cities with diversified tax bases and robust growth, this represents a manageable adjustment. For smaller communities, it represents something else entirely.

It represents a structural shock.

What has made this shock particularly jarring is not just the size of the increases but the manner in which they were introduced. Municipal leaders across the province have told me, both on the record and off, that they were not meaningfully consulted. They were not brought into the process as partners. They were informed of a decision already made. Many describe it as a unilateral downloading of responsibility.

This sense of downloading is not new. Three years ago, municipalities were required to absorb retroactive pay increases for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, costs that were negotiated at the federal level but ultimately borne by local taxpayers. At the time, municipal leaders expressed concern about being caught between decisions made in distant capitals and the financial realities of their own communities. Today, those concerns have deepened into something closer to alarm.

Consider the recent attention surrounding the Town of Gibbons. Its financial challenges have placed it in the spotlight, but its situation is not unique. It is simply one of the few communities where the quiet conversations happening across Alberta have become visible to the broader public. Behind closed doors, many municipal councils are confronting similar pressures. They are calculating future policing costs. They are projecting infrastructure obligations. They are analyzing revenue streams that are flat or declining.

And they are asking themselves questions that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Can we sustain ourselves? Can we continue to exist as an independent municipality? Should we consider that dirty word....amalgamation?

For years, amalgamation has been a word spoken carefully, if at all. It carried political and emotional weight. Municipal identity is not just administrative. It is cultural. It is historical. It is personal. Communities are built on shared experience, shared memory, and shared purpose. The idea of dissolving that identity into a larger neighbour has long been resisted, particularly in rural Alberta, where independence is not just valued but expected.

Yet today, that resistance is being tested by financial reality.

Several municipal leaders have shared with me that representatives from Edmonton, including officials connected to the Premier and the Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs, have raised amalgamation as a potential solution when municipalities express concern about policing costs. The message, whether explicit or implied, was - and is - simple. If you cannot afford the new model, you may need to consider amalgamation.

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable.

Not because amalgamation is inherently wrong, but because financial pressure should never be used as the primary mechanism to achieve it. Structural change should emerge from local choice, local consensus, and local vision. It should not be the byproduct of fiscal constraint imposed from above.

When amalgamation happens because communities see opportunity in shared services, coordinated planning, and regional cooperation, it can be positive. When amalgamation happens because communities have no other choice, it becomes something else entirely.

It becomes an amalgamation by necessity. It becomes an amalgamation by attrition. It becomes an amalgamation by financial coercion.

That distinction matters.

Municipalities operate differently from provincial and federal governments. They do not run deficits in the same way. They do not have the same revenue tools. Their primary source of income is property tax, a blunt instrument that does not grow automatically with inflation or economic demand. When costs increase sharply, municipalities have limited options. They can raise taxes, cut services, defer infrastructure maintenance, or seek structural change.

None of those options are easy. All of them carry consequences.

For small urban municipalities, the challenge is particularly acute. Many are already grappling with stagnant or declining populations. Their infrastructure is aging. Their service expectations remain high. Their tax base is narrow. Every additional financial obligation stretches their capacity further.

And yet, they remain essential.

These communities support regional economies. They provide homes for workers in agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and transportation. They anchor rural regions. They preserve the social fabric of the province. Their value cannot be measured solely in balance sheets.

At the same time, there is a growing perception among municipal leaders that policy decisions are increasingly designed with large urban centers in mind. Cities with populations exceeding 100,000 have fundamentally different fiscal realities than towns of 5,000 or villages of 500. They have broader tax bases. They have more diversified economies. They have greater administrative capacity. They can absorb financial shocks that would destabilize smaller municipalities.

A one size fits all approach does not work in a province defined by geographic and economic diversity.

This is not simply a provincial issue. It is also a national one. Decisions made in Ottawa affect municipalities across Canada. Policing contracts, regulatory frameworks, and funding structures are shaped at the federal level and implemented locally. When those decisions do not fully account for municipal capacity, the consequences are felt most acutely in smaller communities.

Political leaders at every level often speak about unity. They speak about collaboration. They speak about building a stronger federation. Those are worthy goals. But unity cannot mean uniformity. Collaboration cannot mean compliance without consultation. Strength cannot come at the expense of sustainability.

If current trends continue, Alberta may face a future in which many small municipalities no longer exist as independent entities. Some may amalgamate with surrounding rural municipalities. Others may dissolve into surrounding counties. These outcomes may make sense in certain cases. But they should not be driven by financial pressure created through policy decisions made without meaningful municipal input.

The danger is not simply the loss of administrative units. It is the loss of local voice.

Municipal governments are the closest level of government to the people. They understand the unique needs of their communities. They respond directly to residents. They provide accountability in its most immediate form. When municipalities disappear, that proximity disappears with them.

There is also a broader economic implication. Investors and businesses value stability. They value predictability. When municipalities face uncertain futures, it creates uncertainty for economic development. It complicates planning. It slows growth. Stability at the municipal level supports stability at every level.

To be clear, this is not an argument against reform. Municipal governance should evolve. Service delivery should be efficient. Regional cooperation should be encouraged. But reform must be guided by partnership, not imposed through pressure.

The province has legitimate fiscal responsibilities. Policing is expensive. Public safety is essential. These realities cannot be ignored. But neither can the fiscal limitations of municipalities. Sustainable solutions require dialogue, transparency, and yes even flexibility.

What happens next will shape Alberta for decades to come. If municipal independence is eroded gradually through financial pressure, the province may find itself with fewer local governments, less local representation, and weaker rural and small urban communities. If, however, the province chooses collaboration over imposition, it can strengthen municipalities while still achieving fiscal responsibility.

The choice is not between reform and stability. It is between unilateral decision making and cooperative governance.

The conversations happening today are not yet fully public. Many municipal leaders remain cautious. They are pragmatic. They understand political realities. But beneath that pragmatism is growing concern.

They see the numbers. They see the projections. They see the trajectory.

And they know that without meaningful change in how decisions are made and implemented, some municipalities may not survive in their current form.

This is not alarmism. It is realism.

If amalgamation is the intended future, then leaders should say so openly and honestly. They should present the case. They should engage municipalities and residents in transparent discussion. They should allow communities to make informed choices.

But if amalgamation is not the intended outcome, then policy must reflect that intention. Financial models must be sustainable. Consultation must be genuine. Municipalities must be given the tools they need to succeed.

Because the alternative is not a deliberate restructuring of municipal governance.

The alternative is its gradual erosion.

And that is a future that should concern every Albertan, regardless of where they live.