Opinion: If You Ran to Lead, You Don’t Get to Run From Responsibility

Over the last few weeks, there has been one certainty in Alberta politics. It was predictable, telegraphed, and discussed openly by policy analysts, municipal administrators, and elected officials alike. And yet, when it finally happened, it was met with a chorus of surprise, frustration, and—most troublingly—political theatre.

On February 27, the Government of Alberta released its long-awaited provincial budget. For most Albertans, provincial budgets are distant documents, full of abstract numbers and policy language that rarely penetrate the day-to-day concerns of households trying to pay their mortgages and utility bills. But for municipal leaders, these budgets are deeply consequential. They determine how much autonomy local governments truly possess—and how much responsibility they must bear for decisions they do not fully control.

This year’s budget included a measure that was neither shocking nor unprecedented: the province increased the education property tax requisition, the portion of municipal property taxes collected on behalf of the province to fund Alberta’s education system. The announcement came from Nate Horner, Alberta’s Minister of Finance. And while the measure was predictable, the reaction from many municipal leaders was anything but.

Across the province, mayors, councillors, and reeves quickly took to social media, local media interviews, and called for emergency council meetings to express outrage. Charts appeared online showing how much residents’ property tax bills would increase, not because of municipal spending decisions, they insisted, but because of the province. The message was clear: this was not their fault.

But that message raises an uncomfortable question. If it wasn’t their fault this year, was it their fault last year? Or the year before that?

Municipal leaders across Alberta have been quick to distance themselves from this tax increase, framing it as an imposition from above. Yet this is not the first time the province has increased the education property tax requisition. The same thing happened last year. It was anticipated, forecast, and widely discussed among municipal administrators and political observers.

Those who ran for municipal office in the most recent election did so knowing this reality. They campaigned in communities where property taxes had already been rising. They spoke passionately about accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. Some even criticized incumbent councils, arguing that those leaders had failed to protect residents from rising costs.

And now, only months into their terms, many of those same newly elected officials are saying the tax increase isn’t their responsibility.

This is a contradiction that deserves scrutiny.

Local government is not a spectator sport. Those who seek office are not bystanders; they are participants in a system whose constraints and obligations are well known. Running for office is an act of agency. It is a declaration: “I understand the challenges, and I am prepared to lead.”

Leadership does not mean claiming credit when things go well and assigning blame when they do not. Leadership means owning the outcome—even when the outcome is politically inconvenient.

Municipal leaders knew—or should have known—that part of the property tax bill residents receive includes requisitions collected on behalf of other orders of government, including education. They also knew that residents rarely distinguish between municipal and provincial portions of the tax bill. Residents see one number. They pay one bill. And they hold one government accountable: the one closest to them.

In recent days, some councils have convened special meetings to discuss the provincial budget. Others have issued strongly worded letters to the province or released public statements expressing concern.

These actions may feel meaningful. They may generate headlines and social media engagement. But they will not change the outcome.

The provincial government has made its decision. The education property tax requisition is set. Municipalities are legally required to collect it and remit it to the province.

No emergency council meeting will reverse that decision. No social media infographic will persuade the provincial cabinet to reconsider.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary truth: much of what we are seeing is performative.

It is governance as optics, rather than governance as responsibility.

Municipal leaders are understandably frustrated. They operate within tight fiscal constraints. They face growing demands for infrastructure, public safety, and community services. They are often expected to do more with less. But frustration does not change jurisdictional reality.

Local governments in Alberta are creatures of provincial statute. Their powers—and their limitations—are defined by provincial legislation. They do not possess constitutional independence.

This is not new. It has always been the case.

The education property tax increase is only one of several pressures facing municipalities.

Changes to the municipal policing funding model have required many communities to contribute more toward the cost of policing, particularly those served by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At the same time, infrastructure demands continue to grow as Alberta’s population expands.

Organizations like Alberta Municipalities and Rural Municipalities of Alberta have warned for years that municipalities are facing structural fiscal challenges. They have argued that local governments are responsible for maintaining the majority of public infrastructure while receiving a relatively small share of overall tax revenue.

These concerns are valid. Municipalities are on the front lines of population growth, economic development, and community well-being.

But acknowledging these challenges does not absolve municipal leaders of responsibility. If anything, it heightens their obligation to communicate honestly with residents about fiscal realities.

Too often, municipal leaders promise low taxes without explaining the trade-offs involved. They campaign on fiscal restraint without addressing the structural factors driving costs upward.

This creates unrealistic expectations—and sets the stage for public frustration when those expectations cannot be met.

Many municipal leaders have expressed hope that advocacy, resolutions, or public pressure might persuade the province to reverse course.

This hope is understandable. But it is also unrealistic.

Provincial governments make fiscal decisions based on province-wide priorities. Education funding is a core provincial responsibility. The education property tax requisition is a tool the province uses to distribute that cost across property owners.

The province is unlikely to abandon this mechanism simply because municipalities object.

Municipal leaders must confront a difficult truth: there is no easy solution. There is no policy lever they can pull that will eliminate the fiscal pressures they face without consequences elsewhere.

They cannot simultaneously demand expanded services, maintain aging infrastructure, accommodate rapid population growth, and guarantee permanently low taxes.

Something has to give.

One of the most persistent challenges in municipal governance is the accountability gap created by overlapping responsibilities between different orders of government.

Residents often do not understand which level of government is responsible for which services. They may blame municipalities for decisions made by the province, or vice versa.

This confusion creates opportunities for political blame-shifting. It allows elected officials to deflect responsibility by pointing to decisions made elsewhere.

But political convenience does not change fiscal reality.

Municipalities are responsible for setting and collecting property taxes. They are responsible for adopting budgets. They are responsible for communicating with residents about the financial decisions that affect them.

Even when part of the tax bill is determined by the province, municipalities remain the face of local taxation. That responsibility cannot be outsourced.

Alberta is one of the fastest-growing provinces in Canada. Communities across the province are experiencing population increases, housing development, and economic expansion.

Growth brings opportunity. It also brings cost. New roads must be built. Water and wastewater systems must be expanded. Emergency services must be staffed and equipped. Public facilities must be maintained. These investments require revenue.

For years, Alberta municipalities have tried to balance growth with tax restraint. They have deferred infrastructure maintenance, stretched existing resources, and relied on provincial transfers to bridge the gap.

But deferral is not a permanent solution. Eventually, bills come due.

And that moment has arrived. Municipal leaders face a choice.

They can continue to frame tax increases as someone else’s fault, hoping to avoid political backlash. Or they can tell residents the truth: that maintaining and growing a community costs money, and that property taxes are the primary tool available to fund those costs.

This conversation will not be easy. Residents are understandably concerned about affordability. Many households are already feeling financial strain.

But honesty is essential.

Residents deserve leaders who will explain the full picture—not just the politically convenient parts.

They deserve leaders who will say: this is the cost of maintaining our roads, our parks, our emergency services, and our community.

They deserve leaders who will take responsibility for the decisions they make.

Municipal government is often described as the level of government closest to the people. That proximity creates both opportunity and obligation. It creates the opportunity to build trust through transparency and accountability. It creates the obligation to govern with seriousness and integrity.

Performative outrage and blame-shifting undermine that trust. They create the impression that municipal leaders are observers rather than decision-makers.

But municipal leaders are decision-makers. They have the authority to set budgets, allocate resources, and shape the future of their communities.

They also have the responsibility to explain those decisions honestly.

The education property tax increase is not a temporary anomaly. It is part of a broader fiscal framework that defines the relationship between provincial and municipal governments.

Municipal leaders cannot wish it away. They cannot protest it into nonexistence.

They must work within it.

Before municipal councils head into their next round of budget meetings and public hearings, there is one more truth that needs to be said plainly. When you stand before residents and announce that taxes are increasing by only 1.3 per cent, or 1.6 per cent, or 2.4 per cent, you are not telling the complete story. You are telling a carefully narrowed version of it.

What you mean, in most cases, is that the municipal portion of property taxes is increasing by that amount. You mean the portion that council directly controls. You do not mean the total property tax bill residents will receive. And you know that residents do not experience their taxes in pieces. They experience them as a single number, withdrawn from their bank account or printed on a bill that arrives with little explanation and no distinction between municipal, provincial, or other requisitions.

If you want to be honest with your residents, you must say so clearly. You must explain that while the municipal portion may be rising modestly, the overall bill may rise more significantly because of provincial requisitions over which you have no authority. You must acknowledge that this is the reality of the system you operate within.

Because if you do not, you are not informing residents. You are managing perception. And the difference between the two is the difference between leadership and politics.

At the end of the day, residents will receive a property tax bill. They will not parse its components. They will not distinguish between municipal and provincial requisitions.

They will see one number. And they will hold their municipal leaders accountable for it.

This is the reality of local governance. Municipal leaders chose this responsibility. They sought it. They campaigned for it. They asked for their communities' trust. Now they must live up to that trust.

They must stop pretending that responsibility lies elsewhere. They must stop treating predictable fiscal realities as unexpected crises.

They must govern.

Because Alberta’s communities are growing. Their infrastructure is aging. Their needs are expanding.

And the bill—inevitably—is coming due.