By: Joseph A. Gaetan BGS
September 29th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
I no longer delegate or comment directly on the Burlington municipal budget. Not because I lack interest, but because the process has become predictable. Council listens politely, then proceeds as they intended. For this taxpayer, very frustrating — and it raises deeper questions about accountability.
Having been a Condominium Board Director and Treasurer for 10 years I can attest to the fact that under Ontario’s Condominium Act, 1998, a condo board operates with a much higher standard of stewardship. A Board cannot simply add significant new expenses. Section 97 requires them to notify owners, allow for a meeting if requisitioned, and in some cases obtain a two-thirds vote of approval. As an example, if the cost of a change is greater than 10% of the annual budgeted common expenses, it is automatically considered a “significant change.”
If condo rules applied to municipalities, the development of this site would have had much more public involvement. Still not a firm date on when the project will be completed.
Example:
If the corporation’s annual budget = $1,000,000
Any change costing over $100,000, triggers the significant change process. This means the board cannot approve the project on its own – it must notify owners, and in some cases, call a meeting and hold a vote.
Reserve funds are tightly regulated, supported by professional studies, and restricted to major repairs and replacements. Owners are not just consulted; they are formally protected.
By contrast, the Municipal Act gives councils broad latitude. Councils can create or draw from reserves, introduce new programs, and make spending decisions entirely within the annual budget process. While municipalities do consult, the statutory framework does not provide the same direct safeguards that the Condominium Act requires for unit owners. Yet taxpayers contribute far more each year in property taxes than most pay in condo fees.
This imbalance is hard to justify. If stewardship of a condominium’s budget and reserve funds requires statutory guardrails, why not municipal finances? Both involve compulsory contributions. Both are meant to preserve shared assets and services. And both deserve protection from short- term decision-making.
It is time for the province to strengthen the Municipal Act by borrowing from the Condominium Act’s best practices:
Require thresholds that trigger direct taxpayer approval for substantial new spending. Restrict reserve funds to their intended purposes, with clear rules against diversion.
Municipal councils will always need flexibility. But flexibility without stewardship risks eroding public trust. Adopting condominium-style safeguards would restore confidence that taxpayer dollars are managed with the same care, discipline, and transparency already required of condo boards.
Joseph A. Gaetan is a Burlington resident who comments frequently on municipal matters. He has been wise enough to refrain from thinking about elected office.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joe
If municipalities, then why not Provincial and Federal government’s too?
‘A Board cannot simply add significant new expenses. Section 97 requires them to notify owners, allow for a meeting if requisitioned, and in some cases obtain a two-thirds vote of approval. As an example, if the cost of a change is greater than 10% of the annual budgeted common expenses, it is automatically considered a “significant change.”
If you are suggesting a similar trigger at Council level you are effectively calling for referenda. Cumbersome and expensive!
I am of the position that we elect our representatives at all three levels of government to act in what the majority of the elected representatives believe is a best course of action.
Having referenda takes away from our representatives the authority we had delegated to them via the ballot box.
If we don’t like what our representatives are doing we show that by electing new representatives at election time.
Burlington’s mayor was elected with 78% of the votes cast. However only 28% of the electorate voted. So only 22% of the electorate voted for the Mayor.
So, Joe if there was to be a referendum on a particular subject you can bet the kitchen sink the turn out under present circumstances would likely be less than at a general election. That in my view does not equate to meaningful engagement.
The pity is election turn out is way too low. At the municipal level it is abysmally low. Some countries have made it mandatory to vote. I wonder does that work and how is it enforced?
Great analysis and suggestions of what the Province should do. Unfortunately the same applies to the Province, and politicians prefer to tinker with policy while avoiding real guardrails on their actions.
Excellent article Joe. I completely agree!