Residents shared over 200 comments during the budget consultation. I’ve read every one. Here’s my assessment on some of the common suggestions for raising revenue, what is possible, and any hurdles in the way.

Five commenters suggested getting a casino. As you know, I’ve written extensively on that topic specifically, how it provides a significant windfall for 33 communities each year (and the property tax associated with the casino, too!). 

The short answer: we are unlikely to get a casino.

To obtain a licence, we’d first have to inform BC Lottery Corporation (BCLC) that we are interested. I suggested this, but Council rejected my motion on November 18, 2025 (Item 4.6). BCLC would then conduct a market study, followed by community consultation (there is no sense in doing this without knowing if there is even a license available first). Given that we are already surrounded by casinos in Coquitlam, New Westminster and Burnaby, it’s unlikely that the market study would support another casino in the Metro Vancouver region.

You can read my previous thoughts about that here: Cities with casinos pay less (October 31, 2025), Instagram and Facebook posts (November 19, 2025) and Tri-Cities Dispatch Letterbox: Hoping for an equitable split of casino cash? Don’t bet on it (January 4, 2026).

The reality: we should continue to advocate for equitable gaming revenue sharing. I will continue to do every chance I get, but without some political will from the Province (or a champion MLA), they will can to ignore the inequity.

Two comments suggested Council consider adding speed cameras to other locations around the city (we already have two at Ioco/Barnet and Ioco/Murray/Guildford) to improve road safety while enforcing speed limits and bringing in additional fine revenue. Another suggested increased enforcement with higher fines for the same reason.

The short answer: this isn’t within our jurisdiction.

The Province, in conjunction with ICBC data, determines the locations of red light, speed, and (hopefully soon) noise cameras. We can’t install our own (you can see the map of traffic cameras here).

Also, all traffic fine revenue is pooled. It's then redistributed to municipalities based on a policing cost formula. Money from a ticket in Port Moody doesn't directly fund Port Moody PD.

For us, this adds approximately $450,000 annually to police revenues. Traffic fine revenue is expected to be $460,000 in 2026 (page 2, item 6.1, Port Moody Police Board 2026-2030 Financial Plan)

What we are doing: advocating for autonomy. At UBCM 2024, we successfully advocated that the Province explore a Noise Camera pilot. Their non-commital response indicated that they “will continue to monitor this issue.” Side note: We are testing a noise monitor (early update here), so we are ready if the Province allows municipalities to use this technology.

The reality: we should continue to advocate for changes; however, the Province holds the keys to both automated enforcement and fines.

I appreciate this sentiment and idea. Congestion pricing or tolls for entering a city have been implemented globally; the most recent example is New York City, showing promising results.

The short answer: this isn’t within our jurisdiction.

I have no doubt that would reduce commuter (through) traffic on St. Johns and Murray streets, but this is another example of municipalities not having jurisdiction to implement road pricing/tolls, and the Province is not interested in acting on this.

The potential is huge. Models like New York City show congestion pricing is a triple win: it reduces traffic and pollution while generating significant revenue for transit. A 2018 Translink estimated $1 billion in potential annual revenue for our region.

The reality: without Provincial leadership and a regional framework, this tool is out of reach, at least for the near future.

The short answer: unlike many other ideas, this is one revenue lever we can pull directly.

Sponsorships and partnerships can support community events, holiday lighting displays and other events. Naming rights for civic assets, like the existing PCT Stage at Rocky Point Park, are another way to offset costs.

What we are doing: staff are currently working on a revised policy.

A caveat: it’s not a budget fix. I don’t believe this would provide a substantial source of recurring revenue, but it could be useful for specific events, like Cheer on the Pier, holiday lighting or Canada Day festivities.

Building a hotel was mentioned three times, and vacation accommodation was mentioned once. I appreciate the sentiment, as we have limited options for out-of-town visitors.

The short answer: a hotel is not economically viable (yet).

The market has signalled this; a proposed hotel was removed from Onni’s Suter Brook development plan. A hotel needs a steady stream of business travellers to make it work, which we currently lack.

While I really like North Vancouver’s Shipyards Hotel and attached condo building, I don’t believe that building and operating a hotel is a city-led priority. Our limited resources are urgently needed for community-identified priorities, such as expanded recreation services like the Kyle redevelopment or a new library. We also have aging infrastructure needs to consider.

The reality: with many of the comments suggesting the city stick to “core services”, this could be a financially challenging sell.

I understand the intent. To me, this highlights a clear case of cost downloading (even if unintentional).

The short answer: I support the principle.

Each municipality funds their own fire services, including training and equipment for responding to medical calls and car accidents, along with fires. In 2023, PMFD attended 1,128 medical calls, more than any other category.

When our firefighters are at medical calls, they cannot leave until the ambulance crew arrives, tying up our local resources. If another call comes in, and depending on the type and severity, PMFD has to adjust, either by calling in off-duty firefighters or getting the other hall to backfill, or calling on our neighbours for help (there are agreements between neighbouring fire departments).

The core issue: We are using municipal staff to fill a provincial healthcare gap, without compensation. A similar issue exists when police are used to respond to mental health calls.

The reality: while I support billing the Province for this service, other municipalities have tried and been unsuccessful. We can (and should) continue to advocate for increased funding for all health care services.

This idea has two parts: separate recreation fees for non-residents (e.g. Anmore residents), and increase recreation user fees for everyone, provided there is a way for folks to access lower fees if needed.

The short answer: possible, but with tradeoffs that need to be closely evaluated.

User fees already see modest annual increases, and we offer subsidy programs for those in need. In 2025, the average household paid about $60/month for parks, culture and recreation services. A two-tier system for neighbouring residents has been discussed in past Council terms but never implemented.

Personally, I am hesitant; I would need to see data to build a strong case that any increase for non-residents would generate net revenue after accounting for the administrative cost of managing a tiered system. I am also hesitant to increase user fees because access to recreation is important, especially for kids.

The reality: this is within our jurisdiction, but if this is something we pursue, we must be mindful of equity and cost-effectiveness.

Beyond the major themes above, a few other ideas came up:

This isn't an exhaustive list, but it highlights the complex puzzle of municipal finance. The common thread in all these ideas is jurisdiction and practicality. Even the best suggestions all run into a hard truth: the Province controls many revenue tools, and for a municipality, the options are often limited in scale or come with significant trade-offs.

In the next post, I'll shift to the other side of the ledger: your ideas for reducing expenses and the community priorities that shape spending.