RESEARCH / COMMUNITY

Alvin Tedjo Promised a Fully Costed Tax Plan. Where Is It?

With one week until Mississauga’s October 26 election, the Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition has not located Alvin Tedjo’s promised financial plan. Voters need the costs, savings and funding details behind his tax commitments.

Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition · Published 2026-10-19

Page 1 of the Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition’s tax deferral postcard. The $32,900 figure is illustrative, based on a $3,000 starting annual City tax, assumed 4% annual growth and 20 years of deferral, before interest or fees; it is not an official projection.

Mayoral candidate Alvin Tedjo has made property tax relief a central campaign promise: a two-year freeze on the City-controlled portion of property taxes, alongside a separate tax deferral program for qualifying seniors.

But one question remains: where is the fully costed financial plan he promised voters?

On September 15, 2026, Tedjo told CityNews that he would release a fully costed plan, reviewed by experts, later in the campaign. More than a month later, with the October 26 election one week away, the Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition has been unable to locate that document in the publicly available campaign materials and reporting reviewed as of October 19.

That does not establish that no plan exists or that it has not been published elsewhere. It means the materials reviewed do not provide an identifiable financial plan residents can independently examine.

Tedjo has discussed efficiencies, spending reviews and additional funding from other governments. Voters need a financial breakdown showing how those measures would pay for his commitments.

A tax freeze needs a financial plan

A freeze on tax increases does not freeze the cost of municipal services, infrastructure maintenance, capital projects or existing financial obligations.

In his September 10 campaign statement, Tedjo called for greater efficiency and a review of City spending. That statement does not identify the specific spending reductions, projected savings or alternative revenue needed to finance the proposed freeze.

A fully costed plan should explain:

• Which programs or expenditures would change, and how much those changes would save.
• Whether reserves, higher fees or deferred capital work would be needed.
• How services and infrastructure commitments would be funded during the freeze.
• What would happen to taxes and the budget when the two-year period ends.

Residents need numbers they can assess, alongside the promise that efficiencies will be found.

Who would finance the seniors’ tax deferral?

Tedjo’s separate seniors’ proposal would allow qualifying homeowners to defer future municipal property tax increases until their home is sold or ownership is transferred.

The Mississauga Accountability and Transparency Coalition previously examined what accumulated tax obligations could mean for seniors and their families. The proposal also raises a municipal financing question: who covers the revenue the City would not collect during the deferral period?

British Columbia’s established property tax deferment program, available to eligible Vancouver homeowners, includes a financing mechanism: the provincial government advances eligible taxes to municipalities while homeowners accumulate a repayment obligation.

Tedjo’s published proposal does not clearly establish whether Ontario would provide comparable financing or whether Mississauga would carry the deferred revenue itself.

If the City must finance the program, residents need to know how much revenue would be deferred each year, what financing costs would apply and how those obligations would affect future budgets. A financial model should also explain the assumptions behind participation and repayment.

His council record adds context

On November 27, 2024, Mississauga City Council considered a budget committee package that included a recommendation to use $18.35 million from the Tax Capital Reserve Fund for winter maintenance capital spending without reducing or deferring other capital projects.

Tedjo was one of four councillors recorded as voting against Resolution 0252-2024, which passed 7–4.

The minutes do not establish his reasons for opposing the resolution, which included multiple budget recommendations.

His vote should therefore not be characterized as opposition to winter maintenance or to that reserve allocation specifically.

The relevant question for this campaign is how he would use reserves and other financing tools to deliver his tax commitments. Would his proposals require reserve withdrawals, borrowing, spending reductions or changes to planned capital work? The promised financial plan should make those choices clear.

What would actually be frozen?

Tedjo’s proposed two-year freeze applies to the City-controlled portion of property taxes. A homeowner’s total bill also includes Regional and education components, which would not automatically be frozen by the municipal proposal.

Residents need to know how much of a typical bill would be affected, which portions could continue to increase and what the proposal would mean for properties with different assessments.

A freeze on one component of the bill should be explained in terms of the total amount a homeowner would pay.

Five questions before election day

1. Where is the plan promised on September 15? Has it been completed, who reviewed it and where can voters examine it?
2. What would pay for the two-year freeze? Identify the proposed savings, spending changes and alternative revenue, with a dollar value for each.
3. Who would finance the seniors’ deferral program? Would the City carry the deferred revenue, or has funding been secured from another government?
4. What would happen to reserves, infrastructure and future budgets? Explain any borrowing, reserve withdrawals, spending reductions or delayed capital projects.
5. What would homeowners actually pay? Show the effect on total property tax bills, including components outside the City’s control.

Return to the source.