Listen to the article
Greater Sudbury’s special capital levy became a point of contention this week after mayoral candidate Bill Leduc’s campaign promise sparked corrections from sitting council members.
Leduc, who currently represents Ward 11, pledged to redirect the entire 1.5 percent special capital levy toward road repairs if elected mayor. His proposal aims to address the city’s significant roads spending gap, estimated at $77.8 million annually.
While council members acknowledge Leduc’s right to propose such policy changes, Ward 9 Councillor Deb McIntosh and Ward 4 Councillor Pauline Fortin publicly disputed claims attributed to Leduc in local media that suggested the levy has been used to pay off the city’s event centre.
McIntosh, who chairs the city’s finance and administration committee, clarified that a misunderstanding likely stemmed from an April 16, 2024 council motion. That motion outlined how an additional $135 million in debt for the event centre would be financed, on top of $90 million already secured.
The motion mentioned potentially using “a portion of the special capital levy, as required” alongside alternative revenue sources like the municipal accommodation tax. However, McIntosh emphasized that the city hasn’t yet secured the additional $135 million debt, let alone begun repaying it.
According to city records, the special capital levy has exclusively funded infrastructure projects since its inception, as documented in recent municipal budgets.
The 1.5 percent multi-year special capital levy, which compounds annually, was discussed by city council for several years before receiving approval in 2023 as part of Greater Sudbury’s four-year capital budget covering 2024-2027.
Initially, the levy was promoted during a June 2023 meeting as a dedicated funding source “for accelerated road asset renewal.” By the time council approved the 2024 budget in December 2023, its scope had expanded to include various infrastructure projects beyond roads.
The special capital levy structure includes annual 1.5 percent increases to the tax levy throughout the four-year capital budget period ending in 2027. For perspective, in the 2026 tax levy increase, 1.5 of the total 3.9 percent increase approved by council is attributed directly to this special capital levy.
These increases compound each year, generating $4.98 million in 2024, projected to rise to $10.5 million in 2025, $16.6 million in 2026, and $23.3 million by 2027.
For the current year, the $16.6 million allocation includes approximately $5 million for local roads, $5.5 million for arterial roads, and $6.1 million toward annual debt repayments for a $92.7 million infrastructure debt package.
This debt finances several critical infrastructure projects: the emergency services revitalization program ($1.64 million this year), the College Street underpass project ($3.47 million), and a salt/sand storage building at the Frobisher public works yard ($986,900).
McIntosh noted that the next city council will determine the future of the special capital levy when the subsequent four-year capital budget begins in 2028. The final year of the current capital plan could also be amended during its readoption later this year or in early 2027.
Another disputed claim involved Leduc’s assertion that the mayor controls the budget through provincial “strong mayor powers” and could unilaterally cancel the event centre project. Sudbury.com previously clarified that while these powers grant mayors some budget authority, they are not unlimited. Strong mayors ultimately require support from at least one-third of council to implement the kind of changes Leduc described.
This fact-check is the first in a planned series by Sudbury.com to clarify campaign statements throughout the 2026 civic election cycle, which culminates on October 26.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


10 Comments
Fascinating breakdown of the special capital levy in Greater Sudbury. It’s good to see transparency around how this funding is being allocated, even if there are differing views on the best approach.
I appreciate the council members clarifying the details and correcting any misconceptions. Responsible fiscal management is so important for municipalities.
The details around the event centre financing and the potential use of the special capital levy are quite technical. I appreciate the council members taking the time to explain the context and correct any misunderstandings.
It’s encouraging to see the local government engaging with the public on this issue. Ongoing dialogue and fact-checking are essential for informed decision-making at the municipal level.
The roads spending gap of $77.8 million annually is quite substantial. Redirecting the special capital levy towards road repairs could be a pragmatic solution, but it would be crucial to understand the full implications.
I’m curious to hear more about how the levy has been used beyond the event centre financing. A balanced approach may be warranted to address both infrastructure and other city priorities.
As a taxpayer, I’m glad to see the council members taking the time to provide clarity on this issue. Transparent discussions around municipal finances are important for building public trust.
While the mayoral candidate’s proposal may have merit, it’s good that the council members are cautioning against oversimplifying the levy’s allocation. Complex issues often require nuanced solutions.
This discussion highlights the importance of clear communication and transparency when it comes to municipal finances. I’m glad to see the council members proactively addressing any confusion or misinformation.
While the mayoral candidate’s proposal may have merit, it’s prudent to carefully consider the broader implications before making changes to the special capital levy’s allocation.