Ben Geselbracht — Incumbent Council Record Interview

VOICE OF NANAIMO | NANAIMO VOTES 2026

Candidate: Ben Geselbracht
Years on council: 8 years (elected 2018, re-elected 2022)
Date submitted: September 22, 2026

Councillor Ben Geselbracht’s submitted answers to ten questions about his council record, taxes, spending, public safety and taxpayer affordability are published below.

The questions and responses below are reproduced from the candidate’s written submission. Publication does not constitute an endorsement.

Question 1 — Your overall record

Looking back over your time on council, what are the three spending or taxation decisions you are most prepared to defend? What did Nanaimo taxpayers receive in return for each decision?

Candidate response:

Here are three decisions I’m prepared to defend.

First, hospital funding. I supported the regional funding that helped secure provincial commitments to the new NRGH patient tower and heart care lab. The funding secured so far moves forward an important project for Nanaimo families who will get critical care close to home instead of travelling to Victoria or Vancouver.

Second, 40 new firefighters. The City's 2022 Fire Rescue Master Plan found Nanaimo had the fewest full-time firefighters of any comparable city, while each firefighter handled one of the highest call loads. A full crew could reach a house fire within the national standard time only 9 percent of the time. And unlike most cities, we have no close neighbors who can send backup in time. These firefighters put the plan into action to catch up on past deficits and to meet the reality of far more multi-family buildings that require larger crews to respond to fires safely. From growth and increased call volume we are actually still behind however because of our timely effort help arrives much quicker when every minute counts.

Third, fare-free transit for everyone under 18, which I moved at the Regional District. It is a small cost because the buses are already running, so fixed costs stay the same. The policy saves families hundreds of dollars per child each year, and it builds the habits of transit riders of the future making our transit system more used and financially viable into the future.

In each case, taxpayers receive something concrete; better health care, emergency services they can depend on, and real savings for families.

Question 2 — Growth in taxes and user fees

City tax and user fee revenue increased from approximately $152.5 million in 2018 to $233.0 million in 2025, an increase of about 52.8 percent. How much of this increase do you attribute to population growth, inflation, expanded services, staffing decisions and other factors? Do you believe this rate of revenue and spending growth was financially sustainable?

Candidate response:

There is no single clean split, but the main drivers are clear. Nanaimo has been one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, and growth brings real costs: more roads, pipes, parks and staff to serve more people. We also inherited expensive infrastructure to maintain and replace because of our low density per foot of infrastructure to number of dwelling units because of the very spaced out way our city was developed in the past. Inflation hit hard, especially construction inflation, which ran far above the general rate. And residents asked council, loudly and repeatedly, for more public safety: more firefighters, more RCMP members and more Community Safety Officers. Those were deliberate choices to catch up after years of underinvestment, and they carry ongoing wage costs.

Was that pace sustainable? Not as a permanent norm. Catch-up periods happen and, they have to wind down. That is why I pushed for the tools that keep spending transparent: annual public process connecting budgets to actioning the city official community plan, service standards and public reporting on building permits, and an independent review of permit operations.

Question 3 — Repeated annual tax increases

Nanaimo taxpayers faced municipal property tax increases of 7.3 percent in 2023, 7.7 percent in 2024 and approximately 6.3 percent in 2026. At what point does an annual municipal tax increase become unaffordable? Please give a specific percentage, formula or other measurable limit rather than saying only that taxes should be kept as low as possible.

Candidate response:

Municipal tax increases should track inflation plus population growth. For most recent years that lands roughly in the 3 to 5 percent range. Anything above that line should require council to name the specific reason publicly, show it is temporary or one-time, and report back on what it delivered. When increases run above that benchmark year after year with no clear end point, they have become unaffordable. Recent increases have been above my benchmark, driven mostly by public safety catch-up. That catch-up phase needs to wind down, and budgets need to come back toward the line.

Question 4 — Wages and benefits

City wages and benefits increased from approximately $64.8 million in 2018 to $99.4 million in 2025, an increase of about 53.3 percent. Do you believe taxpayers can continue supporting employee cost growth at this rate? What specific changes, if any, would you support to control staffing, compensation and benefit costs during the next council term?

Candidate response:

Most of what a city does is people: firefighters, engineers, water operators, lifeguards, planners. Wages are set through collective bargaining, and our settlements have been in line with other B.C. cities. I do not support cutting wages or contracting out core services, which usually costs more and delivers less over time.

What council can control is how many positions we add and whether each one is needed. I support requiring a clear service case and public reporting for every new position, using digital tools to get more done with the staff we have, and watching overtime closely, since high overtime often signals a staffing or scheduling problem worth fixing. Growth of 53 percent in seven years is high however we have been through unprecedented growth, a global period of high inflation recovering from the pandemic, all while managing a public health, housing and safety crises with homelessness and a toxic drug supply. Disciplined hiring will help to slow tax increases but not hollowing out services.

Question 5 — Additional firefighters

Council approved 40 additional firefighters and two fire engines. The City's fire service expense increased from approximately $28.0 million in 2024 to $32.2 million in 2025. What is the full recurring annual cost of this expansion, including wages, benefits, equipment, vehicles, training and facilities? What measurable improvements have resulted, such as response times, reduced overtime or improved public safety, and where can taxpayers examine those results?

Candidate response:

I am not going to guess at a precise all-in number in a published interview. The roughly $4 million year-over-year increase shown in your table reflects much of the recurring cost as hiring is phased in, and the full ongoing cost, including wages, benefits, equipment, vehicles and training, is laid out in the City's annual financial reports and five-year financial plan at nanaimo.ca. Those are audited public documents and I encourage residents to read them.

I supported the firefighter expansion because Nanaimo's fire staffing had not kept pace with our growth, call volumes were rising sharply, and crews were increasingly stretched across simultaneous calls. Not responded in the manner we did, would have been irresponsible putting lives at risk. The measurable results residents should watch and what we are seeing, and that are reported publicly, are response times, coverage during simultaneous calls, and overtime levels. Fire Rescue reports on these through council and the City's annual reporting, and I support highlighting that reporting during coming years..

Question 6 — Public safety spending and results

Nanaimo has added firefighters, RCMP positions and Community Safety Officers. Residents and downtown property owners continue to report fires, vandalism and disorder, and some pay for private security in addition to municipal taxes. Are taxpayers receiving an adequate improvement in public safety for the additional money being spent? If not, what would you change?

Candidate response:

There is an improvement to public safety and things would be much worse if council had not acted, however because of the scale of the homelessness and drug crises, I do not feel we have arrived at where we should be. We have added Community Safety Officers, RCMP members and an expanded Clean Team, and those investments do help; downtown would be in worse shape without them. But residents are right that fires, vandalism and disorder continue, and no city can hire its way out of a toxic-drug and mental-health crisis using property taxes.

The answer is that enforcement spending only pays off when the Province funds the other half of the response: detox, treatment, mental health services and complex care for the small number of people driving a large share of the disorder. That is where I have put a lot of energy, including as AVICC President pressing the Province on behalf of the whole region. What I will keep doing: keep local safety resources focused and accountable, and keep relentless pressure on the Province to fund detox, treatment, housing and complex care at the scale needed.

Question 7 — Hospital tax levy

The Nanaimo Regional Hospital District levy is separate from the City budget, but Nanaimo council members also serve on the Regional District and Hospital District boards. Did you vote for Hospital District tax increases during your time on the board? If yes, why did you support increases of this size, and what consideration was given to the combined burden of municipal taxes, user fees and the hospital levy? What is the maximum hospital levy you believe taxpayers should be expected to carry?

Candidate response:

Yes, I voted for Hospital District increases, and I will defend them. The region committed to paying our 40 percent share of the new NRGH patient tower and the heart care lab. Building reserves now, before construction, means less borrowing later and lower interest costs for taxpayers overall. In return, residents get the biggest health care expansion in Nanaimo's history: more beds, and heart care that today requires a trip to Victoria.

Was the combined burden considered? Yes. It was a hard trade-off, and the board chose to save ahead rather than borrow the full amount. We did decrease the rate at which we were taxing for the heathcare expansion, after it was clear that the hospital tax increase was creating strain for some and we had the room to slow down the rate we needed to raise funds. I believe our current rate is sustainable given the important improvement to healthcare we are trying to achieve for the well-being of our aging community. On a maximum: once the tower and heart care lab are funded, the levy should level off and decrease in real terms. I do not support the hospital levy becoming another permanently growing tax line. It exists to deliver specific facilities, and residents should see it stabilize once those are delivered.

Question 8 — Core Services Review

Will you support a comprehensive, independent Core Services Review during the first year of the next council term? If yes, what should it examine, who should conduct it and will you commit to making the complete findings public? If no, why do you believe such a review is unnecessary?

Answer: NO

Candidate response:

A one-time, city-wide review would cost a lot, take most of a year, and end up as a report on a shelf like the last one. Nanaimo does not need to waste money on reviews it needs something that keeps working after the consultants leave.

We have a framework to build on. The Integrated Action Plan ties City Plan goals to the budgeting process and publicly reports on results. We can improve the way we do annual reporting by departments within this and when services are falling short, we review that service. The independent review of our building permit process is a good example. It found real problems, and council is working on fixing them. Building in more public service standards and regular reporting can support this process.

Question 9 — Taxpayer Affordability Test

Will you vote to adopt a formal Taxpayer Affordability Test before council approves annual budgets, major new programs or additional borrowing? If yes, what measurable conditions should it use, including household incomes, inflation, unemployment, housing costs and the combined effect of local taxes and fees? If no, how should council determine whether taxpayers can afford another increase?

Answer: YES

Candidate response:

Council already receives plenty of information about what the City wants to spend. It receives far less about what residents can afford. A formal affordability test would put that question on the table before every budget, major program and borrowing decision, and I would vote to consider something like this.

The conditions should be measurable and local: median household incomes for different socio-economic cohorts in Nanaimo, like seniors on fixed incomes, and how it is changing, inflation, local unemployment, housing costs as a share of income, and the combined total of municipal taxes, user fees and the hospital levy on a typical household, not each line viewed in isolation. The point is not a mechanical veto. It is an opportunity for council to look at residents' real finances before adding to the tax requisition and to explain publicly when it decides to proceed anyway. Property taxes are a very limited way to raise money to fund local government and many of the issues facing affordability is that using property taxes alone does not fairly distribute the financial burden to those best in a position to contribute. Seniors on fixed income with high value homes where they have lived for decades are examples of groups placed in a difficult position. This is why I have been advocating hard to the province on developing alternative revenue streams for local government that more equitably distribute the tax burden. We also need to hold the provincial accountable to adequately funding areas of jurisdiction they are responsible for like healthcare and housing and not downloading this cost to local government.

Question 10 — Your commitment for the next term

What maximum municipal property tax increase would you support in each year of the next council term? Please provide a number or a clear formula. What programs, projects or spending commitments would you reconsider if staying within that limit required council to make difficult choices?

Candidate response:

My commitment is to aim annual increases to inflation plus population growth, roughly 3 to 5 percent in current conditions. We still need to digest the new public safety catch-up costs and they will level in the next couple years. For anything that would be above that 3-5 percent, that line would need a named, one-time reason and public reporting on what it bought.

Staying within that limit will require hard choices, and I will name where I would look first, phasing or rescoping major capital projects rather than building everything at once, slowing the pace of new hiring outside core services. Core infrastructure, water, sewer, fire protection and disaster readiness come first. The nice-to-haves compete for whatever room is left, not the other way around.

Candidate declaration

I confirm that these answers are my own submission and may be published by Voice of Nanaimo and Nanaimo Votes 2026 under the publication terms above.

Candidate name: Ben Geselbracht
Date: September 22, 2026

Voice of Nanaimo — Nanaimo News, City Hall & Taxpayer Watch