Breadcrumb Trail Links
Accepted 9% increase required to maintain programs, including children’s dental health service, Algoma Public Health maintains; board member Sally Hagman disagrees
Published Nov 27, 2025 • Last updated 4 hours ago • 4 minute read
Board of Health member Don McConnell said the proposed levy increase is reasonable, especially if it maintains the children’s dental program. Brian Kelly/The Sault StarArticle content
Questions over what boiled down to dollars and cents – and the value of a children’s dental program – dominated discussions over Algoma Public Health’s 2026 capital and operating budget.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
In the end, the Board of Health, APH’s governing body, approved the recommended $18.5-million budget, a 3.4 per cent increase from that of the previous year.
Article content
Recommended Videos
Article content
The board heard Wednesday evening staff originally presented a budget report with a recommended 3.9 per cent increase over 2025 levels, driven by a 4.7 per cent jump in salary and benefits previously approved by the board, a 1.3 per cent increase in operating costs, and the province’s decision to limit its annual increase for its share of public health costs to one per cent.
“It was not fun,” said board member and Finance and Audit Committee chair Jody Wildman of the budget preparation process. He said the initially pitched 3.9 per cent increase “doesn’t sound bad.”
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
“But when you take into context the fact that the provincial government has decided to limit its annual increase to one per cent, there is a disproportionate increase on the municipal level,” Wildman said.
That increase would have seen the municipal portion rise by 11 per cent in 2026. The recommended budget, almost unanimously passed, translates to a nine per cent increase to the municipal levy.
This figure did not sit well with board member Sally Hagman – she also serves as Blind River mayor – calling the prescribed levy increase “too high.”
Blind River is trying to maintain its levy bump at between five and six per cent.
Hagman suggested trimming the figure to 8.5 per cent from nine per cent.
“I know that sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but when there are things coming off the table and I hear our directors pulling stings at the other end to try to get things down at the municipal end …” she said.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
She applauded APH as being “so good about watching your dollars.”
“But it’s really important for the people at the end of the queue, which is the taxpayer, a lot of them on fixed income, and they just can’t handle anything more than six per cent,” Hagman said.
Wildman, who serves as mayor of the Township of St. Joseph, like Blind River, a small Algoma District municipality east of Sault Ste. Marie, said he empathized. But disagreed.
“I sympathize with what you’re trying to do, Sally, but then to ask (staff) to go back and change this to keep Blind River under six per cent,” Wildman said.
“What if I came back and said, ‘I want to keep mine below a certain per centage, so can you drop a couple more off?’ I don’t think we should be approaching this in this way.”
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Hagman, who contended she was speaking on behalf of all communities, not just Blind River, said she initially suggested eight per cent to her town’s finance officials.
“I have come up,” she added.
Hagman was the lone dissenter.
Several scenarios were discussed when crunching numbers, one of which would have maintained current service levels and workforce composition throughout Algoma district.
However, that would have yielded an 11 per cent hike to the municipal levy, said Dr. Jennifer Loo, APH medical officer of health and CEO.
The recommended, and accepted, plan will see “intentional gapping” of natural health human resource position vacancies, resulting in “opportunistic and temporary” reductions of public health services in areas spanning both health promotion and protection standards.
Advertisement 6
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
These positions include, but may not be limited to, management, public health nurses, public health inspectors, health promotion specialists and dental hygienists.
“We know that based on our regular vacancies, they do occur and we can take advantage of them when they arise and not backfill positions,” Loo said.
Decreasing the suggested levy increase, as suggested by Hagman, would require elimination of planned contractual oral health services.
Loo said while these programs are presently “scalable” under the Ontario Public Health Standards mandate, they represent “urgently” needed and recommended essential dental care for Algoma children and youth based on local dental screening assessments.
Any additional levy reductions beyond nine per cent would require a permanent and intentional reduction to the workforce.
Advertisement 7
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
“We’re not just talking about kids with a cavity here and there,” Loo said. “These are folks who, unfortunately, do not receive good routine oral health services.”
In the 2024/25 school year, 4,500 students were screened, 190 of whom required “urgent” dental care and 448 “non-urgent” care.
“We don’t believe that will result in a significant, sustained loss to service if we were to maintain nine per cent,” Loo said.
The board also heard, for “strictly illustrative purposes,” if only a three per cent municipal levy increase were applied, there would be insufficient resources to complete mandated programs and services under the current OPHS.
Board member Don McConnell said the proposed levy increase is reasonable, especially if it maintains the children’s dental program.
“I realize I’m not talking as a municipal (representative), so I don’t have to go back and face the constituents as some of you have to do,” McConnell said. “But I am a little worried that there was a budget put together by staff, we have a finance committee and they went through it and they made some major reductions to it and here we are as a board, getting down to oral health issues for children in elementary school. That’s really getting into the weeds.
“I’m a taxpayer, too. What is this? A couple of cents? That’s it folks.”
On X: @JeffreyOugler
Article content
Share this article in your social network