At a general committee meeting on December 1st, 2025, Peterborough City Council received a letter from the Peterborough Police Services (PPS) board signaling their refusal to revise their 2026 budget, as had been recommended by council at a previous budget meeting.

Council’s November 18th request was for the PPS board to revise their initial budget ask of $41.3 million dollars (or a 9.22% increase from the previous year) looking for efficiencies and cost-saving measures. After a 20-minute closed session, the PPS board elected not to change their budget request, resulting in this letter.

Like on November 18th, Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel moved for the letter to be sent back with a request for PPS to resubmit their budget only if it included a funding increase equal or inferior to 7%, as opposed to the current 9.22%.

“They held a 20-minute virtual meeting, basically [giving] city council and the taxpayers of the City of Peterborough the proverbial middle finger,” said Riel.

“I asked for the police board to reduce their ask [of 9.22%] to 7% [but this] does not in any way demean their fiduciary duty to provide adequate policing.”

“What you need, not what you want,” needs to be considered in the police budget for 2026, Riel said.

“I have a fiduciary duty for the boards I sit on. I think I do a good job of it, and I have done my duty and brought those back well under the ask of what's happening here. Why can't the police board do the same thing?”

With that, council voted on Riel’s amendment, which was defeated 5-6. In favour were himself, Town Ward Councillors Joy Lachica and Alex Bierk, Monaghan Ward Councillor Matt Crowley and Northcrest Ward Councillor Andrew Beamer.

In reaction to this, councillor Alex Bierk moved another amendment, simply requesting to send back the police budget once again, this time only requesting that some reductions be made to the current budget request, without including any specific number.

“What I'm presenting here is a softer approach,” he explained. “I thought that this would have been accomplished by just sending the budget back, but we all know how that went, so this is asking to send the budget back and have them come back with some savings.”

Councillor Bierk took the opportunity to express his own frustrations with the process leading up to the police board’s reinstatement of their initial budget ask.

“I'm disappointed, and I think the public is too. Council sent the police budget back for potential reductions, because the status quo is not sustainable,” Bierk told his fellow councillors.

“Our community is facing a serious affordability pressure, a historic tax levy and extremely tough choices across every other service. A 9.22% increase, the largest from any major city service, deserves more than a 20 minute meeting and a form letter that simply restates the board's original position.”

“We need a better process, and frankly, we need a better attempt from the police to genuinely find savings,” he said.

With that, his own amendment motion went to a vote. Despite comprising a “softer approach,” Bierk’s amendment was defeated by a larger margin than Riel’s: 4-7 with his support as well as Lachica’s, Riel’s and Crowley’s.

Finally, council went to a vote to receive the letter from the PPS board indicating that they would stick to their intial budget ask of a 9.22% increase from last year. The letter was received 8-3, with only Bierk, Lachica and Riel opposed.