Peterborough City Council saw the reconvention of August 25th’s general committee meeting items on the evening of September 2nd. Initially meant for last week, the recommendations for consideration were postponed after a six-hour meeting of the Planning Act forced council to reconvene a week later. 

On the first night of two sequential meetings, council saw presentations from Peterborough Police Services (PPS) on their facilities renovation update and a consultant presenting a report on a proposed multi-use sports and entertainment complex (MUSEC) on the City-owned property of 192 Townsend St—two projects with affliated costs for the City and the taxpayer. 

Shoalts and Zaback Architects Ltd. (SZA) prime consultant Eric Riddell presented the current project status of the required renovations for Police Services and the adjusted budget to council alongside PPS Chief Stu Betts. 

“The policing standards now exceed the goals of the existing building, which requires modernization,” Riddell told council. “There's a strong preference, as well known, to maintain the downtown service. No single site is found to be suitable to meet the needs of the program required.” 

After the City’s purchase of 1421 Lansdowne Street West and approvals to the renovations needed at the station at 500 Water St., Betts felt the 2019 study regarding the renovations was not congruent with current policing needs and the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, which came into effect in this past June.

“We don't have the best practice. We don't even have the good practice of security measures around the safety of the lobby,” Betts said, citing the 2022 incident where the 500 Water St. station was “besieged” by conspiracy theorist Romana Didulo and her followers, intent on “arresting” local officers.

The new construction costs exceed the approved budget for the capital project, bringing the current estimate of $66.5 million ​​up by $25.4 million, for a total budget of $91.9 million. 

Factors driving the new ask include an increase in square footage needed at 1421 Lansdowne ($7.1 million) and the property apportioned to that increase ($5.05 million), a new two-storey parking structure at 500 Water Street ($2.4 million), and energy and building efficiency measures ($4.3 million). Other costs include the apportionments to 1421 Lansdowne for future civic administration use ($5.3 million) and development use ($5.06 million).

When asked by Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk about the increase in project scope, Director of Facilities and Property Management Gillian Barnes provided little justification beyond that the initial needs analysis was “over five years old” and the changes were unforeseen. 

“Since then, the [building] codes have changed. The policing act has also changed,” Barnes told council. “And so these are things we would not be aware of at the time of the report.”

When asked about what cost increases were associated with the Act, he brought up various examples about lacking facilities or equipment for police service operations: be it using condemned schoolhouses for training, a gravel pit for a shooting range, or a lack of space for evidence storage, servers, or seized assets. 

“This building [500 George St.] was renovated in 2009,” Betts told council. “In 2013, the Service Board was advised those renovations failed to meet the needs of the organization.”

“There really isn't enough that we could do,” Betts told council. “When we're talking about in regards to ‘best practice’ is meeting the needs as well. So it doesn't mean to say this is the Cadillac budget. You're just saying this is the best practice in terms of what's required.” 

Councillors still struggled with the updated ask.

“Why was the information in these answers that we're hearing tonight not given to us when we were deciding on the original initial project?” Councillor Alex Bierk asked. “Because as a councillor, that would have been beneficial to me at that time when we were making that decision.”

Bierk attempted to direct his question about the new scope of the additional Lansdowne police facility to city staff, but Chief Betts “respectfully” interjected.

“I had mentioned to council at that time that the $66 million budgeted in 2019 was already under the amount that would be required to purchase,” Betts replied. “That is something I actually said to council, and I provided that information at that time, so you did have that information.”

“It feels a little bit like a blank cheque,” said Town Ward Councillor Joy Lachica. 

“As we approach budget time, this is a significant cost to our taxpayers, and the increase that this would represent is mind boggling. We need to think this through,” Lachica added. 

The 2026 preliminary net tax requirement sits at 7.44% for the City to maintain its current service levels. This is inclusive of an increase to the Peterborough Police Services’ budget by 10%, as determined by a strong-mayor directive issued to city staff at the end of May. For a median-assessed property, this requirement currently translates to a proposed tax increase of $385.32 to the taxpayer.

After the presentation, Councillor Bierk opened up discussions with a motion to defer the report and ask city staff to provide more details about the lifecycle of each Police Services building, a compliance matrix of what is discretionary and what is leglislated, and the characterization of expenses behind the $25.4 million increase.

“No, no, no, no, no,” Bierk began. “Enough is enough for this.”

“This is one of the largest capital asks in our city's history, and it's being presented in a way that mixes provincially mandated police requirements with optional space duplication and multiple possible future city uses without clear and detailed justification before we commit taxpayers to this astronomical budget increase.”

“The report says ‘No budget impacts today,’ yet we are being asked to approve $25.4 million in extra costs.” Bierk continued. “That's budget by stealth.”

“The provincial mandates claim has not been proven,” he concluded. “Today's ask combines mandatory requirements with optional growth, duplication and non-police uses.” 

Director Barnes warned that a deferral of the recommendation would further prolong the project and escalate costs, including those of consulting and inflating construction costs. 

“So we certainly can ask what that might be and put the work into that, but it would likely delay the project. It's a big scope of work,” Barnes told council. 

“There's nothing discretionary within the budget. It's the budget that is required,” she continued. “I don't like coming to council to have this conversation. It's very difficult. In the 10 years I've been here, [this is] probably one of the worst reports that I've ever had to bring through.” 

Some councillors remained unconvinced, including coun. Joy Lachica, who framed support of the motion as a “fidiciary duty” to taxpayers and residents of Peterborough. 

“We need to have this information to be doing our due diligence as councillors for the sake of our taxpayers,” Lachica said. “We have a difficult city with a challenging landscape and we need to assess our priorities and be prudent about our investments.” 

“I'm not necessarily satisfied by the answers that I got tonight,” coun. Bierk told council. 

“You can't just plug it into ChatGPT,” Bierk continued. “I understand that this is going to take time, but when we're looking at a $25 million decision, which is what we're being asked to decide upon tonight, we owe it to our taxpayers to fully understand what we are committing to.”

After further discussion, the deferral carried 6-5, with councillors Don Vassiliadis, Lesley Parnell, Kevin Duguay, Gary Baldwin, and Mayor Leal opposed.

Following the deferral, Director of Sierra Planning Jonathan Hack introduced a preferred site for a new multi-use sport and entertainment complex (MUSEC) and funding options for a downtown arena. The recommendation from staff is for council to approve the use of a City-owned property for the potential development and bring a request for qualification (RFQ) back to council. 

A report from city staff identifies the preferred site for the MUSEC to be the City-owned bus garage/Public Works property located on 192 Townsend St. The proposed arena is estimated to cost the City over $165 million in total, or $9 million annually over a 30-year amoritization period with 4.00% interest. 

The arena would replace the Peterborough Memorial Centre (PMC), which still carries an annual deficit and is in growing need of repairs and maintenance according to this year’s budget book. 

Hack emphasized the developmental growth a project like this would sponsor in the downtown core, especially for prospective real estate and commercial ventures. 

“It's a much more muscular building than anything that you currently have in the city, including the PMC, and it's got a range of enhanced building systems,” Hack told council. “This is part of a broader project that we put in place to essentially help regeneration of an area of the city that needs it.”

Proposed funding options for the project include Canada Community Building Fund funding (adminstrated by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario), fundraising, selling naming rights with 5 to 10-year leases, and development charges—although Hack and city staff feel that the project would be ineligible for development charges. 

The applicable report on the MUSEC says that “Capital infrastructure projects which are deemed to be outside of the public recreation mandate (such as facilities used by semi- professional teams and facilities used for entertainment and cultural use) are not eligible for funding under the Development Charges Act.” 

“I don't think this is development charge eligible,” Hack confirmed to council. “If you did remove [the Memorial Centre], as opposed to alternative use for it, you're essentially replacing it.”

“That's a simplification, but it means that you're not going to get DC eligibility for this project,” he said. “What we're really talking about is the timeline to get retail, commercial, office, residential development around the site, and there's the taxes that are generated by that development that would help defray the annual portion of the debt.”

“We hired you to do a job, to look at potential sites for a sports entertainment center, and then what would be the potential for that,” Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel told Hack. “So now you've done that homework, you pare it down to a site and say that the cost of this will be borne by the taxpayers.”

Riel then suggested that the question of a new arena be put to electors in next year’s municipal election, according to section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

“I’ve gone door to door for four terms as a city councillor. I can count that on one hand,” Riel told council. “The people sitting around this table—you also ran because I've talked to every one of you—those [residents] never said ‘my number one thing is build me a sports entertainment centre.’”

“I can tell you the three things at the door you heard: fix my roads, clean up the downtown, housing and homelessness. There are some other things that went along with that, but I can tell you they're the three button items. And they’re still the three button items today, and out of that, a sports entertainment centre is way down on the list of what those asks were.” 

Riel’s wardmate Gary Baldwin, however, felt differently about the prospect of a new arena. 

“My circle of friends have said to me, ‘Gary, why is it that Oshawa, Sarnia, Windsor, Kingston, Guelph, London, St. Catherines, Brantford and Sudbury can get a new entertainment/sports facility, why can’t we?’” Baldwin began. 

“I said, ‘Gentlemen, coming up this Tuesday, we're going to make a vote on that, and we're going to try and move this project forward,’’” he recounted. 

The future of the Memorial Centre was still unclear from what was presented to council, even with clarification from city staff. 

“The metrics for the next building will be trying to have a better net outcome than the existing Memorial Center, and that'll be part of the funding plan,” Commissioner of Community Services Sheldon Laidman told council. 

“Going forward, I want to make sure Council understands that most OHL-type facilities do not break even.”

Despite trepidation, Council moved to approve the MUSEC recommendation, which was carried 9-2 with only councillors Joy Lachica and Alex Bierk against. Monaghan Councillor Lesley Parnell moved to separate the Memorial Centre out of a prospective RFQ, yet the seperate recommendation still passed 9-2, with councillors Parnell and Crowley against.

All recommendations made by council will be ratified at a September 3rd meeting of council.

Editor's Note: This article has been modified to reflect the correct terminology of a RFQ (a request for qualification).