A general committee meeting on the evening of September 15th saw Peterborough City Council recommend a report on the implementation of youth transit passes for Peterborough high school students, vote down a notice of motion to inquire into the prospective sale of lands situated around 1421 Lansdowne Street and debate over the public release of costing of multiple encampment evictions in May.

The first item which saw significant debate was the approval of a financial report on the City’s operating costs and ongoing public works projects. 

Following the approval of a motion from Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk during a June 9th general committee meeting, this report was to include “a comprehensive breakdown of all costs associated with the enforcement strategy to clear the City’s parks and spaces of encampments the week of May 27, including but not limited to staff time, temporary shelter at the Morrow Building, Public Works, By-law Enforcement, and any other related expenses,” according to Bierk’s motion.

The report received on September 15th includes a chart breaking down $7,907.22 spent during that week, most of which was attributed to overtime staff pay and “Shelter staffing, supplies, temporary fencing” during the week of May 27th.

“Council’s explicit direction was clear: for staff to provide us with a comprehensive breakdown of all costs associated with the enforcement strategy,” Councillor Bierk said.

“What has been provided to us is inadequate,” he added. “The comprehensive breakdown we ask for consists of only two sentences and four big lines of expenses, no detail from staff, no explanation and this information, the two sentences, are buried in a 24 page financial report from [Finance and Corporate Support Services Commissioner] Richard Freymond. Unacceptable.”

With that, Bierk moved an amendment to the report asking that staff produce a separate report solely dedicated to the costs of the May encampment evictions to be presented to council by October 27th of this year. 

Bierk also sought for the report to include an assessment of the effectiveness of the city’s current eviction strategy, including whether residents were rehoused, returned to the encampment after being evicted, or otherwise supported.

When questioned by Ashburnham Ward Councillor Gary Baldwin, Commissioner Freymond, defended the findings published therein.

“I provided all the information which I had without guessing as to what the costs would be. I acknowledged in the report that there were likely other costs involved, except I don’t have that information,” Freymond told council. 

“I think what the councillor is looking for is almost like an activity based costing of the enforcement strategy…We simply don’t track the time at that level of detail, that granularity,” Freymond said.

After further questioning from Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel, Freymond questioned how much of council’s time and resources were being spent debating this. 

“We’re still adding to the cost, as the councillor said here tonight in chambers. So I would really need to know, without being too facetious…How much time are we impacting here this evening? Admittedly, it’s a bit of a rabbit hole,” he said.

Riel responded by reiterating what he felt was a simple ask.

“I’m at a loss again here about this rabbit hole you think you're going down,” said Riel. “They explicitly asked for costs. I don’t see in the report the cost. You get some overtime costs. But there were a whole bunch of people involved in this here, and there’s cost associated with that.”

Town Ward Councillor Joy Lachica took issue with Freymond’s argument about the “granularity” of the information he was asked for.

“I don't think I understood it to be hair-splitting in terms of staff time…I think it had to do with the labour…Brock mission being set there, and staff readiness for it, materials, all of it, resources, that sort of a costing,” she explained.

Lachica explained her support for Bierk’s amendment.

“I feel that the purpose of the report was…so we could create a comparative to other shelter models that we’ve already rejected and perhaps may reconsider and may reopen in a different way in the future,” she told council.

“We’ve had doctors write letters [saying] ‘Please reconsider the financial support for OneCity’ and we’re talking dozens and dozens of doctors that serve the emergency services at PRHC [the Peterborough Regional Health Centre], etc, etc. So as things unfold, we may need to reconsider.”

For Bierk and Riel, this was mainly an issue of transparency.

“I have the feeling that we don’t have an accounting process of how the taxpayer’s dollars are being spent by the City of Peterborough,” said Riel.

“Am I hearing,” Bierk asked, “that, from Commissioner Simonovski, there’s no impact for public works if a crew gets pulled off of their day-to-day duties to to deal with an all hands on deck encampment cleanup situation that doesn’t have a ripple effect, and there’s no impact into how the rest of the work is done for the City of Peterborough?”

After Commissioner of Municipal Operations Ilmar Simonovski responded that such disruptions did have an impact on public work, Bierk pressed the issue further.

“We have a pattern of events through the enforcement side of the city which are impacting other resources. And I’m trying through this motion to get a sense of what that impact looks like,” he explained.

Ultimately, however, Bierk’s arguments failed to win over his colleagues, and his amendment to request a full report on costs of encampment evictions during the week of May 27th, 2025 was lost 5-6. Only councillors Bierk, Lachica, Riel, Monaghan Ward Councillor Matt Crowley and Northcrest Ward Councillor Dave Haacke voted in favour of the amendment.

The finance report thus went to a vote unamended, and was recommended unanimously by council.

Later in the night, council discussed a report on the City’s Youth Transit Pass program implementation. The program, which aims to offer high school students free access to Peterborough public transit during evenings, weekends and summer months, was initially supposed to be implemented this fall.

The timeline outlined in this report, however, would only see the full implementation of the youth transit program delayed until fall 2026, with staggered distribution starting with children ages 13-14 in spring of 2026 and reaching 15-18 year olds throughout the summer and fall of 2026.

Commissioner Simonovski provided council with an explanation for this delay.

“The intention of what we’ve brought forward here is to ensure that we have full consultation,” Simonovski told the horseshoe. “We have many committees that are in the city, both with regards to internal operations or the transit community that needs to be consulted.”

“The biggest fear that I had with bringing this forward too quickly was not doing that consultation fully enough…you really want to hear from the community, from the future riders of the service as to how they want to use the service, so that we can actually craft a program that’s going to meet their needs and also bring that sense of them being heard,” he added.

The Youth Transit Pass Program report was then recommended unanimously.

The September 15th meeting’s last item of note was a notice of motion from Councillor Lachica, who sought a recommendation from staff for the sale of City-owned lands at 1421 Lansdowne Street which will not be used for the site’s forthcoming police station, as well as an estimation of the cost of these lands.

“The motivation for this is simply to reduce the burden from our taxpayers,” explained Lachica, in her introduction to the notice of motion. 

“We have some big ticket items that were on our recent last cycle agenda, and we know that things are unfolding in ways we didn’t expect, and costs are greater than we had initially bargained for,” Lachica told council.

“Certainly with two police stations, a sports and entertainment center, when we’re looking at these large capital projects, we need to think of creative ways to increase revenue to offset some of the costs,” she said.

Northcrest Ward Councillor Dave Haacke expressed a viewpoint that would be echoed by many of his colleagues: that Lachica’s notice of motion came too early.

“I don't disagree that it’s something that we should be looking at, but I think until we run it through its paces and see what possibilities exist for City use, it’s not something that I can support,” explained Haacke.

“If it was me advising a client at this time,” he added, “I’d say, ‘Hang on to it for two years for two reasons. One is you don’t know what you can use it for yourself, and the market is going to change.”

Otonabee Ward Councillor Kevin Duguay agreed with Haacke, calling the motion at hand “premature,” and pointing out a forthcoming report about the City’s unused land holdings.

“I think we need to receive [Manager of Realty Services Greg Falkner] or [Director of Legal Services Alan Barber’s] report on other lands,” Duguay said.

“There may be other lands that are available to queue that might be more appropriate for us to consider.”

After further discussions, Councillor Duguay called the question, prompting a vote about whether or not to take Lachica’s notice of motion straight to a vote without further discussions.

The question carried, and Lachica’s notice of motion was defeated 3-8, with only Lachica, Bierk and Riel’s support.