[15:13] Good morning everybody. I'm going to call the Finance and
[15:18] Administration Committee of Tuesday, May 12th to order. Madam Clerk.
[15:23] Can we do a roll call, please?
[15:41] We have quorum. Any Declarations of interest. Being none, I'm
[15:49] going to start with an announcement. I want to introduce
[15:54] and welcome Glenn D's. The region's new director of Business
[15:58] Plans and Budgets. Welcome Glenn. Glen has been with the
[16:02] region for about two months now, and he joins our
[16:05] team from North Humberton County, where we're serving as interim
[16:08] CAO. Prior to that, he was involved in very senior
[16:13] leadership roles in the Finance, including Director of Finance and
[16:15] Treasurer, and served a director of health and human services
[16:19] within the community and social services. Here at the region,
[16:23] Glen will play a critical part in our annual business
[16:25] planning and budget process. Welcome to this meeting. And advancing
[16:30] long - term financial strategies, ensuring we remain at the
[16:33] forefront of best practices and supporting the region's strategic direction
[16:38] in Corva values. Members of the committee, and I want
[16:43] to hopefully join me in welcoming Glenn to the region.
[16:45] Welcome to Glenn. Adoption is the minutes. Moved by Councillor
[16:52] McDougal, second by Councillor Crawford, approval the minutes of Finance
[16:57] Meeting of April 14th, as well as the closed Financial
[17:02] Financing Committee meeting of the same date. Any questions, comments,
[17:07] corrections? Being none, Paul's in favor. Opposed that items carried.
[17:12] There are no statutory public meetings. There are no presentations.
[17:16] We have two delegations, and then the chief will speak
[17:20] with opening comments on the report. And then we'll have
[17:26] go through the reports. Our first delegation is from Andrew
[17:30] Tummings, who is the president of the Durham Regional Police
[17:33] Association. Frequent visitor to our chamber. So Andrew, welcome. Thank
[17:42] you, Coven for having me. I'm here to speak to
[17:44] you today on behalf of the members that I represent.
[17:48] I'd like to first take this opportunity to thank the
[17:51] passing of the DRPS budget, but now we're here to
[17:54] talk about the Capitol Plan. And that capital plan is
[17:57] very important in a number of ways. Durham is a
[18:02] area that is very unique to all the other police
[18:06] departments in the area. The majority of our members live
[18:10] in Durham region. The 1500 members that I represent are
[18:14] taxpayers in this region. They understand the pressures that come
[18:18] with this budget being passed in a way that will
[18:22] cause an increase in the taxes they pay. I'm not
[18:26] here to lay blame on anybody for anything that's happened
[18:29] in the past, but there has been very little that
[18:32] has been done to help us move forward in these
[18:35] buildings. We have buildings where you can't drink the water.
[18:39] We have buildings that are 54 years old and have
[18:42] mold and are not safe for our employees to work
[18:44] at. These are not just issues of leaky roof that
[18:49] needs repairing. These are fundamental issues that members need to
[18:53] have looked after. Everyone in this room is well aware
[18:57] that the election coming up. We're all aware that that
[19:00] means that there is a bigger pressure on the people
[19:03] that are running. The issue we have with this is
[19:06] if we do not deal with it now, we are
[19:08] doing what numerous other councils have done before, and we're
[19:12] kicking the can down the road. We have been the
[19:16] oversight that has happened as caused us issues. We have
[19:21] a range that is too short for us to fire
[19:23] rifles in. Rifles that we have to be qualified with
[19:27] every year. The province mandates that we have these qualifications.
[19:32] So we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to
[19:35] put these members and an outdoor range in North Durham
[19:39] that were already receiving complaints about the gunfire is too
[19:42] loud. We are putting band - aids on problems that
[19:46] all we are doing is making it so that there
[19:49] can't be fixes. There has to be a fixed. And
[19:52] I understand that these pressures are financial and that everybody
[19:56] understands that money is an issue, especially at this time.
[20:01] But we are not asking for something that is looking
[20:04] to fix the problem today. It's a 10 - year
[20:06] plan. And if we don't do it now, we are
[20:09] just putting that off, and it only increases the issues
[20:13] of the funding. We can't just sit back and say,
[20:19] this isn't going to work now. We are the fastest
[20:22] grow - in region in the province. We ran a
[20:25] survey, and we sent it out to the members of
[20:27] the Durham region to find out what is one of
[20:30] their top priorities. Public safety is a top priority. I
[20:34] know that everyone that is in the room are logged
[20:37] on that is going to be running in the fall
[20:40] will be addressing public safety as one of your top
[20:43] priorities to the community. You cannot sit and say the
[20:48] public safety is your number one priority, the DRPS budget
[20:55] was great. That's what gets us boots on the ground.
[20:58] That's what gives us new units, gives us the ability
[21:02] to move forward with we can do it. It doesn't
[21:06] help us if we are in antiquated buildings. If we
[21:09] can't even be safe in our own buildings, how do
[21:13] we feel that we're supporting the public. Everyone knows that
[21:17] domestic violence is one of the top priorities of the
[21:20] Durham Region Police. It's on the rise across the country.
[21:23] It is a horrible crime, and the victims in it
[21:27] have a hard time coming forward because it is life
[21:30] - altering when you make that claim. So if you
[21:34] finally taken the step to want to do that, now
[21:39] you want to go to the Oshawa station and you
[21:41] want to report that to the police. We don't have
[21:44] a dedicated parking lot. So you have to find spots
[21:48] on the street to be able to come in and
[21:51] talk to the police. This is a crime that affects
[21:54] your family and affects all your relatives in that. You
[21:58] will split people up over this crime. You were looking
[22:01] for any reason not to come forward with this report.
[22:06] If we can't even give you a secure area to
[22:09] come to a facility and report it, what are we
[22:12] doing for the public. And then if you can find
[22:15] a building, a parking spot, you're coming into a building
[22:19] that is 54 years old. This building is far, far
[22:25] newer than any of the facilities that my members are
[22:28] currently working at, and it's had how many facelifts, because
[22:32] you've outgrown the space. That's not a shot at anybody
[22:35] of this shouldn't happen. It had to happen. You needed
[22:39] to revamp this area. I'll just close with saying, I'm
[22:47] here because like you, I represent people. And the people
[22:52] I represent are my members, and they're watching me, and
[22:55] they're watching everybody in this room. They are voting members
[22:58] of their Durham region, and we need to step up
[23:01] and act this time and not kick it down the
[23:03] road. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew, can you stay there?
[23:08] I'm sure there's some questions. No problem, sorry. I do
[23:10] have one. Yes. If members of the committee or members
[23:17] elsewhere have, please put your request to speak. I see
[23:20] Chair Colliers. My question is in regards to what collaboration
[23:25] was done in regards to the services priorities. Were you
[23:31] involved in it was a year issue as a health
[23:36] - to - safety top of bind. And if you
[23:39] were to pick. Or identify priorities, would it be. Safety
[23:48] at Oshawa? Would it be water in New York, or
[23:52] in the north? How were you involved in the formation
[23:56] of this report. I've been involved in it since I
[24:00] became president. Like I said, these are not new issues.
[24:03] These are issues that date back 10, 15 years. The
[24:07] North Durham Station started when I did. So that was
[24:12] 26 years ago. We have been well aware of the
[24:15] issues from day one at that division. Numerous presidents have
[24:20] talked about the problems. This command has been very forthright
[24:24] in coming to me and asking me, what is our
[24:26] concerns? To frankly, to give you one to say, here's
[24:29] my number one priority. That time has came and gone,
[24:33] because now my priorities are we need everything looked into,
[24:37] because we've kicked the can down the road so many
[24:39] times. There's so many problems that we can't just pick
[24:43] one. The safety of my members in Oshawa, I know
[24:46] the chief has brought this up to you. I have
[24:49] in passing before. Our own personal vehicles have to be
[24:52] stored in a lot that is rented that we can't
[24:55] fence. Our vehicles are damaged on a regular basis, whether
[25:00] it's keyed, whether nuts have been loosened on wheels, where
[25:03] a member had the tire come off on their way
[25:05] home on the 115. These are not issues that are
[25:08] new. There are issues that have been going on, and
[25:10] we need to have them addressed. Thank you. Committee members
[25:16] First Councillor MacDougal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
[25:20] Presentation and Delegating today. Um, I do have to ask
[25:24] first off, cause I'm a little bit sensitive about this
[25:26] professionally speaking. Are you encouraging your members to go into
[25:29] an unsafe work environment. We are trying to make sure
[25:34] that they are not in an unsafe work environment. And
[25:37] we have been. You got your hand up, you want
[25:40] them to stop, I stopped. Thank you. Are you encouraging
[25:43] your members to go into an unsafe work environment. No.
[25:46] So they shouldn't go into an unsafe work environment. No.
[25:50] So if the North Division is unsafe. They shouldn't be
[25:53] going in. If that is the direction that we want
[25:57] to take, then I will demand that. We are trying,
[26:01] we are not. We are not anyone that can strike.
[26:04] That's not what we can do. All we can do
[26:07] is comply and then bring it to you that there
[26:10] needs to be something fixed. If the direction needs to
[26:13] be that I need to go to the labour board,
[26:16] the Ministry of Labour to fix these problems, I will.
[26:20] But that is not what I'm trying to do here.
[26:22] We have tried and are trying to work with you
[26:26] to make this a better spot. Water is brought in
[26:29] to the division so the members can have water to
[26:32] drink. The fact of the matter is to pay to
[26:36] have water trucked in to a building, cost money that
[26:39] comes out of a police budget. The same as to
[26:42] try to fix a problem of water in a regional
[26:46] building to come out of a police budget means that
[26:49] that's less officers on the road for me. It's a
[26:52] regional problem, it's a regional building to region needs to
[26:55] fix it. Okay, thank you. So through you, this is
[26:59] a budgetary issue regarding water. And numerous other things, yes.
[27:05] Okay, very good. Um. I'm fully in support of the
[27:09] idea of this tenure plan, of eight, 10 year plan.
[27:12] I don't know if this is exactly the one or
[27:14] not, and I'm sure there can always be changes to
[27:16] plants. Councillor. Thank you. Questions to the Delegation. Question. So
[27:20] the question is, where was this 10 - year plan
[27:22] like 105 days ago when we approved the police budget.
[27:26] I don't think that. The plan has been out there
[27:30] for a number of times and it's been put off
[27:34] numbers of times. I think that question's more appropriate. Okay.
[27:37] Put to the chief or the CEO or the commissioner,
[27:41] and we'll have an opportunity to do that. Okay, thank
[27:43] you. Thank you for the questions on the Delegate. No,
[27:44] that's all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
[27:46] Thank you. Councillor Pettengell. Thank you very much. And through
[27:51] you. With regards to the North Division building, we understand
[27:57] that there isn't potable water. And I see bottled water
[28:02] in all of our facilities all the time. I mean,
[28:06] is that water good enough for washing hands? Or how
[28:10] bad is it? We have water trucked in to that
[28:13] building in order to shower. Okay. What are the other,
[28:19] and first of all, do you know what the general
[28:21] cost of that water being taken in every year, just
[28:24] ballpark figure? Honestly, that would be a question better suited
[28:26] for the chief because I'm not aware of the finances
[28:28] of it. I don't know if it's like 10, 000
[28:31] dollars a year. I couldn't even hazard a guess what
[28:34] it is, but I can tell you that if it's
[28:37] 10, 000, that's where we're talking about of that's 10,
[28:40] 000 dollars every month that could be better utilised if
[28:44] we were in a location or had the ability not
[28:46] to have to spend that 10, 000 every month. Oh
[28:49] no, I'm sure. And I don't know how much it
[28:51] costs definitely to fix potable water issues. I know that
[28:55] with First Nations, it seems to be impossible, right? We
[28:57] never get those things fixed. What are the other. I'm
[29:02] just going to quick ask, what are the other main
[29:04] problems with that facility? And thirdly, when you did an
[29:08] overall assessment on the buildings, who did you hire to
[29:14] make that assessment and put the value on it. Um,
[29:19] we've had assessments safety assessments done in the last year,
[29:25] almost a year now, to say what are some of
[29:28] the conditions in the building. Now. President's before me and
[29:32] myself knew some of these problems and have been advocating
[29:35] for them for a long time. Number one on our
[29:39] list has always been fencing around our properties. And the
[29:43] safety that brought it in also spoke of better lighting
[29:47] cameras. We have to realise, and I know that some
[29:50] members of the public think that, well, okay, we're police
[29:52] officers were armed so we can look after ourselves. And
[29:57] I get that. But everybody has the right to feel
[29:59] safe in their own work environment. I shouldn't have to
[30:02] walk out of a building and be aware of do
[30:06] I need to be on duty aware of my situations
[30:09] in my own parking lot. Because then it's making it
[30:12] that my mental health is always at the forum of
[30:15] it. Now the company that we hired, um, that was
[30:19] not the association that hired it was the service. So
[30:21] again, I can't tell you the name. I have seen
[30:24] the reports. And we are frankly try and get them
[30:27] to move forward with that. Okay. Thank you. I guess
[30:32] from a municipal perspective, you know, an asset management, we
[30:36] have our buildings viewed, scrutinized by, you know, an engineer
[30:41] every year. And those costs come forward to the next
[30:43] budget and we know exactly what we have to do
[30:45] to keep that building in a fair condition. So I
[30:50] just wondered, are the police buildings part of the regional
[30:55] asset management in the same way? Do they get examined
[30:59] yearly or biannually? I guess that's a question to you.
[31:08] I'll let the commissioner answer it, although we shouldn't be
[31:10] doing Q and AR delegate, but you speak to us
[31:15] at management. So through you, the chair. So as part
[31:19] of the regions asset management program, the police form part
[31:22] of our asset management program, uh, and there is reviews
[31:26] that were done for by ways of review that the
[31:30] delegate spoke to in terms of assessments of their properties
[31:33] that help inform investment decisions. Okay. So stuff sees those
[31:39] reports and inspections every year or however, often they are
[31:43] done. And then theoretically. Improvements that are made to those
[31:47] very facilities would show up in the next budget. So
[31:53] through the chair, it's a little bit different with the
[31:56] service. So, um, the, um, the review that the delegate
[32:02] was speaking to this, I'll call it a security review
[32:05] that was done. That was my understanding was taken on
[32:08] by the service, uh, and that request was brought forward
[32:11] to this Council for approval earlier on this year. And,
[32:16] uh, and was approved to invest in those recommendations that
[32:20] were part of that study. There was a, uh, their
[32:26] security associated with it. It wasn't at all addressing the
[32:30] security report. I remember that. I know I didn't mean
[32:33] that. I meant the mold and the roof and those
[32:37] things. Councillor, again, I think you're raising excellent points, but
[32:42] let's park those until we get to the report because
[32:46] that's, we have more appropriate time for staff to respond
[32:49] to them. Councillor, to some of those points. We, we
[32:52] do have in every building, we have our members that
[32:56] are committee of health and safety. So when we see
[33:00] issues that are brought up, those members bring it to
[33:03] myself and my vice president. And we bring it to
[33:05] the department and say, these are miners that need to
[33:07] be addressed. They are addressed in a timely manner when
[33:11] they're brought up. But the problem that we have and
[33:14] that the department is facing is that it's been years
[33:16] and years a band - aid solutions. Cleaning of mold,
[33:20] not fixing the root cause of mold so that we
[33:22] are constantly always in a state of repair, not in
[33:27] a, we fix the problem. And every year we're fixing
[33:29] it. Thank you. I do appreciate that. And I do
[33:33] appreciate how our other municipal buildings also get patched and
[33:37] repaired. So that's why I'm just looking for some of
[33:39] the details on, on those reports. I appreciate what you
[33:42] say. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, call your. Questions of
[33:47] the delegate. Through you, Mr. Tommins, uh, Mr. Thomas, you
[33:52] sent a letter to me on April 13th outlining a
[33:56] number of these concerns. Um, there was an incident about
[33:59] two weeks ago. Can you speak to that, please? Where
[34:02] two officers were injured? Yes. Two weeks ago, two of
[34:05] my officers, well, in the back parking lot of the
[34:08] 17 division, which is Oshawa were assaulted to put it
[34:13] bluntly. They were assaulted by a member of the community
[34:16] suffering from mental health issues. But the officers had no,
[34:21] no warning, no idea that it was coming until he
[34:23] was on them. And one officer sustained injuries through their
[34:28] leg. Another to their face area in an area that
[34:32] is signed. There's a sign that says public do not
[34:36] cross. And this has been the problem that we, which
[34:40] brought me to write that letter to you is that
[34:42] we have been talking about this for 10 years, that
[34:45] there is no reason for anyone to be in the
[34:48] back area. Not only for the members of my department
[34:51] who were at risk, that is a Sally port area
[34:54] where we bring and take out prisoners. Those prisoners are,
[35:00] they also have the right to safety. They shouldn't have
[35:03] to be in that back area and fear what if
[35:05] somebody was to want to attack them while they're being
[35:08] released from the back of 17 division. It was the
[35:13] final straw of, that's why I've had to write this
[35:16] letter. And that's why I'm speaking here today is because
[35:18] I'm not the first president to have brought these items
[35:21] up. I know the president before me. I worked with
[35:24] them very closely. He's brought these items up. The president
[35:28] before him brought these items up. Our tenures are four
[35:32] years. I'm talking three presidents just in that math alone.
[35:37] We're talking 12 years of us saying that these problems
[35:41] need to be fixed. Now when it has crossed over
[35:44] that I actually have members that have been hurt now
[35:47] into an area where I believe that the work environment
[35:50] is unsafe. I also understand that that means that there
[35:54] needs to be fences up. And fences don't happen overnight.
[35:58] So I cannot tell my members not to come to
[36:00] work because we serve the public. That's our number one
[36:04] priority. That's why we do this job. But we also
[36:07] want to be safe. And if I believe that we're
[36:09] moving in a right direction, then that's, that's good for
[36:13] my members. That's good for the public. But I think
[36:16] that we had to write that letter. And I think
[36:18] that I had to be here today to speak because
[36:20] I don't think we're moving in the right direction. So
[36:23] in this letter, you outline seven or eight different deficiencies.
[36:27] Some of them we talked about today. And five requests
[36:29] for five, uh, five items to be met. My job
[36:33] is to make sure under the act that we're providing
[36:35] Ado couldn't affect a policing. If this isn't approved and
[36:40] we are not able to number two, a comprehensive plan
[36:43] and timeline to modernize or replace facilities. What are your
[36:48] options as far as, um, contracting minister and labour. I
[36:52] just want you outline the next steps. If adequate effect
[36:55] of policing is not being provided for our members. That's
[36:58] very much to what the Councillor's first question was to
[37:01] me. Will I allow my members to continue to work
[37:04] in an unsafe environment? No, I will not. And I
[37:07] will go to the labour board and I will do
[37:09] everything that I can to ensure that my members are
[37:12] safe. Because like everyone in this room, I report to
[37:16] my members. I work for them. And if they're not
[37:19] safe, I'm going to do everything in my power and
[37:22] I will leverage every municipal or federal or provincial member
[37:27] that I can to make sure my members are safe.
[37:30] And what does that look like. As far as repercussions
[37:34] to DRPS and the reaching of Durham? It would mean
[37:36] the ministry of labour will be coming in and it
[37:38] will mean that the ministry of labour will start to
[37:40] see these safety reports that said these things are top
[37:43] priorities and top necessities. And that's from a independent security
[37:48] agency that came in and did this. If we're working
[37:52] in the right direction, again, I will always continue to
[37:54] do that if we're not, then I will have to
[37:57] look out for the best interests of my members. And
[38:00] I will bring in whatever I have to help that.
[38:03] Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Chair. Councillor Wu
[38:07] online. Councillor Wu.
[38:26] I can't hear anything you're saying. Was he on the
[38:31] screen? Councillor, can you do your request button again, please?
[38:41] It's not working. Okay. I'm going to go to Councillor
[38:50] Neal. For questions and then, uh, Councillor, perhaps you can
[38:57] try again. Councillor Neal, you have the floor. Yeah. Thanks,
[39:01] Mr. Chair. Like Clebanan Council 26 years and when that
[39:06] North Station was open, how did that station get there
[39:09] with no potable water. I'd love to give you an
[39:13] answer for that. But unfortunately the station opened while I
[39:17] was at Elmer and I have no idea why we
[39:19] put a station in what is a middle of a
[39:21] swamp. Well, I just like to know how it got
[39:25] there because of her. If there never was plottable water,
[39:29] why was it built or any station on a floodplain
[39:31] or anything else? I agree with you, but I cannot
[39:35] give you that answer because it was not my decision.
[39:40] Okay, because I just don't understand how it would even
[39:43] be there, but it's against the law. To actually put
[39:46] a building up out there with no potable water. That
[39:49] has to be, uh, the results of water testing has
[39:51] to be handed in. And everything before it stations certified
[39:56] to go. So I'm just wondering how that could happen.
[40:00] Again. Thank you. I agree with you, but I'm not
[40:02] here today to lay blame or to blame either. I'm
[40:07] just wondering how that could even happen. So thanks. Councillor
[40:11] Neal, if I could give you some history because I
[40:14] happen to be on the board at the time as
[40:16] a private citizen appointed by Council, uh, that was not
[40:20] the location that the board picked, uh, we had another
[40:23] site, um, the old auction barn site actually. And we
[40:28] actually had agreement to purchase. And the region opted to
[40:31] go the facilities people opted to go at this site.
[40:35] So that was not the board's position at the time.
[40:37] So. Well, I'm just wondering how the site could be
[40:40] picked with no potable water at all. So. A good
[40:44] point. Thank you. I got to try Councillor Wu again.
[40:49] Here we go. Willie, you got you. Yeah. Uh, can
[40:54] you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.
[40:58] Uh, through the chair and andrew. Thank you very much
[41:01] for speaking up for your members. Uh, for these association.
[41:06] Uh, one thing I did want to ask, we're talking
[41:08] about the health and safety. Certainly with all of our
[41:11] facilities, uh, that we have maybe other than the East
[41:16] division. We're looking at spatial, uh, problems that we have
[41:22] there, what the number of officers that we're hiring with
[41:25] the, uh, even the locker situation. We are cramped. We
[41:31] have outgrown those facilities. Can you speak to that? And
[41:34] I know we've been talking about the North Division, the
[41:37] Scugog, but other facilities, we are crap that we've both
[41:42] grown them. Can you speak to some of that. Yes.
[41:46] Like, like I said, I've been here for 26 years
[41:48] and this region has doubled in size since I started.
[41:51] Winfield Farms was a horse race track. When I first
[41:55] became a police officer here now, and now it's the
[41:57] fastest growing area in Oshawa. And the problem is these
[42:01] buildings were designed for us at that time. A 54
[42:05] year old building was adequate 54 years ago. Now those
[42:10] same officers are the ones that respond to the North
[42:13] Oshawa. We're full. The community's full and we need new
[42:17] stations. And it isn't about the shiny buildings. We're not
[42:20] trying, I'm not standing up here saying that I need
[42:22] new buildings because I want them for the way they
[42:24] look. We need new buildings because that's what we need
[42:27] to be able to operate. We're trying to entice other
[42:30] officers from other regions to come here and work for
[42:33] us because we are growing so fast that we need
[42:36] that experience. Can you imagine being an officer who works
[42:40] in York and their buildings that they have there and
[42:44] deciding that, Hey, you know what? I maybe do want
[42:46] to come to Durham. I want to work in Durham.
[42:49] And then talking to my officers and saying, Hey, what's
[42:52] it like here? Well, there's mold in the gym. The
[42:55] roof leaks when it rains. Uh, you can't drink the
[42:57] water in the north station. Why would you leave to
[43:00] come here if we can't even house our employees in
[43:04] a safe manner. And, and frankly, you're right. They're too
[43:07] small now. We're cramped. We're growing in size. Like I
[43:11] said, I thank you for the budget that made it
[43:13] so we could hire more members. But it doesn't do
[43:15] us any good if we don't have spots to house
[43:17] them. Well, my last question again is a follow up
[43:22] you mentioned about, uh, Jim. Uh, in North vision, where
[43:29] is the gym. I think they had to move it.
[43:33] Right now the North Division is getting some, uh, upgrades
[43:37] to its building and the washrooms have all been closed
[43:40] down, as has the gym in order to be able
[43:43] to do these. Um, we've had to facilitate to make
[43:46] sure that we had the ability to still have a
[43:49] shower and change room. And we've moved the gym out
[43:52] to the garage. To the wear? To the garage behind
[43:58] 26 division, the small garage. And that's where the gym
[44:00] is now located. The garage. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you
[44:05] very much. Uh, thank you, chair. Thank you, Councillor Wu.
[44:10] Chair. Chair Henry of the floor. Uh, thank you. And
[44:13] thank you, Andrew, for being here today. Um, Andrew, today's
[44:16] the first time I've heard about the parking lot issue
[44:20] on the division in Oshawa. So I'm, I'm sorry to
[44:23] have heard that. Uh, sorry, the First day you've heard
[44:27] about a parking issue in Oshawa. Oh, it's the first
[44:29] time I've heard about vehicles being vandalized in that parking
[44:32] lot. You had mentioned that somebody loosened some lug nuts.
[44:37] I frankly, I'm surprised to hear that this is the
[44:39] first time you've heard about it because I know that
[44:42] other presidents have spoken about that property because we, when
[44:46] we first started in Oshawa, we did have a parking
[44:48] lot to the north of the station as well, right?
[44:51] To the northeast. That parking lot was taken away because
[44:54] of the person that owned it no longer wanted a
[44:56] rent to us. My comments are reflected in your comments
[44:59] today about a vehicle being damaged. Okay. Okay. So I
[45:02] will make a commitment to you today to find out
[45:05] who owns that property and to see if it can
[45:07] be fenced. Um, we, we have tried numerous times. And
[45:12] I, I assumed that the region was aware of this.
[45:15] We have tried numerous times to get that fact saying
[45:18] you have my commitment. And I will check into that
[45:21] today. I'm also not sure if you're aware that we
[45:23] did find a solution a couple of years ago for
[45:26] water into, um, into the poor periodivision. And for whatever
[45:30] reason, it didn't happen. That's solution still exists. And it
[45:34] is something that could go forward if this is going
[45:36] to be a long period of time. I will sit
[45:38] down with our staff again and talk about what that
[45:41] solution is and see if it can be done. But
[45:44] we did come up with that solution a couple of
[45:46] years ago. And, and was that solution to come out
[45:48] of the police budget or was it coming out of
[45:50] the regions budget. Do you know, I'm not really sure.
[45:53] That's why I'm going to sit down. But we will
[45:54] find a way to make it work as we have
[45:57] in the past. We've made a number of decisions that
[45:59] were outside of the police budget to advance police services.
[46:03] Uh, in the last couple of years. In fact, since
[46:05] the chief has been there, I think we've approved, and
[46:09] I rough notes, 51. 9 million in funding for major
[46:12] capital facilities just since the chief's been here. Um, that
[46:17] doesn't include the increases in the number of officers. And
[46:20] you would be absolutely aware. It's about a 33 percent
[46:23] increase. So I will go back and today in my
[46:28] office, I will go back and work with our team
[46:31] here to find the plans. And then I will make
[46:33] sure the chief gets a copy of that direction. And
[46:36] I thank you for that. And I want to put
[46:39] out that I'm in the fourth year of my tenure
[46:41] and I have an open door policy. And I have
[46:44] always said that I would love to speak to whoever
[46:46] would like to talk to me. People have not utilised
[46:49] that ability to want to talk to me in regards
[46:51] to some of this except when I'm here. Furthers are
[46:55] numbers. It's very easy to give numbers of this is
[46:59] the increase. We've increased in our staffing. That is true.
[47:02] But we were 10 years without any increase to that
[47:05] staffing. So when we increased staffing now over the last
[47:07] three, we're just catching up from what we didn't do
[47:11] for 10 years. And as I said, I'm not here
[47:13] today to be argumentative or to try to say that
[47:17] there's blame to be had. But we do need to
[47:20] have a plan moving forward for the next 10 so
[47:24] that we are not sitting here 10 years from now,
[47:26] which will not be me as the president. But sitting
[47:29] here going in the exact same roundabout that we are
[47:32] right now of we have a problem. We have a
[47:34] problem. We have a problem. We have been here. I
[47:38] know of a document that was read by Randy Henning,
[47:42] the president at the time that was 14 pages that
[47:44] outlined issues that I'm still dealing with today. And that's
[47:48] the problem is we keep kicking a can down a
[47:51] road to say we're going to look into it. Oh,
[47:54] let's, let's put a motion forward to adopt that we
[47:56] will look into it. We can continue to look in
[47:59] it. And it is only getting worse because these issues
[48:02] are not being dealt with. And by not dealing with
[48:05] them and not utilising all the members that can be
[48:08] partners, this is what we've ended up with. We shortened
[48:11] the range. Let me be very clear. We shortened our
[48:15] gun range from the drawings by a certain amount of
[48:20] feet. 10. The 10 feet that we shortened that range
[48:23] to save money is the 10 feet to make it
[48:26] that we now can't shoot our rifles in there. So
[48:29] the rifles that we are to be trained on every
[48:31] year, we can't shoot them in our own gun facility.
[48:35] And now we're in North Durham shooting. And as you
[48:38] can imagine, that's 20 officers with semi - automatic rifles
[48:43] firing to be qualified. I can't believe that the neighbours
[48:47] up there are happy with the fact of hearing all
[48:49] that gunfire. But we have to do it. Because the
[48:53] range we built is too short. Thank you, Andrew, for
[48:59] your presentation today, as well as your continued advocacy. Uh,
[49:04] we have another delegation and then we're going to get
[49:06] through to the report. So thank you for being here.
[49:08] Thank you. Thank you. Our next delegate. Our next delegate
[49:17] is Douglas. Uh, resident from AJAX. Uh, welcome back to
[49:23] our chamber, Mr. Glass. Uh, you have five minutes. And
[49:29] I understand you might need a couple more minutes. So
[49:31] I'll ask a committee at that point for extension. So
[49:35] your time starts now. Great. Thank you, Chair. Committee members
[49:40] and Durham police leadership. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
[49:44] today and would like to wish all members a happy
[49:47] police week. As a 30 year resident of Durham, I
[49:51] strongly support the recommendation in this report to defer the
[49:55] 10 year budget strategy to next term. The report clearly
[49:59] recognises that there is an election this fall. And that
[50:03] the new elected Council is responsible for setting budgets in
[50:07] 2027 and beyond. This current Council's mandate for budgeting this
[50:13] term has been fulfilled. With the 2026 budget. Residents of
[50:18] Durham region will elect the next council. And they will
[50:22] be charged with the 2027 property tax increases. This 10
[50:27] year strategy serves as a starting point for the future
[50:30] council. And this board should be thanked for their work
[50:34] in putting it together. That said, the 2. 6 billion
[50:39] in new strategic investments and capital facilities raises significant questions
[50:44] for me as a taxpayer. I keep hearing one phrase
[50:48] repeatedly adequate and effective policing. No one disputes any of
[50:53] that. But the phrase is increasingly being used in a
[50:56] way that becomes almost impossible to challenge. So I asked
[51:01] the police board what exactly is the cost of adequate
[51:05] and effective policing in documented, measurable terms. And where is
[51:11] the public detailed itemized report showing what is legally required
[51:16] versus what is operationally preferred. What is strategic expansion? And
[51:22] what specific outcomes will taxpayers receive for each of these
[51:26] investments? What I keep hearing is narrative risk instead of
[51:30] clearly defined, quantifiable costs, and resident outcomes. That is how
[51:37] you prove adequate and effective policing. Council has shown on
[51:44] page 3 23 of this report. Taxpayers have clearly supported
[51:49] the men and women who serve our community by increasing
[51:52] their ranks by almost 42 percent. You should be asking
[51:57] the board is what measurable improvements have occurred as a
[52:01] result of our significant investments. For example, in the 2026
[52:07] police budget, the key target for foot and bike patrols
[52:11] is 2, 300 hours. But in 2022, the actual number
[52:16] of these patrols was four times higher at 10, 000
[52:20] hours. This, in spite of having much less officers in
[52:24] 2022. So the question I ask is, well, I have
[52:28] committed street patrols not been reset to 10, 000 hours.
[52:33] Residents and businesses alike are demanding more visible community presence.
[52:38] Particularly in our vulnerable areas. Other results for things like
[52:44] response times, show a similar pattern. Let me look at
[52:48] the 10 year plan. Last week, the chief spent roughly
[52:51] 30 percent of his time speaking to the challenges of
[52:54] operating effectively in police facilities. There were many verbal examples
[52:58] about how efficiencies we're going to be gained by things
[53:01] like centralized training. But there were no documented measurable savings
[53:06] communicated publicly to support such significant investments. That matters. Council,
[53:13] how are you and the police board supposed to hold
[53:15] one another accountable when there is no line by line
[53:18] documented measurable savings and outcomes reported. That is how mutual
[53:23] accountability works. And I support the men and women who
[53:27] keep our communities safe. But this does not mean abandoning
[53:32] scrutiny, accountability or affordability. It also means working together. And
[53:38] I was troubled by some of the comments I heard
[53:40] last week. And even some of the ones earlier before
[53:43] me, comments like the association is getting ready. I really
[53:47] don't know what that means. And I don't know how
[53:50] this builds future goodwill in the mutual service of residents
[53:54] like me. We all want better. We all wish we
[53:58] had more. But the police board, Council and every Department
[54:02] needs to know that we have finite resources. Across Sturm
[54:06] Region, residents are falling behind in their property taxes. And
[54:11] your growing tax arreers is a warning sign. All of
[54:14] you have growing tax arreers. That exactly why Resident Input
[54:19] like mine today matters in setting priorities. As a resident
[54:24] and taxpayer, I strongly support the recommendation to defer the
[54:27] budget direction to the next elected Council. I see my
[54:31] time's up. May I ask for a two - minute
[54:32] extension. I moved by Councillor Crawford, second by Councillor Yamada
[54:37] for two - minute extension. I'll just in favor oppose
[54:40] that items care. Please continue. Great. So I urge the
[54:44] Council to defer budget direction to the next Council. I
[54:46] also urge this committee and council to require three things
[54:50] going forward from the police board. Number one. A more
[54:53] professional business - like case with measurable public targets and
[54:57] deliverables. Two, scenario analysis showing what happens under different growth
[55:02] assumptions and affordability concerns. And three, clear documented evidence that
[55:08] shows how these investments will directly improve service and reduce
[55:12] crime for residents. Because if taxpayers are asked to support
[55:16] a 2. 6 billion dollar strategy, trust us is simply
[55:20] not good enough. I'd like to speak to two other
[55:23] quick things. On slide five, the chief's presentation last week,
[55:27] he cited Durham's 1. 3 million population as the driver.
[55:31] But the province's own ministry of Finance forecast shows that
[55:35] Durham's projected population is 20 percent lower at 1. 06
[55:41] million. Accordingly, I believe this council should be very carefully
[55:45] questioning long - term budget assumptions, not just in the
[55:48] police, but in transit works across the Durham. Because if
[55:51] Durham's population is significantly higher than the province, we, that's
[55:55] an issue. On May 7th, the second point, and I
[55:58] think the police chief association or union association mention this
[56:03] survey, one of those questions was asked because I got
[56:06] that survey. Would you support increased spending on policing, even
[56:11] if it impacted property taxes? It's a good question. But
[56:14] the question provided no context regarding the 2. 6 billion
[56:19] dollar scale of the proposal or its impact on property
[56:21] taxes. That matters. So if DRPS plans to use this
[56:27] survey suggests strong resident support for spending growth, I think
[56:31] council needs to consider the framing of the question. Thank
[56:34] you very much, Jay. Thank you, Mr. Glass. Um, and
[56:40] he committee members. Have questions. No, so council, uh, Mayor
[56:47] Collier, you have the floor. Thank you, chair. Uh, Mr.
[56:51] Glass, you suggest that this committee should approve the recommendation
[56:56] received information and sort of kick this down the field
[56:59] to next council and next budget. Are you on the
[57:03] impression this is the first time these numbers in this
[57:05] Capitol plan have been before this council? Uh, in terms
[57:08] of kicking it down the field, I think this is
[57:10] my question is, do you believe this is the first
[57:12] time these numbers have been before this council. Uh, I'm
[57:16] not aware of, I can't. Well, you should probably know,
[57:22] would it surprise you if I said that these numbers
[57:24] should have been in front of this council for the
[57:26] last five years plus mayor, we don't want to debate
[57:29] the delegates, uh, questions the Delegation. I did. I said,
[57:33] would it surprise you. If you were told that this
[57:36] has been in front of this, the five year operating,
[57:39] in 10 year capital for at least the five, last
[57:41] five years. I'm not aware that I follow the budgets.
[57:48] And what I've seen is that this council has been
[57:52] very supportive in some pretty, um, remarkable budgets. And I
[57:57] was glad to hear what Chair Henry just said about
[57:59] the 51 million in capital spending. So that's not answered
[58:03] my question. My next question is knowing now that this
[58:07] has been kicked down the field every year for at
[58:10] least the last five years. You still think it's appropriate
[58:12] to put it off to the next Council again? No.
[58:15] If you heard my presentation. So the answer is no.
[58:18] Thank you. No, no. If you heard my presentation, I
[58:21] think you need to line item detail those. If we're
[58:23] going to have, uh. Yeah, thank you. Councillor Neal, you
[58:27] have the floor. Yeah. Thanks Mr. Chair. Uh, thanks Mr.
[58:32] Gloss for your presentation. You mentioned deliverables. In your Delegation.
[58:41] And to put this off basically to 2027 under Bill
[58:46] 100 with an appointed chair coming forward. In your opinion
[58:50] with that, uh, have any significance or would that help
[58:54] out this police budget. Um, I, I'm no political expert.
[59:02] I think that there's so much unknown. And I think
[59:04] even the report, if I read it correctly suggests that
[59:08] the change in the appointed chair is making that very
[59:12] unknown. So this is another factor on why this should
[59:14] be deferred. And I support that. I think it's reasonable
[59:17] and rational. Okay. Thank you. Petten guild. Thank you. Thank
[59:26] you very much. And through you. Thank you very much
[59:28] for this presentation. When you talked about a more business
[59:33] case scenario, do you mean something like you would like
[59:35] to see metrics based on the size of the police
[59:41] force versus safety in the community? Is that the kind
[59:44] of metric you're looking for? Um, well, if we use
[59:51] response times as an example. Right? We've invested considerable amount
[59:57] of resources and officer time. In 2021, the response time
[1:00:05] was 7. 3. Minutes. The standard is 7. 5. That
[1:00:10] was 2021. Um, it's grown to 8. 2, 9. 5,
[1:00:16] 9. 2. And it's currently trending around 9. 2. Um,
[1:00:20] the standard is 7. So we heard this big presentation
[1:00:26] of all of this new money. But where is the
[1:00:29] stated goals in terms of we're going to improve and
[1:00:32] we're going to, this will deliver a 7. 5, uh,
[1:00:37] response time. Uh, this is going to improve our clearance
[1:00:41] rates by X. This is going to give us not
[1:00:45] 2, 300 community walking foot patrol, bike patrol hours. This
[1:00:50] is going to get, I want to see with all
[1:00:53] of those investments and all of these improvements, what particular
[1:00:57] are the deliverables for those things. Um, because when you,
[1:01:02] you know, ask a lot, you should be giving a
[1:01:06] lot in return. And I'm not saying that our police
[1:01:08] officers don't give back. They do tremendous work. I had
[1:01:11] a conversation with one on Sunday going to my mom's.
[1:01:14] I was going a little bit too fast up near
[1:01:15] Goodwood Road. Um, great work. But we need to basically
[1:01:20] make these budgets, um, not just for the police, but
[1:01:26] all of our divisions much more outcome focused for residents.
[1:01:30] Because I just, I'm not seeing that. So do you
[1:01:32] think it's, first of all, do you think that is
[1:01:34] a predictable. Metric that can be given back to you
[1:01:38] and is a precedents for it and other police forces?
[1:01:41] Do you think that they're able to say with this
[1:01:43] money exactly project what the deliverals will be? Well, what
[1:01:48] else are you basing any additional staff or investments on
[1:01:52] otherwise. If you don't have that understanding of, okay, here's
[1:01:56] where we are now, here's our problems. It's taken us
[1:02:00] a little longer in the north to get there. If
[1:02:02] we invest 20 percent more or whatever here, this is
[1:02:06] going to improve that. Um, I'm not hearing any of
[1:02:09] that. I'm hearing a lot of, you know, very serious
[1:02:12] issues about buildings and things like that safety and all
[1:02:16] of those things. But I'm not hearing the resident impact.
[1:02:20] And at the end of the day, it's the resident
[1:02:22] who's paying the property taxes very significant property taxes, not
[1:02:27] only the last four years, but going forward as well.
[1:02:31] I just didn't print it. Thanks very much. Thank you.
[1:02:36] Councillor. Thank you Mr. Glass for your advocacy. I think
[1:02:41] you're, uh, probably my inbox is full of your correspondence
[1:02:45] more than anyone. And I know you put a lot
[1:02:46] of work and thought into it. So thank you for
[1:02:49] your, uh, participation today. Um, folks, we've got a couple
[1:02:55] of reports that should go quickly. And then we'll get
[1:02:57] to the, uh, main event. There was a miscommunication in
[1:03:02] regards to the chief being a delegate. So I've, uh,
[1:03:06] going to allow him to speak to the report. And
[1:03:09] then we'll have an opportunity to, uh, have questions of
[1:03:12] the chief. So we moved to Administration. There is correspondence,
[1:03:17] uh, from the region of Halton, which, um, the recommendations
[1:03:21] receive for information. Chair Henry. I'd like to give you.
[1:03:26] An alternate recommendation. I'd like to. Give you a recommendation
[1:03:30] to endorse. This item. Uh, also include the region of
[1:03:35] Durham's position and that it be sent to the premier
[1:03:40] minister flack. These five other regional governments and the MPPs
[1:03:47] in Durham region. Okay. Recommendation from the chair is to
[1:03:52] endorse as well as, um, include the Region's position as
[1:03:58] well as copy to the members listed. Secretary Councillor Council.
[1:04:07] I know I'm looking right at you Councillor Pattel. Debate.
[1:04:15] Members. Councillor Neal. Councillor Neal.
[1:04:25] Council Neal, can you put a request in again, please?
[1:04:30] It's not working. They're dumping out. Go ahead and vote.
[1:04:35] I'd appreciate it. Request or record and vote. I'd appreciate
[1:04:38] it. There's no one from Osha on this committee. So.
[1:04:41] Okay. Thank you. Uh, there is a request for recorded
[1:04:47] voters. Is there any further debate. All those, oh, sorry.
[1:04:52] We're going to have a recorded vote. Oh, sorry. Uh,
[1:04:56] recorded vote has to be requested by. The court vote
[1:05:01] requested by Chair Henry. Madam Clerk, we do the role,
[1:05:05] please.
[1:05:20] Looking for Councillor Crawford. The green. Or the red.
[1:05:35] That vote is 70 with one absent. So it passes.
[1:05:39] We now move to reports of administration. There's two reports.
[1:05:43] One is appointment of new member to the Durham Advisory
[1:05:48] Accessibility Advisory Committee. The recommendation is listed in our document
[1:05:52] to appoint Annika Reed. Kind of a recommendation. Um, motion.
[1:05:59] Chair Henry moves consent on the Reports for the appointment
[1:06:05] of the new member as well as the extension of
[1:06:06] the agreement for annual reports on, I'm not even going
[1:06:10] to try that word. From First Base Solutions, do I
[1:06:14] have seconder for that? Councillor Crawford and he pulls. Being
[1:06:19] none. I'm going to call the question all those in
[1:06:20] favor. Oppose that items carried. Uh, where we moved to
[1:06:25] Finance Chief. Do you want to get comfortable? Because I
[1:06:31] know you, uh, look very comfortable at the sitting down
[1:06:35] the other day. So if it's okay, sir, I'll stay
[1:06:38] here. Okay. Thank you. Um, this is in regards to
[1:06:42] the report. For the Durham Regional Police Services Financing Strategy,
[1:06:48] uh, the recommendation is to receive for information. Um, but
[1:06:52] chief, you have the floor. I very much appreciate that.
[1:06:56] And, um, hearing some of the delegations here is right
[1:07:01] down, um, some, some, um, introductory comments if I could.
[1:07:07] So one of the concerns I have here is that
[1:07:09] this report and certainly some of the questions that are
[1:07:12] being asked is conflating these conditions of our building with
[1:07:14] a capital plan. This is much more than just capital.
[1:07:18] This is much more than just infrastructure. This is about,
[1:07:21] uh, members. This is about, um, technology. This is about
[1:07:25] investments in the whole of service. And so, you know,
[1:07:29] the community will ask questions of us with regards to
[1:07:33] emerging crime trends and what this report does is it
[1:07:36] addresses much more than just the state of our facilities.
[1:07:40] And I think we've spoken at nauseam about those, uh,
[1:07:43] the state of that. So I want to make sure
[1:07:45] that we're not conflating the two things. Um, the, the,
[1:07:48] um, the other, uh, issue is that even if we
[1:07:51] were just to take the facilities by themselves and say,
[1:07:54] let's fix these things, these buildings no longer meet our
[1:07:57] needs, period, like full stop. It's that the condition of
[1:08:01] our buildings is just good money after bad. We need
[1:08:04] to move on. We need to have a plan and
[1:08:06] we need to move on. This is an election year.
[1:08:09] And I recognise the candidates will be advanced ambitious and
[1:08:12] at times unrealistic commitments. And I understand the pressures that
[1:08:15] that creates for all of you at the door, you
[1:08:17] are hearing about affordability. At the same time, you're hearing
[1:08:21] that the community safety remains a top priority. So I
[1:08:25] want to start by thanking those who have supported recent
[1:08:27] police budgets, budgets that were required to begin to address
[1:08:31] the impacts of prolonged underinvestment. I use that word deliberately.
[1:08:35] To be clear, we did not choose this moment to
[1:08:38] bring these matters forward. This is the wrong time to
[1:08:41] be doing it. I've been talking about this for three
[1:08:43] years and our capital plan has been part of our
[1:08:46] budget submissions. And it predates me. And I wish we
[1:08:55] weren't this far behind. The situation we were in today
[1:08:58] is the result of years of inadequate strategic planning and
[1:09:01] investments. Ignoring the obvious. Many of the needs that we
[1:09:05] are discussing today were identified decades ago, but deferred. At
[1:09:09] the same time, other police services moved forward with stronger
[1:09:12] reserves, capital plans aligned to their assets and goals. And
[1:09:16] in some cases, revenue from property investments and dispositions. Our
[1:09:22] capital requirements are not new. They have been well understood
[1:09:25] by both the board and the region for some time.
[1:09:28] You have the main report before you, but I strongly
[1:09:30] urge you to prioritize attachment one. This document contains critical
[1:09:35] operational context behind the Financial forecast. Context that, unlike other
[1:09:40] regional strategies, has been placed in independence. Despite our collaboration,
[1:09:47] the region, not Regional Staff, decided to move key operational
[1:09:50] rationale to the back of this report minutes after I
[1:09:54] finished my presentation on Friday. This contrasts with previous major
[1:09:59] strategies, such as the housing and homelessness plan where full
[1:10:02] context was presented to Council up front. I also want
[1:10:07] to address the narrative that has emerged in recent days.
[1:10:10] There's been a suggestion that all DRPS budget requests were
[1:10:13] fully endorsed through past Council approvals. This obviously is a
[1:10:16] mischaracterization of the process. Final vote is only part of
[1:10:19] the budget cycle. And I say this because between 2010
[1:10:24] and 2017, the service experience, no net new growth and
[1:10:28] uniform staffing. No net new growth and uniform staffing. And
[1:10:32] even saw reduction in its civilian, um, deployment, despite increasing
[1:10:37] demands. During that same period, police board sent budgets to
[1:10:41] council that identified base pressures. And these are the costs
[1:10:44] for just maintaining current service levels, zero strategic investments. This
[1:10:49] means just keeping the lights on. However, in many years,
[1:10:53] including 2011, 12, 15, 16, 17, 2020 and 21 council
[1:11:01] proved increases did not even cover the base operating pressures,
[1:11:06] effectively resulting in a form of structural defunding. This was,
[1:11:10] or ought to have been known. Across those years, the
[1:11:15] service absorbed a cumulative shortfall of approximately 3. 75 percent.
[1:11:21] And internally mitigate pressures, including holding positions vacant. Even with
[1:11:25] the investments made in the last two years, we are
[1:11:27] still managing the impacts of that, which is a 47
[1:11:30] million dollar cumulative gap. That means from 2010 to roughly
[1:11:35] 2023, there was little to no net new growth or
[1:11:38] strategic investment in policing. Well, every other regional service expanded.
[1:11:42] Although officials, uh, often claim otherwise, policing has not been
[1:11:47] the primary cause of increased regional, um, spending. And the
[1:11:51] numbers do not lie. Growth in gross budget between 2018
[1:11:56] and 2025, the region saw 73 and a half percent
[1:12:00] increase in its gross budget. During this period of time,
[1:12:04] Durham transits saw the greatest growth in its gross budget
[1:12:06] by 158. Followed by social services at 87. 3 health
[1:12:13] care at 68. 9. Durham police is fourth on that
[1:12:17] list of five. At 55. 9 followed closely by public
[1:12:21] works. In terms of net budgets. Very similar, where we
[1:12:26] finish second last only to public works. In fact, the
[1:12:31] share of the total regional growth spending has declined for
[1:12:35] the police has declined from 18. 1 percent in 2018
[1:12:42] just to compare the same number of years with only
[1:12:44] a modest increase in our most latest budget to 16.
[1:12:47] 9 percent in 2026 Everybody else has grown in the
[1:12:51] opposite direction. We've gone backwards. In closing, I want to
[1:12:55] be very clear. DRPS is not an outlier. We represent
[1:13:00] about 30 cents of every regional tax dollar. By comparison,
[1:13:05] York Regional Police represents about 32 cents of every tax
[1:13:09] dollar. Halton police 41 cents peel regional police 43 cents.
[1:13:15] And I will say this, peal has dedicated reserve, something
[1:13:18] we asked for. And I was directed by the board
[1:13:20] to seek. And they also have a dedicated community safety
[1:13:24] levy to fund future capital projects. In fact, peel just
[1:13:28] recently approved at 1. 7 billion 10 year capital plan
[1:13:31] to address the exact same pressures that I'm discussing here.
[1:13:34] And their buildings are 20 years newer than ours. When
[1:13:37] viewed in that context, the issue is not that Durham
[1:13:41] is ahead. We are woefully behind. I know it's difficult,
[1:13:45] particularly for those who have been supportive to hear that
[1:13:47] we have been in effect deferring these pressures for years.
[1:13:50] But this is not about blame. It's about acknowledging where
[1:13:54] we are today. We cannot continue to delay and I
[1:13:58] urge you to approve our 10 - year capital plan.
[1:14:01] I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. My focus
[1:14:03] today was not a repeating my prior presentation, but to
[1:14:06] explain how we got here and why now. When interacting
[1:14:10] with your constituents, I understand that affordability and public safety
[1:14:14] will be key considerations. These concerns are equally important to
[1:14:18] our members who serve reside and raise families here in
[1:14:20] our region. That is why we are committed to sharing
[1:14:23] this context openly with the community so that they understand
[1:14:26] the context in which these investments must be made. And
[1:14:29] what has led us to this point here. And what
[1:14:32] has led to this critical juncture that this committee has
[1:14:36] to deal with right now. Thank you. Thank you, chief.
[1:14:40] Uh, I have one question before I go to committee.
[1:14:42] Uh, chief about a month ago you graciously hosted me
[1:14:46] and your office and we chatted about, um, the service
[1:14:50] and you indicated to me at the time that your
[1:14:53] chief priority was, uh, capital, uh, and that, uh, you,
[1:14:58] you, you, you were thankful that you were successful in
[1:15:01] terms of, uh, new operating positions. I then see this
[1:15:05] document that, um, has a very aggressive capital, uh, obviously
[1:15:09] needed, uh, acknowledge that. But 129 new employees 92, uh,
[1:15:19] uniforms in 37 civilian. Could you speak to that dual
[1:15:25] need. Sorry. Which is there a particular page at your,
[1:15:32] your referring to. I just want to make sure I'm
[1:15:35] commenting summary of the new position request, which is on
[1:15:38] attachment too. Oh, okay. I don't, I don't have the
[1:15:41] regions a report in front of me here. Give me
[1:15:44] those numbers again, please. It speaks to, uh, the, the
[1:15:48] desire to have 129 new positions in 2027. 37 of
[1:15:53] which are civilian 92, which are uniformed. And then in
[1:15:57] 2028, 126 positions with 28 being uniform civilian in 98
[1:16:03] being uniform. As always, Teresa. Comes through here.
[1:16:17] Yeah. So, so, um, 92 of those positions are, our
[1:16:22] frontline positions. Uh, or sorry, uniform positions. 30 of them
[1:16:26] are frontline. We have, um, you know, and to Mr.
[1:16:29] Glasses point, we actually lead the province in terms of
[1:16:32] clearance rates for any of our comparators right across this
[1:16:35] province. Our officers do an incredible job of clearing occurrences.
[1:16:39] And they do so with some significant vacancies that exist.
[1:16:42] One of the things that I've committed to the board
[1:16:44] is that again, this is a projection moving forward. And
[1:16:48] granted 2027 is the most immediate, uh, need. Um, and
[1:16:53] we are working right now with the Ontario Police College
[1:16:55] to see. I'm not going to come to Council with
[1:16:58] a bunch of requests for positions I can't reasonably expect
[1:17:02] we're going to have seats for. And so we, we
[1:17:04] are basically saying if we fill every spot this year
[1:17:07] and we have all the spots and we know that
[1:17:08] we're going to be allocated, we could use up to
[1:17:12] this number of officers. That work continues. And the board,
[1:17:15] um, you know, you may find this hard to believe.
[1:17:18] There's not rubber stamp everything I say. They ask some
[1:17:20] difficult questions and they make me go back, uh, to
[1:17:23] Mr. Glass'point produce more and more material to justify what
[1:17:26] the asks are. Um, but I'm unapologetic about what I
[1:17:30] think that we need in order to make sure that
[1:17:32] we're meeting the demands. The other thing as well is
[1:17:34] that the demands, um, continue to evolve and change. As
[1:17:37] you can appreciate AI and technology is changing the nature
[1:17:41] of harm and how our communities are impacted. This requires
[1:17:45] an investment of people to do this work in addition
[1:17:47] to the existing work that we're doing. And, uh, just
[1:17:50] last night and, you know, we'll soon talk about this
[1:17:52] publicly, but, you know, just last night, some of those
[1:17:55] officers that, um, working with technology, literally saved the life
[1:18:00] of a very young person. And, uh, I'm hoping to
[1:18:03] share that with the community soon. Thank you. Follow -
[1:18:06] up question chief. We heard today about the dire requirements
[1:18:15] and shortcomings of the North Division. And in your projections,
[1:18:19] this is your document. You don't envision having new building
[1:18:24] until 2032. You front loaded a lot of the requests.
[1:18:30] Is a rationale on why that's delayed so much? Uh,
[1:18:35] because I have so many needs. This isn't a one
[1:18:38] - off need. Um, the very first thing I have
[1:18:40] to do is deliver adequate and effect the policing, which
[1:18:42] means training. And there's mandatory yearly training. I am bursting
[1:18:46] at the seams. We no longer have capacity to deal
[1:18:50] with, uh, the issues that we have at the, uh,
[1:18:53] at our training facility. Um, this becomes the critical need
[1:18:57] because I could wipe out the entire service by trying
[1:18:59] to address one issue in the north. The other, uh,
[1:19:02] issue is, and you know, Chair Henry raises this, you've
[1:19:05] had a solution for the North, that money was actually
[1:19:08] added to our budget in 2023 or 24. Um, I
[1:19:12] can't remember which year it was. At least the starting
[1:19:16] point of it. And, um, I just didn't feel that
[1:19:19] that was, you know, fair. It was actually taking resources
[1:19:22] away from the things that I actually need to do
[1:19:24] in order to accomplish other things. There's an interim solution
[1:19:28] for Scugog. I will admit there is an interim solution.
[1:19:31] But even if we were to fix all of those
[1:19:33] problems, the reality is that the station doesn't mean our
[1:19:36] needs. And for all the reasons that I heard Mr.
[1:19:39] Neal and others have discussed certainly in all, every time
[1:19:42] I've been in this council chamber, um, that there's a
[1:19:46] long - term issue that, that exists in Scugog that
[1:19:50] needs to be dealt with. And I'm trying to be
[1:19:51] as reasonable as I can. Okay. Thank you. It's clear
[1:19:57] there is, uh, it appears into long - term plansome
[1:20:01] interim spending that probably deals with that issue. Um, Councillor
[1:20:06] Crawford, you have questions for the chief. Thank you. Thank
[1:20:08] you for your presentation. Um, my question is, and please
[1:20:14] don't be offended. No, no. In March, uh, there was
[1:20:17] an ask for, uh, to convert operating into capital, uh,
[1:20:24] through, uh, I guess efficiencies. This was asked in 2025,
[1:20:30] there was a surplus of 2. 3 million. And the
[1:20:34] remaining was found in 2026 of 2. 1 million that
[1:20:40] were operating, they were operating asks of those two budget
[1:20:45] years. However, uh, they were not used. So I guess
[1:20:49] I'm asking, uh, how did those efficiencies come about? Why
[1:20:55] were they not hired if the dire need for, uh,
[1:21:00] and I'm not suggesting there isn't, but I'm just saying
[1:21:03] to two million dollars back to back in back to
[1:21:07] back years suggests that perhaps, I don't know what that
[1:21:10] actually suggests. So could you please explain that to me?
[1:21:14] No, absolutely. That's a, that's a great question. So, um,
[1:21:17] the president of the association just spoke about one of
[1:21:20] those incidents that happened where members are attacked. It's not
[1:21:23] the only station in which this has happened. The security
[1:21:26] review revealed a number of different areas. And we're trying
[1:21:29] to split up the costs over multiple budget years so
[1:21:31] that we can accomplish all this work. The reality is
[1:21:34] that these are things because we don't have a reserve
[1:21:36] to draw from. We have to find money through operating,
[1:21:40] uh, efficiencies that we find. This means that we stop
[1:21:43] doing other things to do this instead because we have
[1:21:46] no reserves. Something the board has directed me to do.
[1:21:49] The reality is that the security issues that we're facing
[1:21:52] are occurring in every single one of our buildings. There
[1:21:55] is just so many things that have not been addressed
[1:21:59] properly that we are continuing to have to find operating
[1:22:03] funds to deal with it again, because we have no
[1:22:05] reserves. So you stop hiring. So that you could do
[1:22:11] a capital project. Sir. I'm just, just, just, just give
[1:22:15] me one. I mean, operating his body, right? Teresa, if
[1:22:24] you want to sit down, it's fine. Yeah. Yeah. It
[1:22:28] was just getting the number here. We're talking about less
[1:22:30] than one percent, right, of, of the surplus that happened.
[1:22:35] And, um, this is the challenges that we have when
[1:22:38] we have to wait for our budget cycle, as it's
[1:22:41] set up. Um, is, is not efficient. And so when
[1:22:44] we are competing with every other police service to hire
[1:22:47] people and to get spots at the Ontario Police College
[1:22:51] or to fill other spots, these things take time. In
[1:22:53] the other thing, in terms of the civilian hires that
[1:22:56] we're making, these are very specialized roles and they just
[1:22:59] take longer to hire. So we delay some of these
[1:23:03] and, and look for those efficiencies, but our surplus was
[1:23:06] less than one percent. So can you explain to me
[1:23:08] that budget cycle, why is that such an issue. Well,
[1:23:12] because the Ontario police college has a finite number of
[1:23:16] seats available. And every other police service is hiring. Appeal
[1:23:19] region last year hired 300 people. That impacted how many
[1:23:22] seats are available for us. And so when you look
[1:23:24] at what does your what does our budget cycle. Do
[1:23:28] for you? Like I don't it's because our money doesn't
[1:23:32] come in at the first of the year. It comes
[1:23:34] in throughout the year. And so when you think about
[1:23:36] how many positions that we actually have to hire and
[1:23:39] then you incorporate that and add to it, just the
[1:23:44] detractors that happen, people retire, people aren't available. All of
[1:23:47] these things impact our ability to bring people, uh, onto
[1:23:50] our organisation. And then to deploy them, to have them
[1:23:54] trained and then deploy them. Our ETC, our education training
[1:23:58] centre, the training facility I'm talking about has a finite
[1:24:01] capacity there to take on people. So we have to,
[1:24:04] we have to stagger this hiring. All of this impacts
[1:24:07] our ability to, uh, to bring people on. And it
[1:24:10] also affects what that surplus looks like. It's a different
[1:24:14] parts. It's a different amounts and throughout the year. Okay.
[1:24:18] Um, if I may ask the chair of your board
[1:24:22] something or no. Let's wait till we finish with the
[1:24:26] delegations. Okay. Thank you. We'll get to the report. Chief,
[1:24:30] I, for one, happy you had a surplus dot of
[1:24:32] deficit. And two million bucks on 352 million is. Half
[1:24:39] almost just a half percent of your total budget. Councillor
[1:24:43] Pettengel. You have the floor. Thank you very much. And
[1:24:47] through you. Thank you again, Chief. Uh, just a question
[1:24:52] with Peal. Did they, um, approve that 10 year plan
[1:24:56] like during the budget or after the budget, do you
[1:24:58] know? I don't know. I didn't want to do it
[1:25:01] this time. I was asking if they did it through.
[1:25:04] I, I, I don't know. Okay. Um, and I'll just
[1:25:08] had to subtly curious. I've been here for a very
[1:25:10] short time, as you know, we've got to tour some
[1:25:13] of the other facilities, but do you ever offer tours
[1:25:16] of your facilities too? At every single opportunity, I have,
[1:25:20] I offer tours. Our uni commanders offer tours and we
[1:25:23] sort of keep track of some of them, these buildings
[1:25:27] and a ride along, two councillo. Yeah. I did a
[1:25:29] ride alone. I got to wear a vest. Thank you.
[1:25:33] We won't, we will show you all of our facilities.
[1:25:38] Thank you. I'm waiting for the new helicopter. Chair Henry.
[1:25:43] Uh, thank you, Chair. Chief, this is going to be
[1:25:45] a couple of kind of sideline questions. So some latitude.
[1:25:48] I know I signed some paperwork the other day for
[1:25:50] your court costs that you recovered cash over four times.
[1:25:55] I think it comes four times a year. And I'm
[1:25:56] going by memory. That's 4. 4 million dollars. But I
[1:25:59] think memories, I'm just, but that's only half the cost.
[1:26:05] Yes. Wasn't at one time, weren't we supposed to get
[1:26:10] full cost recovery. I believe at one point that was
[1:26:15] true. I've actually raised this issue with the solicitor general
[1:26:18] and the, uh, deputy Solster General for the province. And,
[1:26:22] uh, also with the premier of the province at a
[1:26:24] meeting I was at. And my role of at the
[1:26:27] Enter Association, she said, please. So, um, that represents like
[1:26:32] almost half a percent on the regions tax base, you
[1:26:37] know, 8. 4, 4. 4 percent. Um, you often talk
[1:26:43] about the costs related to the new, is it the
[1:26:46] new community safety and wellbeing program that you have to
[1:26:50] do in the increased costs that we're downloaded on the
[1:26:54] service by a provincial decision. Not to catch you off
[1:26:57] guard. What's the annualization of that. Um, well, a lot
[1:27:01] of, the one - time cost, but then the annualization
[1:27:03] will be in the replacement of some of that equipment.
[1:27:06] And the training is never ends, right? That the accreditation
[1:27:09] and the time off, uh, lost by maintaining the accreditation,
[1:27:14] that that's an ongoing cost. It'll be a good. Just
[1:27:18] there was a million dollar costs just for the immediate
[1:27:22] need around vests and some of the equipment. We're mandatory
[1:27:25] in the car. Yes. And chair, uh, one more question,
[1:27:30] one more statement. Um. I know you can't quantify this,
[1:27:35] but the cost of managing people that have been returned
[1:27:37] into the community under mandatory police supervision. Um, the service
[1:27:43] picks up that cost too. Do you have any idea
[1:27:47] what that costs would be annually. That forms part of
[1:27:52] the common law, um, requirements of the police. I don't
[1:27:56] have that because we have a blend of that in
[1:28:00] to our, our daily, you know, um, work. Um, the
[1:28:06] real cost though, Chair actually comes not when somebody is
[1:28:10] compliant when somebody is not compliant. And then the whole
[1:28:12] criminal charge in some would argue, well, that's what the
[1:28:14] police are there for. Um, the other, uh, thing in
[1:28:18] terms of offenders that are released, um, uh, federal institutions,
[1:28:22] the cost for that as well. And, um, that's outside
[1:28:26] of the bail, um, follow - ups that we have.
[1:28:30] So, uh, chief, last time I sat through one of
[1:28:32] your meetings that you addressed your board. It was about
[1:28:35] 500 people. You were a babysitting in the community that
[1:28:38] had nowhere else to go, but back into the community.
[1:28:40] Um, there's a class. There's, you can quantify the labour,
[1:28:44] but I, I'm going to say it's in the millions.
[1:28:47] It doesn't, it doesn't really matter. Uh, chief here. And
[1:28:50] this is a political question. So you feel free just
[1:28:53] to not answer at all. Okay. But yesterday the province
[1:28:56] made an announcement that said that, uh, that, uh, the
[1:28:59] Adunsum Great Things 412, 418 407 that they'd removed the
[1:29:05] tolls. I think that advocacy came from the region of
[1:29:07] Durham and the pressure on the MPPs. But they also
[1:29:11] talked about no new taxes. Those costs that have been
[1:29:14] downloaded from the province to us are actually being paid
[1:29:16] by the property tax base. And Chair, I want to
[1:29:20] members of this committee know that that's probably at the
[1:29:22] minimum an additional one percent. Of our budget goes to
[1:29:26] funding things that the province doesn't fund, which has been
[1:29:29] downloaded back onto municipal government. That's my opinion. I'm not
[1:29:33] going to put Council in any position. Chief, it's probably
[1:29:36] a question you don't want to respond to. Well, I,
[1:29:38] I will say though, Chair, and you raise the issue
[1:29:41] about, you know, the 51 million dollars in capital that's
[1:29:44] been invested. I, I think it's poor planning to bring
[1:29:48] one offs to Council. This is why I've been trying
[1:29:50] to work on this 10 year plan for a long
[1:29:52] time. And some of that 51 million dollars actually is
[1:29:55] reflected in the 32 and a half million dollars we
[1:29:58] got from the province for our helicopter. Like one of
[1:30:00] those buildings is being offset by a portion of that.
[1:30:03] So, um, and we also received this year 3. 5
[1:30:05] percent or 3. 5 million dollars from the provincial government
[1:30:10] for community safety grant. Like I want to be very,
[1:30:12] very careful that while, you know, politicians are talking about
[1:30:15] political things. I actually am talking about the things that
[1:30:18] impact my ability to deliver adequate and effective service, uh,
[1:30:22] to our community. So I just don't want those things
[1:30:24] to be conflated and suggest that we don't appreciate where
[1:30:29] the provincial government has made significant investments in our organisation.
[1:30:33] And chief, just to follow up on that, and I
[1:30:35] appreciate your response, it would have been nice to get,
[1:30:37] uh, funding on the police helicopter for longer than five
[1:30:40] years. Because in five years, that funding comes back onto
[1:30:43] the tax base of the region of Durham, correct? Yes.
[1:30:47] But we, we've been doing that for 26 years. And
[1:30:50] so we're winding down the other helicopter program so that
[1:30:54] we minimize the impact. But I'm just implying that the
[1:30:57] gifts come with a price tag. Thank you. Uh, Councillor
[1:31:02] Neal. John, he there.
[1:31:16] A gold Council Mayor Collier and John, I'll put you
[1:31:19] on next. Chair. I don't have questions for the chief,
[1:31:23] but I would like to speak to the report. Remember
[1:31:25] be the appropriate. We've got to get to the report
[1:31:27] soon as the questions are done. Thank you. Councillor Neal.
[1:31:32] Put your request in again, please. Don't touch anything.
[1:31:43] One more time. Last chance. Please hit your request button.
[1:31:52] Is he on the screen? Councillor Neal, you have the
[1:31:58] floor. Yeah. Thanks Mr. Chair. To the chief. You know,
[1:32:03] I want to thank you because, uh, Chris Bowie and
[1:32:07] Superintendent Sateron in our area met with my community, uh,
[1:32:12] while back on Friday night, which was great. But the
[1:32:16] questions at North Quadrant in Oshawa. Years ago, of course,
[1:32:22] the first regional chief was John Jenkins and now we
[1:32:26] had Dave Edwards and, uh, chief McAlline finds and so
[1:32:29] forth. But it seemed that there used to be a
[1:32:33] police presence at the boys and girls clubs when I
[1:32:36] was growing up at the schools. And now we have
[1:32:39] a number of schools being built. It seems that the
[1:32:41] youth are being disconnected for some reason. That's the feeling
[1:32:45] of there. I'm just wondering, you don't explicitly say in
[1:32:49] this paper, uh, how we can, uh, get to the
[1:32:52] community and to the youth. And I know we have,
[1:32:55] we've had issues out there in regards to retail and
[1:32:58] theft and whatnot. What's your feelings on that. Well, through
[1:33:04] the chair. Thank you for the question, Councillor Neal. I'll
[1:33:09] say this. My report actually, uh, maybe not the region's
[1:33:12] report. My presentation spoke to the services that we're going
[1:33:16] to deliver. And one of the important, uh, investments that
[1:33:19] we're making, uh, as it relates to the, um, facilities
[1:33:24] is a meeting space with the public. Um, places where
[1:33:27] we can engage with the public where we can run
[1:33:29] events and, uh, and, and, and, you know, really, uh,
[1:33:34] collaborate with the community, identifying what the problems are and
[1:33:37] working on them. Um, in terms of the services that
[1:33:40] are being delivered out of our buildings, we simply don't
[1:33:42] have room for things like school days on officers and
[1:33:45] expanded community response officers. Um, the kind of work that,
[1:33:50] um, is grounded in a facility that is built to
[1:33:53] accommodate those services that are being delivered 54 years have
[1:33:57] passed since the Oshawa station was built and policing is
[1:34:00] not recognisable to any of the members who were there
[1:34:03] doing that at the time when that station opened. Okay.
[1:34:07] Thank you. Okay. That completes the, uh, questions chief. Thank
[1:34:14] you. Uh, we have a report from Finance and Administration
[1:34:19] of Finance. That reads and follows the Finance Administration recommends
[1:34:26] the Regional Council. The report be received for information. Um,
[1:34:29] I do have a couple of questions. And I know,
[1:34:32] uh, other members of committee do. My first question, um,
[1:34:38] to. The commissioner last night on global Durham. Um, I
[1:34:45] guess I'm one of the few that watch it. I
[1:34:47] don't know. Um, there was a story about this document
[1:34:52] and the impact on, on, um, taxes, uh, there was
[1:34:57] also a CBC story over the course of the weekend.
[1:35:00] And it references that the tax increase for 2027 is
[1:35:08] anticipated to be between nine and 10 and a half
[1:35:12] percent. I guess you wouldn't know where they got those
[1:35:16] numbers, but commissioner, could you speak to help potentially they
[1:35:20] could have got those numbers. Uh, so through to the
[1:35:25] chair, um, the forecast based on the forecast before committee
[1:35:30] today, the 2027 forecasted overall property tax increase for police.
[1:35:37] And that's comprehensive of the capital of the operating and
[1:35:40] the base pressures is 4. 6 to percent. We're still,
[1:35:46] uh, in early stages of our regional budget, um, but
[1:35:49] looking at what we're currently facing, the only 1 point
[1:35:55] 2 percent related to the 2026 budget, uh, that has
[1:35:59] an impact on 27. There's also the base budget pressures
[1:36:04] as well, which we're still in the process of, of,
[1:36:07] um, of, of modelling. Those typically tend to be in
[1:36:12] the range of three to four and a half percent
[1:36:16] and conservation authorities typically their requests are 0. 02 percent
[1:36:20] on the overall levy as well. So if you add
[1:36:23] those together, that gets you in the ballpark. I will
[1:36:25] say that that doesn't include any service enhancements for the
[1:36:29] region side. And certainly as we do with all of
[1:36:31] our budget processes every year, we look at all opportunities
[1:36:35] to be able to reduce that impact down. It's very
[1:36:38] early days for us, for regional budget for the regional
[1:36:42] overall regional budget forecast at this point in time. Thank
[1:36:44] you. I'll go to the committee member First, just to
[1:36:48] be clear, we don't have a motion at this point.
[1:36:50] We're asking questions before we get to a motion because
[1:36:52] I really think there's a couple of options for a
[1:36:55] motion. The staff recommendations to receive for information. Uh, which
[1:36:59] means it'll go to council with Billy No Direction and
[1:37:05] in essence, no action. So it would, as Good Mayor
[1:37:11] would say, punts it till next year. So I think
[1:37:14] that's the effect of what the motion is. So I
[1:37:16] want to get through the questions first. Chair Henry, you
[1:37:19] have the floor. Well, Chair, I actually have a motion.
[1:37:23] Okay. So, um, I will give you a motion to
[1:37:26] refer this to the 27 budget. Okay. Um. I need
[1:37:34] a second or for the motion. Uh, Councillor Pattern Gial.
[1:37:40] And I'd like to speak to it. Please do. You
[1:37:42] have the four chair. And this, this is important and
[1:37:48] a significant ask. I think by moving it directly to
[1:37:51] the budget, then our staff and the police services can
[1:37:55] work together. Uh, the chief, our CAO, our respective finance
[1:37:59] teams to bring, uh, bring this to the budget with
[1:38:02] the work that needed is needed to be done. Uh,
[1:38:05] it is, it is imperative. And I understand the needs
[1:38:08] to meet the challenges, the services haven't. But to receive
[1:38:13] it for information just slows it down. I think by
[1:38:16] moving it to the budget, it now becomes an action
[1:38:19] item. It would be moved through this committee directly to
[1:38:23] the budget and the work could start literally tomorrow. So
[1:38:28] for clarity, you're not. Suggesting a go - to council?
[1:38:34] No, I'm referring it directly to the budget from this
[1:38:36] committee. All right. Um, the, the, um. Motion is in
[1:38:44] order because it's not an amendment. So it is the
[1:38:47] motion of standing. I'm going to go the committee first.
[1:38:52] And then, um, the, uh, our, our guests. So Councillor
[1:38:57] Yamada, you're, uh, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr.
[1:39:04] Chair. And, uh, good morning. I've got a few questions
[1:39:08] for staff. Um, first off, the annual repayment limit, uh.
[1:39:16] What's the region's current projected, um, annual repayment limit utilization
[1:39:23] before the strategy, police strategies added through your staff. So,
[1:39:31] uh, through the chair, uh, to Councillor Yamada, the annual
[1:39:38] repayment limit. So, uh, what was generally forecasted with including
[1:39:43] the police were in the neighbourhood of between 80 to
[1:39:46] 85 percent of our annual repayment limit. What I will
[1:39:49] say though is that there's additional modelling that we're undertaking
[1:39:53] on that annual repayment limit. So typically, um, as Council
[1:39:57] is aware, we're very, we have very little borrowings. So,
[1:40:01] uh, our annual repayment limit. We have been nowhere near
[1:40:04] it. However, with the debt forecast for regional services and
[1:40:09] with police services, we have significant forecasted debt into the
[1:40:13] tune of about 5 billion dollars over the course of
[1:40:16] the next 10 years. When we look at annual repayment
[1:40:18] limit, we also need to include not just the debt
[1:40:21] borrowings that we're going to have, but also our contingent
[1:40:24] liabilities. So that includes things like long - term leases.
[1:40:28] Uh, that also includes other types of loans. For example,
[1:40:31] with our housing properties where we're also, um, potentially, um,
[1:40:37] one of those that may have to step in to
[1:40:39] support those loans. And there's, um, the rationale for why
[1:40:43] that may be part of our contingent liability as well.
[1:40:46] So I guess what I'm saying is we're at 80
[1:40:48] to 85 with just the debt before any contingent liabilities.
[1:40:52] We're doing some additional investigative work with respect to what
[1:40:56] those contingent liabilities may look like. Um, as well, there
[1:41:00] is also potential provincial legislation around water and sewer infrastructure
[1:41:07] that will have potential impacts on our ARL or our
[1:41:11] annual repayment limit calculation. So a bit of a cautionary
[1:41:14] to that range of about 80 to 85 percent Okay.
[1:41:18] Thank you. Supplementary through you, Mr. Chair. So the additional
[1:41:21] work that you're doing with that sort of take into
[1:41:24] account sort of, um, low interest scenarios, moderate and high
[1:41:30] interest scenarios. If the interest rates are starting to fluctuate.
[1:41:34] Yes. So certainly we've modelled different terms. We've modelled different
[1:41:39] interest rates for the dot borrowings as well. And that's
[1:41:42] what gives us that range of 80 to 85. The
[1:41:45] contingent liabilities will put us higher, um, because we're going
[1:41:49] to be adding additional, uh, liabilities to that calculation. Again,
[1:41:56] through you, Mr. Chair supplementary. And would additional, uh, work
[1:42:01] also look at, um, property tax pressures that could result
[1:42:07] from DC reductions, uh, afforded by or policies coming out
[1:42:13] of the province. So through you, that's an excellent question.
[1:42:18] Councillor Yamada. So right now our modelling includes based on
[1:42:23] our forecast. It takes the debt that was in our
[1:42:26] 2026, uh, to 2035 capital plan, which contemplated, um, DCs
[1:42:34] at the time based on our current debt forecast, or
[1:42:38] sorry, our current capital DC forecast. If there was some
[1:42:43] change to DC legislation, that required additional debt in order
[1:42:47] to fund those growth - related capital projects that would
[1:42:50] be an additional pressure raising our ARL. Okay. And so
[1:42:56] that would be any DC reductions would be coming out
[1:43:02] of, uh, further debt, not added onto taxpayers. It would
[1:43:08] depend on what it, on what the capital works are.
[1:43:12] Certainly we would look for all non - debt sources,
[1:43:14] but the potential magnitude of those, especially on the water
[1:43:17] and sewer slide may result in additional debt. So with
[1:43:21] the 2026 Capitol budget, we saw increased step forecasts on
[1:43:25] the water and sewer fund because of the previous changes
[1:43:28] to the DC legislation. So we really saw significant increase
[1:43:32] in our debt forecast there. If there any further changes,
[1:43:35] we anticipate it will impact debt as well, just because
[1:43:38] annual increases to pay for that level of infrastructure, uh,
[1:43:43] especially on the water and suicide. You just couldn't raise
[1:43:46] that in annual increases on a yearly basis. You need
[1:43:49] to spread it out and you do that through debt
[1:43:51] issuance. Okay. And, and I guess so we've modelled our,
[1:43:55] our financing, uh, based on high growth scenarios. Are we
[1:44:00] looking at sort of a moderate or lore growth scenario
[1:44:04] as well. So certainly on the region, Mr. Chair. Sorry
[1:44:11] through the chair. So, uh, certainly, um, when we look
[1:44:15] at, uh, for regional infrastructure, when we look at our
[1:44:19] growth forecast, we look at variations in growth levels when
[1:44:24] we, when we bring forward our capital plans. So that
[1:44:28] impacts certainly transit. It also impacts some of like the
[1:44:33] road infrastructure. The water and sewer is a little bit
[1:44:35] more difficult because we're pre - building a lot of
[1:44:37] that infrastructure, uh, but certainly when we're, we're doing our
[1:44:41] growth modelling, we're looking at, uh, both plus and minus
[1:44:46] scenarios for modelling growth. Thank you. Um, further question, uh,
[1:44:52] through you, Mr. Chair. Has the region or staff speak
[1:44:57] to how they've been formally advocating for capital funding funding
[1:45:02] or dedicated operating supports for, uh, DERM region police? I
[1:45:07] don't know. Maybe chief I should have asked this question
[1:45:09] when you were up there. Does the chief come with
[1:45:12] us to AIMO and to these other conferences? Do we
[1:45:15] do delegations with, um, the chief, uh, to advance greater
[1:45:24] funding? Because I think we all understand that there was
[1:45:30] a, uh, a period of time where there was no
[1:45:33] additional hires, so on and so forth. And now we're
[1:45:36] playing catch up. Uh, with all the other pressures that
[1:45:40] we do see, um, I'd like to understand what that's
[1:45:45] looked like and sort of where that's going to be
[1:45:48] going forward. Through you, Mr. Chair. We do undertake some
[1:45:54] advocacy on behalf of accessing costs for policing as we
[1:45:59] do various delegations at EMO FCM and other opportunities. We
[1:46:04] rarely do it in partnership with DRPS, although they are
[1:46:07] fully informed, uh, our government relations team. Pardon? Why is
[1:46:12] that? It's just never evolved that way. And to be
[1:46:14] honest, the various associations associated with police services are very
[1:46:19] strong advocates and often appear at those events and their
[1:46:22] own delegations. So we tend to focus on where we
[1:46:24] need the biggest impact on other regional programs. To date,
[1:46:29] that's tense to be on infrastructure to facilitate the provision
[1:46:31] of housing and dollars to, uh, improve our social housing
[1:46:36] and supportive hosting supply, some of which I do have
[1:46:38] to highlight is beyond 60 years old. Are we going
[1:46:42] to be, um, advocating for the Oshawa police campus and
[1:46:48] funding supports, uh, to the Prevential or federal governance and
[1:46:52] what would that look like? At this point, that is
[1:46:54] not on our list. I believe that project has to
[1:46:56] come forward to Council. And until we have Council approval,
[1:47:00] it would not fall to staff to advocate for any
[1:47:02] additional funding. All right.
[1:47:13] Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, one further question,
[1:47:16] Mr. Chair. Uh, just. I'm trying to understand too. The
[1:47:23] front ending of the taxes, um, or the tax increases,
[1:47:30] I think it's, uh, 57, uh, is front ended in
[1:47:38] the first four years. I'm trying to understand why that
[1:47:40] is. That's a hard question for our staff to answer
[1:47:46] chief. Do you want to try to come back and
[1:47:49] answer that one? I think you are articulated. The need
[1:47:57] is now. Yeah. So it's a lot of money in
[1:48:01] the first couple of years. I will, uh, admit, but
[1:48:03] we're talking about three different needs in the Oshawa campus.
[1:48:08] All critical needs. And so this is to how to
[1:48:10] get, this is about getting that project started. The reality
[1:48:14] is that these things should have been, uh, spread out
[1:48:16] over the last 10 years. And they haven't. And it
[1:48:20] hasn't been addressed. And so, um, the, the upfront costs
[1:48:23] are, are what they are. And, um, this is because
[1:48:27] we, uh, with the right location through our, uh, RFI,
[1:48:33] we learned a lot of things about what is available
[1:48:35] in this region here and how we can move this
[1:48:37] forward. And all of these things are critical needs. I
[1:48:41] don't know how much more plane to say that. Okay.
[1:48:44] Thank you, chief. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm staying
[1:48:48] with the committee before I go to our guests. So
[1:48:51] Councillor Crawford, do you have the floor? Thank you. Um,
[1:48:54] I'm not sure who this goes to. It's on attachment
[1:48:58] three. I think it's from the police, but I'm not
[1:49:01] like a hundred percent sure I see that there's appending,
[1:49:06] uh, request. In 2026. Yeah. Commissioner can answer. Okay. Can
[1:49:13] you give me some background on that. Uh, so through
[1:49:16] the chair, this is referring to the for the balance
[1:49:22] maybe that are listening. This refers to the Oshawa campus
[1:49:25] on the Capitol plan upon requests for 93. 5 million
[1:49:29] dollars So this is for the Oshawa campus. This is
[1:49:33] the money to start this project. It includes land. It
[1:49:36] also includes design, uh, work as well. My, uh, my
[1:49:40] understanding is that the, um, the police board will be,
[1:49:45] um, considering a report at there may meeting, um, with
[1:49:49] a subsequent request in through Council at June relating to
[1:49:53] this project. But it is to start that initial investment
[1:49:57] for the Oshawa campus. Okay. Um. All right. I asked
[1:50:05] very, very same question. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Let's
[1:50:09] find thank you. Sure. Uh, Mayor Collier. On the report.
[1:50:18] Uh, I'll speak to both the motion and a report.
[1:50:21] Sorry. My notes are on emotion and a report. Thank
[1:50:24] you, Chair. Uh, and I will be brief. I think
[1:50:26] the chief Mr. Tumlins have very thoroughed their delegations. To
[1:50:30] the motion on the floor, um, and Councillor Crawford started
[1:50:34] to ask about this DRPS requires 93 million dollars in
[1:50:37] 2026 for the Oshawa campus. Referring this matter to the
[1:50:41] 2027 budgets. There's no purpose other than to continue what
[1:50:44] every council has done thus far, which is to ignore
[1:50:46] the urgency of the matters today. And ensure that these
[1:50:49] matters continue to decline and become even more expensive to
[1:50:52] the taxpayer going forward. At the same time, this puts
[1:50:55] DRPS in the region at risk by not allowing the
[1:50:57] board to provide adequate policing. For example, potential ministry of
[1:51:02] labour investigations that you heard today and potential arbitration. These
[1:51:07] capital expenditures are not new. Uh, these capital numbers have
[1:51:11] appeared in every capital budget going back to at least
[1:51:14] 2010 when I was versempointed to the Finance Committee in
[1:51:16] this Council. I remember a police station in North Oshawa
[1:51:20] for 40 million dollars back in 2010 was on the
[1:51:24] budget. It might still be in the Capitol budget for
[1:51:25] all I know, but just kept pushing out and pushing
[1:51:28] out. It's now 125 million dollars. If that was built
[1:51:31] today. The amounts to build these buildings has increased significantly
[1:51:37] due to 15 years of regional Council pushing projects out
[1:51:41] year after year. And it could be longer. I only
[1:51:43] go back to 2010 here. What's changed is that in
[1:51:47] December, 2024, via report 2024 COW - 53, this council
[1:51:53] requested that DRPS develop a multi - year service and
[1:51:56] financing study for policing. I'll quote, stop be directed to
[1:52:00] undertake a minimum 10 - year operating capital dermal region
[1:52:02] police service and finances strategy and partnership with the Durham
[1:52:06] Regional Police Service Board. And the Durham Regional Police Service
[1:52:09] staff in order to provide recommendations on a multi -
[1:52:11] year funding strategy to address operating capital impacts of the
[1:52:15] new community safety and policing Act 2019. And the state
[1:52:18] of good repair of capital facilities recognised in the need
[1:52:21] for stability and predictability to property taxpayers and that the
[1:52:25] DERM regional police service board through the chief of police
[1:52:27] be requested to direct Durham Regional Police Service staff to
[1:52:30] provide all necessary input and information. We've done that. That
[1:52:34] report is before you today as requested by this Council.
[1:52:38] I wish the report was before Finance a year ago.
[1:52:42] When it was ready. But it is what it is
[1:52:45] at this point. I can't talk to the timing. Most
[1:52:47] other departments at this region have originally approved 10 -
[1:52:51] year capital budget. And DRPS should be given the same
[1:52:54] consideration as especially as this is the direction of this
[1:52:57] Council. Again, this is before you at your request and
[1:53:02] DRPS needs to be able to plan long - term
[1:53:04] with consistent, reliable funding, and not have to keep coming
[1:53:08] to this committee with one - off requests as we've
[1:53:10] had to do for the last several years. As to
[1:53:15] the fact there is an election this year. Politics shouldn't
[1:53:18] enter into your decision today. This decision is going to
[1:53:21] get any easier or any cheaper going forward. The need
[1:53:25] for approval of the Scapil's strategy is now it is
[1:53:28] urgent receiving for information as suggested is a cop out.
[1:53:32] Excuse upon, please. But this is exactly what's been happening
[1:53:36] for 15 years and there will be repercussions. But supporting
[1:53:39] this motion to refer is no different. The responsible decision
[1:53:44] today is to defeat the motion on the floor and
[1:53:46] approve the plan to allow us to move forward for
[1:53:49] the benefit of the region. I ask that a member
[1:53:51] of committee please move an amendment once this is defeated
[1:53:54] to approve and that you support. Thank you for your
[1:53:56] consideration. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Nicholson. Councillor Nicholson, can you
[1:54:05] put a request in again? Do you hear me now?
[1:54:10] Yeah. You have the floor, Brian. Yeah. Thank you. I
[1:54:15] actually came to the meeting just to watch and to
[1:54:18] learn and hear the comments, uh, but the motion by,
[1:54:21] uh, Cher Henry has caused me great concern. Uh, at
[1:54:25] this point in time, if the matter goes to Council,
[1:54:29] all 28, uh, members of the Council who are elected
[1:54:31] in the chair will have an opportunity to discuss it
[1:54:34] and offer their viewpoint. The motion to send this to
[1:54:38] the budget gags 20 members of this council. It takes
[1:54:43] away our ability to discuss and vote on this proposed
[1:54:50] submission from the DRPS. I don't understand why a chair
[1:54:57] of Durham Region would move a motion. To basically limit
[1:55:03] the decision on this report is simply eight members of
[1:55:06] the Council. Um, I think this is too important an
[1:55:09] issue. To be foisted off to, uh, another budget and
[1:55:14] another council without allowing this council the opportunity to discuss
[1:55:19] and offer its comments on the report. Um, as mayor
[1:55:24] Connor made very clear, we asked as a council for
[1:55:27] this report. The DERM regional police service has provided the
[1:55:32] answers that we asked for. But then not to allow
[1:55:35] members of council the opportunity to discuss what they have
[1:55:39] provided to us, I believe is not a very Democratic
[1:55:42] approach. Um, we're very vocal recently. Are going to against
[1:55:47] attacks on Democracy from the provincial level. Regarding the elections
[1:55:50] of chairs. Uh, but if we're going to ignore Democracy
[1:55:53] and we're going to simply say eight people will have
[1:55:55] the right to vote on this 20 others will not
[1:55:58] have the right to speak on this. Um, that really
[1:56:02] sends a mixed message to everybody. Um, what I've heard
[1:56:04] today and just to speak very briefly to the report,
[1:56:08] um, uh, I echo Councillor or mayor Collier said that,
[1:56:13] you know, we, we should be dealing with the need
[1:56:16] and adopting the plan. But what we're missing here is,
[1:56:19] uh, the financing. You know, what, what is clear to
[1:56:24] me. From, uh, all the debates we've had on this
[1:56:28] is that they put the police funding model in the
[1:56:30] province, Ontario is broken. It was established 50, 60 years
[1:56:35] ago when most policing was local. But so much of
[1:56:39] the costs of our police department. Are driven by provincial
[1:56:43] decisions. Federal Decisions, societal issues, academic issues is being forced
[1:56:52] to pay for 100 percent. Of the police and costs.
[1:56:55] And that's simply not tenable. What we need is to
[1:56:58] start the process of discussion with the province and the
[1:57:02] federal government to come up with a new funding model
[1:57:04] that doesn't dumply the entire cost of policing on the
[1:57:07] regional property taxpayer. We can't even start that process if
[1:57:12] the process doesn't get to Council. If we simply refer
[1:57:16] to a budget, uh, we continue to apportion the seats
[1:57:19] on this lifeboat rather than trying to find a way
[1:57:22] to avoid the iceberg. Uh, we need better than this.
[1:57:25] We need a chance to have a healthy debate on
[1:57:28] the future of this project on where we're going to
[1:57:30] move forward on funding strategies to give our steps some
[1:57:33] direction. And we can't do that if this motion carries
[1:57:37] to simply fois it off to the next Council and
[1:57:40] abandon our elected duties. So I asked this committee, please
[1:57:44] defeat, uh, Chair Henry's motion. Send it to Council. We
[1:57:50] can have a Folsom and healthy debate there. And we
[1:57:52] can give directions to our staff to move forward. Thank
[1:57:55] you. Thank you, Councillor. Uh, let the records say till
[1:57:59] 11, 10 that I agree with you. Uh, not that
[1:58:02] it's undemocratic, but I think that, uh, Council should have
[1:58:05] a position on this. Um, I have been trying to
[1:58:11] get a path forward for all of us. And, uh,
[1:58:15] I think there is a path forward in regards to,
[1:58:18] uh, approving a document in principle allowing, uh, the planning
[1:58:23] to continue, uh, allowing for the, uh, Oshawa thing to
[1:58:29] come, um, as a one - off. And to begin
[1:58:33] to address the compelling arguments of the President as well
[1:58:38] as the chief today. So, uh, I will not be
[1:58:41] supporting the referral to budget. Um, I will support something
[1:58:47] going to Council and I will be, um, trying to
[1:58:51] get a middle ground. I don't think it's a cop
[1:58:54] out. Intended that my friend Mayor Colliers mentioned approving something
[1:59:04] in principle is a significant undertaking when you're talking about
[1:59:08] a billion to two billion dollars and worrying about the
[1:59:11] funding and funding commitment later on, I think, is, is
[1:59:16] also, um, important because after November 15th, we're in a
[1:59:23] new whole new world. With the Regional Chair who potentially
[1:59:27] has, he or she has the potential to, uh, propose
[1:59:32] a budget, which may or may or may not include,
[1:59:35] uh, funding for this. So that's why I think, uh,
[1:59:39] proving it in principle so that the Council has taken
[1:59:43] a position. And then worrying about funding, uh, in the
[1:59:48] mechanism that will be in under the new regime, uh,
[1:59:51] in, in post November 15th and into 2027. I see
[1:59:57] Councillor Crawford, you are back on my list as is
[2:00:01] Councillor Pentago. So I'll go back to you. Councillor Crawford,
[2:00:03] you floor. Thank you. Um, I'm a little confused by
[2:00:06] the motion. I understand the motion, but, uh, wasn't it
[2:00:10] regional staff that brought this report to us on Friday.
[2:00:14] Am I right? Yes. Well, the report is actually before
[2:00:19] you today. The report was published on Friday with the
[2:00:23] agenda for the Finance and Admin Committee, which is where
[2:00:27] we are today. But we had a special meeting Friday
[2:00:30] talking about this. Let's be clear. The report, the meeting
[2:00:34] on Friday. Was the police board and the chiefs meeting.
[2:00:38] This is the response from our Administration to this committee.
[2:00:43] Okay. Cause it seemed like the chief was a bit
[2:00:44] surprised by the Friday meeting. I could be wrong. But
[2:00:47] am I maybe I'm not. Um, so I don't understand
[2:00:50] if, if we brought it on Friday, now we're bumping
[2:00:54] it to 2027. Why did we even through you, Mr.
[2:00:59] Chair? The rapport on Friday was received for information. And
[2:01:02] in the body of the Report, it did talk about
[2:01:06] it being considered as part of the 2027 budget process
[2:01:10] as a result of various changes provincially with development charges,
[2:01:15] the impact of which we're not currently aware, but we
[2:01:17] know it will be material. The fact that we will
[2:01:19] be going to an appointed chair with strong share powers.
[2:01:23] And therefore, a lead role in the budget process and
[2:01:27] also given the magnitude of the 10 year requirements. We
[2:01:30] thought it very important that it go to the new
[2:01:32] council once we have clear direction from the appointed chair.
[2:01:38] Okay. Um, so I do want to thank the chief
[2:01:42] for speaking with me last night. We had a very
[2:01:44] good conversation. And, uh, I do understand that, um, anything.
[2:01:52] Because in 36 hours, we're going to be shutting down
[2:01:56] regional council and we won't be bringing it back up
[2:01:58] again until November. So trying to get anything done is
[2:02:01] going to be June meeting. Huh? We have a June
[2:02:04] meeting. Oh, no, I know that. But I mean, it's
[2:02:06] still what we're, just give me the, the leeway here.
[2:02:09] I understand. I understand the timelines. It makes it difficult
[2:02:15] if for one - offs, as you were suggesting, uh,
[2:02:18] when your timelines are tight. And nothing immunicipal government moves
[2:02:22] quickly. So I would like to know, uh, if the
[2:02:27] request for 2026 was approved today, what does that do
[2:02:33] to the tax base. Can we mention there? Can you
[2:02:37] speak to the funding mechanism for the one - off
[2:02:41] ask that we'll be getting in June. Council. Nicole. Oh,
[2:02:48] we can't commit the new council. Sure, what? Sorry.
[2:02:57] Sorry. I just checked with our clerk. We could not
[2:03:00] outright approve this as it would give in the magnitude.
[2:03:04] We could not commit a new council to that. Did
[2:03:08] I reflect? Well, I'm just trying to understand what the,
[2:03:09] with the impact is. That's all. It's looking confused. Yeah.
[2:03:15] No, I'm talking like this pending request right here. One
[2:03:19] meeting. Commissioner, do you want to speak to the one
[2:03:23] - off request that's apparently coming in June and the
[2:03:27] funding. Go ahead. Okay. Uh, so through, through the chair.
[2:03:35] So, um, certainly pre - budget approval requests are not,
[2:03:40] this Council can't approve a pre - budget approval. An
[2:03:43] unbudgeted capital request. Those can be approved by this Council.
[2:03:48] If it's an in - year request for this year,
[2:03:51] um, is my understanding. Right. And then, and this chart.
[2:03:54] Indicates that the one off is a 2026 expense, which
[2:03:58] this council has the ability to prove. So in terms
[2:04:03] of, can I, sorry, through the chair. So in terms
[2:04:05] of the incremental impact to the 2027 levy resulting from
[2:04:11] that one capital item, the estimated impact of that is
[2:04:17] about 3. 7 million dollars. And percentage. Can you, can
[2:04:23] you, sorry, I work. That's the point four percent is
[2:04:29] that that's what the nine million bucks. Is wonderful. And
[2:04:34] that's land. I don't know what it is. Cause I
[2:04:37] haven't, it's coming in June, obviously. So I'm assuming that's
[2:04:39] land. If my understanding is, and police are still, again,
[2:04:44] they're finalising their report. So they'll be final numbers that
[2:04:47] will come from that. But based on the numbers we
[2:04:48] have available now, it would include land and design. A
[2:04:52] portion of design. So effectively, if we bump this entire
[2:04:54] budget to 2027, 2026 is lost. Is that correct? Is
[2:05:00] that what I'm hearing? So I ask for the one
[2:05:05] - off is for this Fiscal year. So 2026. By
[2:05:08] bumping it to 2027, 2026 is still alive. As of
[2:05:13] June. One ask would still be available for approvals in
[2:05:18] the 2026 budget. What the CEO said is we can't
[2:05:22] commit. Expenditures for the next council. Understood. Okay. Thank you.
[2:05:27] I just want to clarification on that. Thank you. Councillor
[2:05:33] Pettengeal, you have the floor again. Thank you very much.
[2:05:36] And through you. I mean, I heard what Councillor Nicholson
[2:05:40] said. I have no issue with this going to all
[2:05:44] of Council. However, how we will result from that will
[2:05:48] still very likely be, um, either to accept it in,
[2:05:53] in principle or to send it to the budget. Same
[2:05:56] end. So if everyone wants to weigh in on that
[2:05:58] fight or approve the plan. Yes. Although, you know, I
[2:06:04] did look up since the chief spoke about it peal
[2:06:07] region did do it through their budget. Um, I believe
[2:06:09] that when a group is asked to create a strategy
[2:06:14] and then come back comes back with a report, it
[2:06:16] still then goes through the budget process. I think that's
[2:06:18] a proper procedure. Um, we need to see what that
[2:06:22] looks like over time. Um, so I don't know how
[2:06:27] that really changes. This motion that's on the floor right
[2:06:32] now, but. It will likely end the same at Council
[2:06:37] that they would approve to send it to budget. I
[2:06:39] think that's the most likely. And this way, this actions
[2:06:42] it in a way it does it prove it. It
[2:06:44] says, thank you very much for that report. Now let's
[2:06:47] put it through the budget process. And, and see where
[2:06:50] the details led and the details are yet unknown to
[2:06:54] approve this. Right now with the amount of unknowns would
[2:06:58] not be responsible in my position. Okay. I think that
[2:07:04] concludes the list. Oh, Councillor Yamada, you want the floor
[2:07:07] again. Thank you. Um, question of clarity. So would we
[2:07:15] then be able to move, I guess, um, a refined,
[2:07:22] um, motion or referral where we, um, that we approve
[2:07:29] the 2026 ask and refer, um, the remainder 2027, the
[2:07:35] 2036. To the budget. The 2026 ask is not in
[2:07:41] front of us. And we'll be at in June. That's,
[2:07:47] okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's all folks. I do
[2:07:49] have a properly moved motion and seconded to refer this
[2:07:54] to the 2027 budget. I have. Seven members. So a
[2:08:01] recorded vote has been requested by chair Henry. Councillor Wu
[2:08:05] and Councillor Leahy are online. So Madam Clerk, can we
[2:08:10] call the role? This is to refer to the 2027
[2:08:13] budget.
[2:08:26] And. I believe Councillor McDougall. Who hasn't voted. Uh, Councillor
[2:08:30] McDougal's at a medical appointment.
[2:08:46] Okay. The motion has carried then. Um. So I'm not
[2:08:54] quite sure. The action now is that it's been referred
[2:08:57] to the 2027 budget. The one offs would continue and
[2:09:03] be welcomed for consideration. Uh, and I'm sure the chair
[2:09:08] of the police board will have some discussions with the
[2:09:10] clerk about other options. So, um, we have one more
[2:09:16] item for a business today. And that is the confidential
[2:09:21] report. There is a recommendation to authorize the report. Is
[2:09:27] there need to go in camera. Move by chair Henry?
[2:09:31] Seconded by Councillor Crawford. To approve the actions in camera.
[2:09:37] All those in favor. Oppose that Adams carried any business.
[2:09:45] A motion to adjourn would be in order. Move by
[2:09:48] chair Henry second by Councillor Crawford. That we adjourn all
[2:09:54] those in favor. That's approved. Thank you.