Cobourg Police Board’s Finance Committee to Hear From Public About Budget Increase

Pete Fisher
3 minutes ago
• Categories: Local, Police Blotter

(Today’s Northumberland file photo)

Following a presentation from Chief Paul VandeGraaf that outlined a 20.5% budget increase estimate, the Cobourg Police Service Board’s finance committee opted not to forward it to the board for final approval.

Several members instead wanted public input first, even though the chief noted there is no room for cuts in the estimate that he called the true cost of policing. He said there’s always been a transparent budget process, though isn’t sure how it will fully play out this year which is the first under Strong Mayor Powers for the municipality and did address a July directive from Mayor Lucas Cleveland to not exceed a 4% increase ask.

“I want to make something very abundantly clear at the beginning. Strong Mayors can direct the overall municipal budget under act, but that directive has no legal bearing on this process,” VandeGraaf said.

“There’s absolutely no legal mechanism for Strong Mayor Powers to direct the Police Service Board on its estimate. The police estimate is founded in Section 50 subsection 2 of the Community Safety and Policing Act. The directive received by the board (from Mayor Cleveland) is nothing more than performative. Where the final town budget is approved by the mayor and/or council, the police estimate is bound in legislation by the Community Safety and Policing Act. Any discrepancies are dealt with under Section 50 subsection 6. In other words, if the board or council refuse to accept the police estimate, there is a legal mechanism in which the municipality can seek remedy under 50 subsection 6 of the CSPA.”

VandeGraaf said it’s up to the service to provide adequate and effective policing and that’s how the estimate is formed. He said adequate police is defined as policing that’s reasonable, considering community needs and area characteristics, similar communities, past effectiveness, best practices that address issues on community patrol, emergency response, crime prevention, assistance to victims and maintaining public peace.

“Very broad terms, but that is what we need to provide 24/7, 365 as every other police service does to be determined to be adequate and effective,” he said.

VandeGraaf said changes to the province’s CSPA impact the estimate by about $900,000 alone. Staffing was added last year to start the process of compliance, the chief noted. Hiring was staggered throughout the year to keep the costs lower, but now the full amount is felt this year.

The chief said all capital expenses going back to 2012 are covered by the service’s Business Centre revenue and not the tax levy.

He said past decisions, though, including last year’s increase of just 5.50% affected this year’s estimate.
“Decisions were made every year by the various police boards to arrive at a number that was reasonably acceptable by the board and the municipality,” VandeGraaf said. “In hindsight some of those decisions to lean out the budget to meet a low increase have now created a time where we’re so lean there’s nothing left to cut.”

VandeGraaf referenced that from 2016-2018 the budget increase from the municipality was less than the salary increases the service had to pay.

“We were defunding policing when those budget increases are less than the salary increases and this is where the reliance on the Business Centre revenue became more and more and more apparent,” VandeGraaf said.

“Maybe we saved one and a half or two per cent, it sounds great in the year but when you hit a year like this year there’s no meat on the bones, there’s nothing left to lean out. All of these decisions have been made year after year after year and we’ve hit this period.”

VandeGraaf said there has been increased calls for service and work complexity has changed due to increased homelessness, poverty, addictions, mental health and crime while there’s more requirement for digital evidence as well.

“There is no discretionary spending in this budget,” VandeGraaf said, noting 89% is for salary and benefits. “Eleven per cent is for everything else.”

The 20.5% estimate increase in dollars is a $1.6 million increase, he said. The chief believes the increase would’ve been lower this year had more been spent last year instead of staying close to the 5% mark which meant dipping into reserves.

“The decision to cover the true cost of policing in 2025 from reserves, that $700,000 one-time funding has come to roost,” VandeGraaf said. “We’re at 20.5 per cent because we have to address hindsight.

“I think our over-reliance on the business centre unit came from a desire to ensure we had a reasonable budget that may or may not have been true to the reflection of the cost of policing,” he also said.

Board member Nicole Beatty, who is Cobourg’s deputy mayor, referred to the mayor directive and wondered how the committee responds and she also asked the chief if he could highlight some areas the committee could consider that wouldn’t result in losing officers or community safety.

“The mayor’s directive is performative,” VandeGraaf repeated from the start of his presentation. “The law of this board is to create an estimate, send it to council to ensure that we’re adequate and effective. The team has put together a budget, which is adequate and effective. It doesn’t exceed in some areas, in some areas it does, in other areas we’re very close to maybe not meeting, but we’ll get there. I don’t look at the four per cent as being anything other than a document. It has no binding in law. The CSPA is our governing document. It gives responsibility, the accountability and assigns the risks to the board to ensure that we are able to deliver.

“There is no discretionary spending in my opinion in the budget,” the chief continued. “I’m happy to go through every line and explain to you why if you think you want to knock $20,000 out of this line or that line what that risk is that the board will accept. We’re at that point unfortunately. We’re at that point where this budget is so lean. We had $100,000 that we built up over two budget cycles for renovations on the building – I’ve taken that $100,000 out.”

Vice-chair Sean Graham asked about other comparable municipalities coming in at lower increase asks and the OPP being capped at 11%.

“I don’t know what the circumstances are in Owen Sound or Brockville,” VandeGraaf said. “I’ve been at this for 35 years and there is no such thing as an apples-to-apples comparison in policing.”

Board member Ron Kerr suggested the increase asks over two years is on par with other services since Cobourg’s was low last year.

“I have been over this four times line-by-line, I don’t see any fat in it and I would be prepared to suggest that we submit a motion to approve this or move it on to the board level,” Kerr said.

With lots of back and forth discussion, the meeting lasted around four hours.

Beatty said she had enough time to digest the budget ask but suggested it would be a big piece of information for the community and wondered if any community input or feedback would be sought.

Chair Adam Bureau, also a Cobourg councillor, mentioned the public could come forward at next week’s monthly police board meeting.

“Plus there will be different stages of public input all the way up until it comes to council and even after that.”

There was some concern about whether there was time for additional public consultation that wouldn’t conflict with a mayor directive to have a budget with a target levy not to exceed 5% presented to him by Nov. 1.

Beatty recalled some target dates of Nov.1 and Dec. 1.

“However at this time we’re not aware of how the budget is being presented to the public as well,” she said.

Graham asked about deferring the decision until the board meeting and informing the public the committee wanted input before making a decision.

Bureau said the committee would need to approve it in order to move it forward, but that’s not final approval.

A lengthy debate ensued about where to hear from the community and how to go about it.

“We all agree that this is a big increase so I like the idea where we’re looking at potential public input before we vote. I would love to hear from the public,” he said.

Chief VandeGraaf suggested the board needs to look more into section 53 of CSPA.

“The only thing to cut is people so you want to contact Glenn Christie and/or the inspector of policing so you understand the process to downsize a police service,” he said. “There is nothing discretionary in the budget. You’re contractually obligated to do certain things. If you don’t do those things, you will go to arbitration.”

VandeGraaf said he’s not asking for more staff or anything else new in the budget.

“This is a status quo budget based on public input and I’m happy to have 10,000 questions. Everybody in this space knows I’ll stand in a room full of 500 for four hours and answer any question asked of me and I’ll do it again, I don’t mind.”

Bureau said “I don’t believe public engagement would just be for cuts. I also believe it would be for clarifying concerns over this increase,” but added he also doesn’t see any cuts to be made to the estimate from the service.

VandeGraaf was asked by a committee member if there was absolutely no wiggle room in the budget and asked if the board or chief would need to prove to the taxpayers that efficient and adequate policing is not possible with less officers or special constables.

VandeGraaf said it was a good question, but “what that question would ask is that there is a different view of what the police service could look like so that’s where I said we have over three years developed a plan that meets what we all agree is adequate and effective policing based on community input, based on town hall meetings, based on service delivery models. The only option if the community wants less is Section 53. You do not need me for that. If that’s what the council wants, then the Inspector of Policing will determine what adequate and effective policing is. Not us, not a group of citizens, not a board, not a council. The inspector of policing. That’s why Section 53 is very clear.

“I firmly believe we have finally right-sized the organization based on increasing calls for service, increased demands, increased complexity, increased community desire for outputs. If the board is suggesting it’s something different, then I’m left with nothing in that I can offer nothing else to meet the needs of what I feel and my senior team feel are the needs of the community therefore we are at an impasse.”

VandeGraaf said he should notify the inspector “that there’s a lean into this space” because that’s his obligation as the chief.

Kerr reiterated that this is his seventh budget estimate and sees no wiggle room compared to previous years.

“I think our staffing levels are justifiable,” he added.

Graham said “I find it incredible that we’re looking for very simple public input into the budget and we’re jumping to leaps that we’re going to be laying off staff. This is a budget deliberation with a significant increase. We’re asking for public input, but we’re jumping to the fact that we’re going to be laying off and firing staff. That is not the case here. It’s simple, I’m asking for just the public input on this and that’s it.

A Q&A on their thoughts on this process.”

VandeGraaf responded “all due respect member Graham, the budget is the budget. Your job as a board member is to ensure adequate and effective policing. Pure and simple. I’m asking you what section of the budget shall you suggest we impact that does not end up with staff reductions. Show me it.”

Committee member Scott MacCoubrey, who was supportive of public input as well, asked to confirm that citizens could still voice concerns at the police board meeting and perhaps later during overall budget discussions as well.

“So why are we discussing it again if there is no wiggle room,” he said.

Graham said he didn’t want to offer support for the budget ask without hearing from members of the public.

When it finally came time for a vote on whether the committee would support sending the budget to the board, it was defeated in a 4-4 tie. There was some debate over whether the citizen members of the committee had voting rights before the meeting continued and discussion returned to the prospect of a special meeting.

Graham wanted to make sure the meeting was accessible to as many community members as possible so didn’t think a 9:30 a.m. police board meeting was appropriate.

More debate ensued about the format and it was agreed to call a special meeting of the board’s finance committee that would allow opportunity for delegations, correspondence and a Q&A on Nov. 3 at 5 p.m. with more details to follow.

The full video of the meeting is at https://pub-cobourg.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=87d5100c-f653-4878-ace3-19acefcfdc14