Cobourg Police Board Passed Budget Back to Council After Council Passes It Back to Them
By Cecilia Nasmith/Today’s Northumberland
Cobourg council’s vote last week to send the Cobourg Police Service’s 2026 budget back in hopes they could reduce that 20.5% increase resulted in a special meeting this week of the Cobourg Police Services Board.
Which resulted in a vote to send the budget right back – accompanied by a request for presentations in open and closed sessions to explain and answer questions.
And in anticipation of Mayor Lucas Cleveland’s continued demand that the increase be no more than 4% under a recent Strong Mayors directive, the board will also begin preparations for going to conciliation with the town.
Ryan Bergiron of the provincial Inspectorate of Policing was at the meeting to confirm the repeated statements by Chief Paul VandeGraaf that the police budget is dictated by requirements set out in legislation and, as such, is not subject to controls a mayor might exercise under Strong Mayors Powers.
Board chair Adam Bureau (also a Cobourg councilor) said that council had sent the budget back “without looking at it and without even having any questions.
“Member Beatty (Deputy Mayor Nicole Beatty) and I did ask if they wanted a presentation first, they said no and sent it right back so we’re here today doing this.”
Bergiron explained Section 50 of the Community Safety and Policing Act that requires a municipality to provide the board with sufficient funding including required equipment and facilities.
“The municipality does not have the authority to approve or disprove specific items contained within the budget,” Bergiron said, citing Section 50.5.
Section 50.6 provides two options – the board and municipality may apply to the commission to appoint a conciliation officer to resolve the matter, or the board may give the municipality written notice referring the matter to arbitration.
“In my respectful opinion, there is a third option. The third option would be, you do have the ability to go back to council without a conciliator and you can engage in further discussions, if you believe that it’s likely to lead to a successful conclusion,” Bergiron added.
Chief VandeGraaf said there’s no point in rediscussing or renegotiating the budget that the board approved after its own extensive process.
“Unlike years past, through Strong Mayor Powers, we’ve been purposely precluded from presenting to council as a whole, and I firmly believe that’s why we’re in this predicament today – we are here due to a budget increase amount that has been explained numerous times,” he said.
“The real discord here is our budget ask is more than the illegitimate directive made by the Strong Mayor’s directive to the police board.”
This year’s 20.5% increase is up from 5% largely because of what the chief termed “the mistake of last year. The board made a decision to draw from reserves to artificially lower the percentage increase.”
This year, he continued, “I’m increasingly uncomfortable with public safety and the well-being of our membership being dragged into a political discourse.”
Recalling how the mayor presented the police budget to council last week – with no presentation, let alone any context – “it was both unfair and inappropriate. This did nothing more than to create further false narrative throughout the community.
“You cannot say on one hand you support the Cobourg Police Service, then do an act in a manner that makes the jobs of our officers more difficult on the street, that our civilian staff worry more about job security than job performance and, most importantly, diminishes the public trust in our service.
“Remember – public safety is your essential service. It’s important to stop pointing fingers, stop blaming and recognize we have to remedy this.”
This is the first budget in the three-year build to meeting the CSPA, VandeGraaf pointed out, and the Cobourg service’s total budget ask for the past two or three years is consistent with other Ontario police forces, OPP and municipal.
Bureau recalled how the mayor had asked council to vote to send the budget back, rather than doing so unilaterally as is his prerogative under Strong Mayor Powers.
“There was no discussion and no willingness to hear from the board or the chief on the budget,” he said.
There was some discussion about diverting more business-centre revenue than the current $2.8-million to bring the increase down. This is a widely touted source by past mayors for its effect in keeping so many capital purchases off the tax bill, and Bergiron said that the board has sole discretion how these funds are to be used. But past chair Dean Pepper said this would be an unwise move that would only kick the problem down the road a year.
“It’s like putting a band-aid on a shark bite – it’s not going to help,” he declared.
Bureau recalled last week’s council meeting, when Beatty asked the mayor if the board could make a presentation and was told no.
“I think we should give them another kick at the can, for want of a better description – then conciliation or arbitration,” Bergiron said.
Bureau favoured doing both – should they make progress with council, he said, they could cancel conciliation.
Beatty reminded the board that there’s a hard budget deadline of Feb. 1. VandeGraaf advised the board to engage legal counsel now in case conciliation becomes necessary.
Board Vice-Chair Sean Graham mentioned the cost involved in the conciliation process, member Pepper noting that it would also be a cost for the town. In recognition of this, he moved that the Police Services Board send a letter to council suggesting a presentation to be made both in open and closed session on the budget and, meanwhile, proceed with preparations for conciliation if that becomes necessary.
“I think it’s the only real thing we can do,” Graham agreed.
The motion passed unanimously.
