Peterborough city council endorsed receiving for information the report of a sweeping review of City of Peterborough services during the general committee meeting on Monday (September 21).
Prepared by Ernst & Young LLP Canada (EY), the 234-page Effectiveness and Efficiency Review identifies 20 opportunities for cost savings and revenue, ranging from changes that would affect residents directly to internal improvements in city purchasing, staffing, and financial management.
In a memo to general committee, city CAO Jasbir Raina cites the review’s estimated cumulative savings or avoided costs of $20.6 million to $30.2 million over four years. The review’s financial projections also include new revenue, with actual benefits depending on which options proceed, implementation costs, and further analysis.
Councillors question cost shifting and timing of service review
The city engaged EY to conduct the review with the aim of identifying “practical, evidence-based opportunities to improve outcomes and long-term service and fiscal sustainability.” Work on the review was completed over the previous few months and completed last Tuesday, with the report being made available to councillors two days later.
In a presentation that lasted almost an hour, EY’s senior manager of government and public sector consulting Ashley Challinor and government and public sector transformation partner David Bryden provided council with an overview of the review.
They outlined the key findings of the review, noting that Peterborough is reliant on its residential tax base, which provides around 80 per cent of its property tax revenue. Because the city lacks employment lands, there are limited opportunities for industrial or commercial development.
Unlike some other municipalities, the consultants stated, Peterborough is not taking full advantage of other funding sources, including contributions from other levels of government, corporate sponsors, and philanthropic organizations.
After the consultants finished highlighting key recommendations of the review, councillor Alex Bierk put forward a motion to suspend the rules so that councillors could ask up to four questions, a motion that was unanimously supported.
Bierk asked the consultants how they determined genuine efficiencies rather than savings by transferring costs from the city to residents.
“If the city saves money because a senior now has to pay someone to clear their sidewalk, what methodology do you use to calculate that cost to the resident before calling it a financial benefit?” he asked.
Challinor said EY compared Peterborough with other municipalities, noting the “Peterborough is the only municipality that we could find” that provides snow clearing of all municipal sidewalks.
Bierk noted the city council had previously decided against removing snow clearing, and asked the consultants why they decided to include ideas that council had already considered. Challinor said that all valid ideas were included in the review.
Bierk then asked why the consultants didn’t look into the city’s loss in revenue at municipal parking garages. Challinor said it wasn’t considered because it would a simple response for the city to raise parking rates, while EY’s objective was to look into deeper issues.
Councillor Joy Lachica asked why the “dense” report was released in the last cycle of the existing council, without an opportunity for in-depth analysis before the general committee meeting, especially given the financial implications for the city’s budget.
“I think it is inappropriate,” Lachica said. “It should be for the eyes of an incoming council.”
Bryden said the review process is driven by the client.
Airport options, zoo fees, and snow clearing among recommendations drawing scrutiny
Councillor Matt Crowley asked about the “under-leveraging” of funding opportunities, and whether that was a fault of the municipality. Challinor said there was no fault, but that the city could expand the opportunities, which are currently focused on naming rights of some city facilities.
Mayor Leal pointed to what he called a “fundamental observation” of the consultants with respect to the boundary adjustment of the City of Peterborough. Challinor noted the issue of ownership of the airport lands as well as the lack of employment lands was raised, along with the sharing of services with Peterborough County.
“We did hear a lot about Peterborough’s existing constraints with respect to its boundary, and that’s something that needs to be taken into consideration, whether or not that boundary changes, with respect to a few of the opportunities identified,” Challinor said.
Councillor Keith Riel asked about the recommendation for Peterborough Housing Corporation and whether EY consulted with Peterborough County as a partner in affordable housing. Challinor said they did not speak to the county as the city asked them to address a specific question: whether to dissolve the corporation and incorporate it into the city or to leave it as an independent agency.
Riel said he would not support zoo admission fees and cancelling sidewalk snow clearing services for residents.
With respect to the EY’s recommendation on the airport, councillor Gary Baldwin asked what a “structured exit” would look like, given the investment the city has already made in the airport.
Challinor said options include a long-term lease, a regional partnership, an airport authority, and a divestment process. Bryden added that the consultant was not questioning the city’s past investment in the airport, but looking forward if the city cannot find revenue to support the continued operation of the airport.
Baldwin asked why the consultants were recommending that Peterborough County residents be exempt from zoo admission fees. Challinor said that, given how close Peterborough County residents are to the zoo and how closely integrated the city and county are, it would be a “reasonable accommodation” to continue free admission from county residents. She noted that no-one would be exempt from parking fees.
On sidewalk clearing, Baldwin asked if lawsuits would increase if the city stopped providing the service. Challinor said they do not have that information.
With respect for charging for repeated false fire alarms, councillor Kevin Duguay asked whether the consultants considered false alarms with respect to paramedics as well. Bryden said the scope was limited to false alarms for fire.
Duguay also asked whether the consultant considered parking fees for the Eastgate Memorial Park parking lot, which the city expanded to accommodate the new Canadian Canoe Museum. Challinor said EY only focused on the city’s grant to the museum.
Councillor Don Vassiliadis asked about the tourism factor with respect to charging out-of-town visitors for admission to the zoo as well as parking at the zoo. Challinor said the Riverview Park & Zoo is competing with the Toronto Zoo for visitors, and that the cost for a family of four to attend the Toronto Zoo is “very high — in the hundreds of dollars” not including parking.
“So even with a modest visitor fee and/or a modest parking fee, you’re likely still very competitive compared to a day for a family at the Toronto Zoo,” Challinor said.
Debate turns to community priorities and consequences for residents
After the EY presentation, councillors debated the report.
Councillor Dave Haacke asked city staff about the taxes on the airport land. The city’s finance and corporate support services commissioner Richard Freymond said there are three “buckets” of taxes amounting to a total of $325,680 in 2026, with $136,193 going to Cavan-Monaghan Township, $76,857 going to Peterborough County, and the remainder education taxes.
Haacke also made comments on zoo admission fees, stormwater management, false fire alarms, and sidewalk snow clearing.
“I wish everybody well next term dealing with this,” said Haacke, who is not running for re-election.
Councillor Bierk said council needs to “find unity on what our priorities are,” noting the city’s recent economic development report that spoke to the value of cultural institutions like the Art Gallery of Peterborough and The Canadian Canoe Museum. He added that council had already decided against the approach to stormwater management fees described in the consultant’s report.
“My head hurts a little bit with just these conflicting subject matter expert stances and positions on things,” he said, noting that it is “frustrating” that the consultant was revisiting items already decided by council, and that the shortfall in revenues from municipal parking garages “which I believe is close to one million dollars” was not considered.
Bierk said the review considered financial impact, service delivery impact, and implementation complexity but did not provide “comparable scoring for equity, affordability, accessibility, social impact, community benefit, cultural value, distributional impact, public preference, or the consequences for residents least able to absorb these costs we are trying to transfer.”
He added that efficiencies need to be distinguished from “cost shifting,” which he also described as “service reduction.”
“A cost does not disappear simply because it leaves the city’s ledger,” Bierk said, noting that just because other municipalities are not funding something doesn’t mean Peterborough should do the same.
Bierk asked CAO Jasbir Raina which of the recommendations he could implement using his delegated authority. Raina said he could only implement internal staff changes and that any recommendations that would result in service level changes that impact would need to be approved by council “in the next term.”
Councillor Duguay said he was prepared to receive the report for information, “acknowledging it’s intended to be advanced for the next council for their budget decision-making purposes.”
In his remarks, councillor Riel noted that many recommendations in the report have already been discussed in the past, including during his 16 years on council.
Riel, who is one of the seven candidates running for mayor in the municipal election, then began electioneering, drawing a harsh rebuke from councillor and general committee chair Andrew Beamer.
“We cannot do that,” Beamer said. “it is completely unacceptable, councillor Riel. We cannot give campaign speeches here.”
Deferral motion fails as city staff clarify review will not be part of draft budget preparations
Councillor Lachica made a motion to defer the report until a new council is in place, noting that CAO Raina’s covering memo for the report states that the review’s recommendations “related to service levels and financial considerations will be included in the draft 2027 budget for council’s consideration.”
Councillors then debated the deferral motion, with Mayor Leal stating that the election is the “right time” for voters to find out where candidates stand on the recommendations in the review.
Bierk said the issue is that city staff could use the report as a “Trojan horse” to start implementing some of the recommendations if the current council agrees to receive it for information.
In response, CAO Raina noted that the reason the review was brought to council in September for information was in response to a direction from council earlier in the year. He also affirmed that no recommendations from the review will be included in staff’s budget preparations.
Commissioner Freymond added that the review will be formally tabled for the next council in January “as they deliberate the staff-recommended budget” and that they will have the review as supplementary information during their deliberations.
After further debate, council voted on the deferral motion, which lost 3-8, with councillors Lachica, Bierk, and Riel voting in favour. Council then voted on the main motion to accept the report of the review for information, which carried 9-2, with councillors Lachica and Riel voting against.
Items endorsed by general committee will be considered by council for final approval at its regular meeting on Monday, September 28, when registered delegations will be heard.
