City Council’s 2026 operating budget deliberations continued on Wednesday, with councillors hearing justifications from service providers for budget increases.
The Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) received the greatest scrutiny from councillors, who wanted to understand the police service’s justification for a proposed 9.1 per cent budget increase.
Thunder Bay’s city government does not have direct control over the budget of the police service, unlike most of its services.
While the city aimed for a 2.6 per cent budget increase across the board, the operating budget plans for a 4 percent increase in the property tax levy, with most of the discrepancy due to the proposed police budget being so far beyond the rest of the city’s services.
TBPS Chief Darcy Fleury defended the large budget boost, pointing out that the public rates crime and safety as top priorities.
“We’ve really paid close attention to what the community is looking for… We continually engage the businesses, community organizations, residents, our own members… and by far the most common feedback we get is that the police require more resources,” Fleury said.
But some councillors questioned whether putting so much new money towards the police would necessarily have the effect of reducing crime.
Councillor Andrew Foulds wondered whether the money going towards police might be better spent on other services.
“Your ask to all of us is difficult, given the economic realities… If I have an extra $5.5 million, and the number one issue in this community is crime, is $5.5 million in police the best place to put it in preventing crime?” He asked.
A recurrent theme of the discussion was that such a large budget increase would not be sustainable.
“We’re all in agreement, there is no question as far as the importance of the work that you do, the challenges that you face, and the importance of our community feeling safe,” said Councillor Albert Aiello. “The issue is our ability to pay for it.”
Councillor Shelby Ch’ng drew attention to the rising share of city expenses that emergency services make up: in 2026, police, fire, and paramedic services will make up 40 per cent of the budget.
But she also maintained that there were good reasons for the increasing focus on emergency services, defending the increased police budget as necessary.
“I think it was clear-eyed. I think they presented a budget that they believe in,” said Ch’ng. “Where I think we need to be spending our time and energy on is challenging this system that we’re living in, not the police board.”
Councillor Trevor Giertuga had the harshest criticisms of the budget proposal.
He called into question the argument that new staff hires would be offset by reduced overtime costs, as the service predicts $5.6 million in spending on overtime in 2026, just a $200,000 reduction from 2025’s $5.8 million.
“I’m sure that eight positions cost substantially higher than that, so I don’t buy those numbers,” Giertuga said.
By the end of the meeting, City Council was split down the middle on the police budget.
Despite skepticism, many councillors who questioned the size of the budget increase were ultimately willing to support it.
Councillor Giertuga put forward a motion to ask the police to reconsider their budget request and offer a new, lower number before the budget ratification.
Giertuga’s amendment was seconded by Mayor Ken Boshcoff.
The motion was also supported by Councillors Mark Bentz, Greg Johnsen, Rajni Agarwal, and Michael Zussino.
Councillors Kasey Etreni, Dominic Pasqualino, Brian Hamilton, Andrew Foulds, Shelby Ch’ng, and Albert Aiello voted against the motion.
Councillor Kristen Oliver was absent.
With a 6-6 vote, the motion failed. A second vote was called, but councillors voted along the same lines, and the motion failed a second time.
Following the failed motion, the council voted to approve the budget, with only Councillor Giertuga voting in dissent.
With the budget now approved, it will come before a City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 3, to be ratified.
