London is planning a training campus for police officers and firefighters on a 129-acre property at 3243 Manning Drive, in the south end of the city. Picture a burn tower where firefighters train on live fire, indoor and outdoor firing ranges, and a drill hall, with a driving track and a fire safety village planned for later. The City’s capital budget and plan carry $186.8 million for it through 2033, and the City’s business case pays for the new spending by borrowing against your property tax bill.
A journalist preparing a feature on the campus sent every mayoral and ward candidate the same six questions about how those numbers fit together and who ends up paying.
My short version: our police officers and firefighters need somewhere to train close to home, so I support building the core training facilities. The later pieces should wait until council sees what each one costs and how the City’s published phase figures line up with its budget. If provincial money falls short, I won’t support filling the gap with new borrowing or a tax increase.
Below is every question and every answer I sent, word for word, with my sources. Where an answer mentions what the City told “you,” that’s the journalist, who asked the City for its figures first.
All the questions, and my answers
Reconciling the costs
What is your understanding of the relationship between the adopted project budgets and the published phase figures? Would you support further financial commitments before a public reconciliation is available? What specific information or Council action would you seek, and when? Please distinguish your interpretation from facts established by records.
The three budget lines you name add up to $186.781 million through 2033 in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, and Business Case P-57 splits the training campus into three stages of $137.0 million, $8.0 million and $41.7 million, which comes to about $186.7 million. Those are the records. My interpretation is that the City’s $186.8 million is the business-case campus, and the $133 million and $50 million phase figures group the work differently.
The City’s Phase 1 list includes a 911 dispatch centre, an emergency operations centre and a new fire station, and P-57’s Stage 1 description mentions none of them. I won’t support any construction contract or new borrowing until a public reconciliation of the two sets of figures exists. If elected, I would seek a motion directing staff to publish it before the 2027 Class D estimates come to council.
Sources: 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, capital detail: PP4481 p. 218 ($79,663K), FS1095 p. 231 ($69,102K), PP4482 p. 232 ($38,016K) · Business Case P-57, Stages 1 to 3 · Phase lists
Facilities, needs, and alternatives
Which campus components would you support proceeding with, modifying, deferring, or cancelling, and which remain undecided? Please identify the needs, capacity, safety, cost, or alternatives evidence informing your position, and what could change it. Would you seek a current component-level cost schedule and the supporting assessments before further approvals?
I support proceeding with the core training facilities: the main training building and drill hall, scenario simulation, the indoor and outdoor ranges, and the burn tower. P-57 says the training sites in Hamilton, Mississauga, York and Windsor are at capacity, and so is the Ontario Police College. It also says tactical and K9 officers often get called out of training for high-risk calls. We don’t want our London tactical officers on a range in Hamilton when lives are at stake and every moment counts.
I’m undecided on the later items, including the public fire safety village, the driving track and fleet storage, because no cost for any single component exists yet. Before further approvals I’d require the component-level cost schedule along with the consultant’s feasibility study, which CTV reported council never saw when it chose the site. A clear cost per component, or a shared regional option that costs less, could change my position on any piece.
Sources: Business Case P-57 (alternatives, Stage 1 contents) · Phase 2 list · CTV News London, July 2025
Provincial funding
What is your understanding of the amount and purposes of any provincial funding request, and what source supports that understanding? Please distinguish a request from an approved contribution or money received. What should the City publish about the request and its conditions? If provincial funding is smaller than anticipated or unavailable, how should that affect the project and municipal financing?
As far as I can find, no specific provincial request is on the public record. Business Case P-57 books $0 in grants, and the City told you only that it continues to advocate to the provincial and federal governments.
At the July 2025 site approval, the mayor spoke of the “potential to partner regionally, provincially and federally,” which states an intention without an amount. I’ve found nothing showing an approved contribution or money received. The strongest case for provincial money is the space planned for the Provincial HAZMAT response unit, since that serves the province’s own program.
The City should publish the amount it has asked for and when, along with any conditions attached. If provincial money comes in smaller than hoped or never arrives, the later phases should wait, and I won’t support filling that gap with more borrowing or a tax increase.
Sources: Business Case P-57, operating table (Grants: $0) · City of London newsroom, July 22, 2025 (mayor’s quote) · Provincial HAZMAT space
Expenditures, commitments, and the cost of changing course
Would you seek a dated public account of expenditures to date, outstanding contractual commitments, uncommitted budgets, and potential termination liabilities? How would those figures inform a decision to proceed, modify, defer, or cancel work? Please distinguish money already spent from future avoidable costs, and costs arising from a change of course.
Yes. I’d ask staff for a dated public account of four separate numbers: what has been spent, what is under contract, what is budgeted but uncommitted, and what it would cost to terminate each contract.
Concrete that’s already poured is spent whichever way council votes, so it shouldn’t drive the decision. Concrete that hasn’t been ordered is still a choice.
The figures that matter are the future costs council can still avoid and the price of changing course, which includes termination costs and the extra travel and lost training days P-57 says would come with training elsewhere.
I’d judge each component on what’s left to spend against what it delivers, and I’d defer or cancel any piece where that comparison doesn’t hold up.
Source: Business Case P-57 (costs of training in other cities)
Financing and municipal exposure
What financing approach would you support across the police and fire project accounts, including debt, reserves, development charges, and other contributions? Would you require a consolidated financing plan before further approvals? Please identify any limits or conditions you would seek to protect municipal finances, distinguishing adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts.
Business Case P-57 financed all $204.7 million of its additional capital with debt repaid from property taxes, and it booked $0 from reserves, development charges or other governments. That package also covers police headquarters work, and it carries $77.3 million in debt payments from 2028 to 2033, about $12.9 million a year.
The business case put its 2026 tax impact at 0.78 percent, or $30.98 on an average residential property. I won’t vote for a budget that raises property taxes during my term, so I’d require a consolidated financing plan across the police and fire project accounts before any further approvals, showing each source and separating adopted financing from forecasts and actual receipts. My conditions would be no new borrowing beyond what council has already authorized, and any provincial or federal money applied to the debt first.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table and tax levy impact table
What provincial funding would change
If Ontario contributes funding, what should it change: municipal borrowing, reserve use, other municipal contributions, project scope, timing, or property-tax requirements? What public accounting would you require to show how the contribution was applied and whether any claimed municipal savings occurred?
Provincial money should pay down borrowing first. P-57 finances its additional capital with debt carried on the property tax bill, so every provincial dollar that replaces a dollar of debt also removes years of interest on it.
I wouldn’t let a contribution expand the scope or pull later phases forward, and any change in scope should come back to council as its own decision with its own price. To show how a contribution was applied, I’d want staff to report it in the capital budget, naming the project account it went to, the debt it replaced and the change to the forecast tax levy.
A year later, council should get a check against actual results showing whether borrowing and the tax impact fell by the amount promised. If the savings don’t show up on your tax bill, you deserve to know why.
Source: Business Case P-57, capital budget table (debenture financing)
Additional comments (optional)
You may add up to 150 words identifying a material omission, correcting the premise, or explaining a position not adequately covered by these questions. Evidence supporting particular facilities, or showing that changing course would cost more, is welcome.
Two items are missing from the public record. The first is the consultant’s feasibility study behind the site and the budget, since CTV reported in July 2025 that council approved the Manning Drive site without seeing it. I’d like to see that released.
The second is revenue. P-57 says the consultant projected a net gain of $243,000 by year 12 from renting training space, assuming 75 percent use of the key spaces, and that London Fire could become a regional training centre for surrounding departments. Neighbouring services that train here should pay their share, and council should see that rental plan before it approves Phase 2.
Sources: CTV News London, July 2025 · Business Case P-57 (revenue projection; regional training centre)
That is every question I answered. If you can help me sharpen my positions, please get in touch!