PERSPECTIVES: Before we commit
London’s Emergency Services Campus was set out as a joint police-and-fire training proposal in the City’s 2024-2027 budget business case, addressing facilities the City describes as outdated, undersized, and deteriorating. The current proposal also includes dispatch and emergency management facilities.
On October 13, the City identified $186.8 million in the campus’s life-to-date capital budget and capital plan through 2033, but said a current breakdown of costs by component was unavailable. Preliminary capital estimates and an implementation plan were expected in 2027. With the election approaching, voters have an overall figure but no current component costs or clear account of which further spending decisions remain for Council. Those gaps make it harder to judge what candidates’ promises would permit, or prevent, before choosing the Council that will oversee the project.
Council approved the campus location at 3243 Manning Drive in July 2025. The $186.8 million establishes neither expenditure to date nor the final approval for every planned expense.
The available financial presentations leave the scope behind their totals unclear. P-57’s three campus stages total approximately $186.7 million in rounded figures; the City’s advocacy document lists $133 million and $50 million phases, totaling $183 million. How those presentations relate to October’s $186.8 million remains unresolved. Although the figures do not establish budget overruns or missing money, different scopes or assumptions — which the City hasn’t yet clarified — could explain the differences in the figures.
I invited 80 mayoral and ward candidates to answer six questions about campus decisions and financing, to establish what further commitments they would support. Invitations went to 79 by email; one participated orally. The common deadline was October 16, 5 p.m. Eastern. By October 18, 16 had replied (20%): 14 substantive or partial responses, including one late reply; one decline; and one general comment.
“I won’t support any construction contract or new borrowing until a public reconciliation of the two sets of figures exists,” Ward 9 candidate Matt Millar wrote.
Millar wrote that he supports the main training building and drill hall, scenario simulation, indoor and outdoor ranges, and burn tower. He clarified he would not allow new borrowing beyond existing authorizations and would not vote for a budget raising property taxes during his term.
Incumbent ward 9 councillor Anna Hopkins’s response cited fire-protection gaps and more efficient emergency services, while criticizing the “ever-escalating police budget.”
“I acknowledge the need for this strategy and will closely monitor the finances as the project develops,” her statement said.
Candidates’ promises to limit expenditure must be read alongside any obligations the City has already incurred. Whether Millar’s conditions actually permit the facilities he supports depends on existing financing and how his requirements for public reconciliation, borrowing limits, and no tax increases operate together.
The campus belongs to a wider programme. P-57 links it to police accommodation and headquarters expansion, reprioritizing funding and deferring headquarters work. It acknowledges the risk of committing a “larger portion of capital and operating budget” to police and fire facilities and training.
This is a political relationship: some needs acquire priority, while others wait. P-57 warns that the investment “required” will grow without approval. But: required for what future? Inflation can increase costs; existing deficiencies and anticipated staffing needs demand attention. Organizational plans can become demands for space, and thus financial requirements — what enters as a projection could return as an obligation or liability.
The City has a case to make.
The City’s July 2025 committee report also describes existing training spaces as often unavailable and identifies changing training requirements and safety concerns. The October response, attributed to deputy city manager Cheryl Smith, identifies planning work on training needs, site requirements, layouts, and preliminary costs.
The City’s advocacy document says the existing emergency operations centre no longer meets space and technology requirements, presenting relocation to the campus as a way to improve collaboration and joint training. The document proposes the campus as a base for the provincial HAZMAT unit, citing its proximity to Highways 401 and 402, it also describes an agreement in principle between the City and the Oneida Nation of the Thames that would allow Oneida Fire to train at and use the facility.
A firing range, a burn tower, and an emergency operations centre may share an address, but each requires an assessment of the provision appropriate to its purpose.
The City considered alternatives to building training facilities, including renting elsewhere and using the Ontario Police College. It identifies capacity limitations, travel costs, and operational constraints. Training elsewhere can reduce personnel’s local availability.
Any proposal to defer facilities must address those needs.
In No More Police, Mariame Kaba and Andrea J. Ritchie approach safety through resources and relationships that prevent harm and sustain people through it. Their argument asks us to examine the passage from institutional capacity to public safety: whose safety improves, and how would we know? The questionnaire asked about campus decisions; the abolitionist interpretation here is my own.
Housing, accessible care, the means to leave a violent situation: all of these belong in the account. What would the campus enable, for whom, and alongside which other provisions?
P-57 forecasted approximately $2.1 million in annual campus operating costs after its first stage, which was then expected to open in 2027. That estimate reflects the scope and timetable assumed then; it does not establish current operating costs.
Its rental model projected a net income gain of $243,000 by year 12, conditional on recommended fees and 75 per cent use of key spaces by police and fire. That potential benefit belongs in the assessment, with its assumptions intact.
The public commitment continues after paying for construction: the staffing and maintenance for what the City builds will need funding in future budgets.
The July report’s appendix places a new fire station in Phase 1, alongside London Fire’s main 911 dispatch centre and a primary integrated emergency operations centre. Its explanatory text describes a possible mid-to-long-term station requirement. Establishing its current status would clarify timing and costs.
The 2027 presentation includes Council’s requested executive summary. What can proceed before then remains unresolved.
In September, police correspondence about my freedom-of-information request said budget-development information was outdated, and an external provider was updating it. Police believed they held responsive financial records, including London Fire information; I had not received figures establishing their current applicability.
My follow-up to the City sought reconciliation of scope and financing, and clarification of existing authority and future decisions. On October 16, communications staff said there was no further information beyond October 13’s response. That leaves questions unanswered, but it doesn’t establish an absence of records.
“Transparency” can precede an approval, qualify it, or become a condition for withholding it.
Ward 13 candidate Andrew Joseph Crook would withhold support for major new discretionary commitments pending public reconciliation, and require consolidated financing information before major construction approvals. He supports addressing documented deficiencies, leaving component decisions open, pending updated costs and assessments.
Ward 5 candidate Abid Raza similarly seeks reconciliation before major new discretionary commitments, allowing urgent exceptions with documented safety or contractual justification. He would consider affordable borrowing for essential, long-lived infrastructure, subject to a municipal contribution limit, and reserve protection.
Ward 6 candidate Naomi Nadea would not support additional commitments before a formal public reconciliation. She supports dispatch, emergency operations, a southeast fire station, and specialized training; the fire safety village and driving track remain undecided. Current component costs and needs assessments would condition further funding approvals.
Mayoral candidate Barry Jacklin proposes indefinite delay of the police campus while accepting a need for larger fire-training facilities. Interviewed earlier, ward 13 candidate Jari Spence opposed the campus, and favoured directing resources toward homelessness and affordability.
In separate interviews, incumbent ward 13 councillor David Ferreira expressed campus doubts, while supporting provincial funding rather than having London pay. Ward 13 candidate Stephen D’Amelio advocated wraparound services and agreed with my summary about spending to address homelessness. Neither specified a transfer of campus funds.
Money proposed, spent, and still available for another purpose differ. Crook and Raza seek accounts of expenditure, commitments, and the costs of changing course; Raza includes termination charges, redesign, inflation, and operational consequences. Past spending does not itself justify spending more, nor does stopping erase obligations already incurred. Without dated totals and termination-liability estimates, savings from modification or deferral cannot be established.
An alternative future needs an account of the obligations through which it would have to pass.
Historical P-57 figures identify $204.7 million in additional debentures within a $291.9 million facilities package—not campus borrowing alone. The City continues seeking provincial and federal support, but its response supplies no requested amount, committed contribution or receipt, or explanation of what outside funding would replace.
Millar and Nadea favour reducing municipal borrowing first. Crook prioritizes reducing municipal burden while protecting essential objectives; Raza qualifies his debt-reduction preference by funding conditions and existing commitments.
A contribution’s effect on borrowing, reserves, or taxes depends on the conditions of its allocation, and the financing displaced.
A commitment of outside money is another beginning of the accounting.
The wider programme warrants separate examination. Here, a proposed institutional future becomes a present claim on public resources.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore describes abolition as “presence”: building conditions for flourishing while transforming reliance on policing and imprisonment. The question is what other futures public resources could make possible.
Land, buildings, and services sustain particular capacities, making others harder to establish. Londoners need information while their judgement can still affect the outcomes.What forms of life will we undertake to support—and how much of that future remains ours to decide?
