In a November 21, 2025 interview with Quinteist, Chair of the Belleville Police Services Board Heather Smith, provided written responses outlining the justification for the proposed 15% increase over the previous year in the 2026 police operating budget, which significantly exceeded the City’s target of 5% for external boards and would cause a 3.5% increase in property taxes on its own.
Our analysis reveals a two-pronged strategy: a structural defense (blaming “fixed” costs like debt and legislation) and an emotional offense (framing cuts as threats to officer wellness, community safety). Below, we analyze the Chair’s responses.
Why such a high increase in the police budget for next year?
Smith’s primary defense of the budget increase rests on factors the Board categorizes as mandatory external pressures, including:
- Police station mortgage payments: $1.18 million for the police station mortgage (accounts for only ~3% of the budget), a cost transferred from the municipality to the service by a previous council.
- New employee collective agreements: A 3.5% increase to salaries.
- Hiring more staff: the Board plans to hire eight officers and five civilian staff.
Analysis
The Chair’s answer opens with her strongest technical argument. By isolating the $1.18 million building mortgage, she reminds Council that the Police Service’s bottom line includes debt that the City chose to offload onto them. While accurate, this debt accounts for only ~3% of the budget. It explains some of the cost, but not the entirety of a 15.6% jump.
The bulk of the increase remains driven by staffing expansion (8 new officers + 5 civilians).
Provide some examples of why the extra police spending is needed?
We view operational budgets as investments in policing and insurance for our community that when they need a police presence, that we will be there and will be there in a timely manner to support them on what is likely their worst day – it usually is if you have to call the police for help.
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
After listing technical costs, the Chair pivots to an emotional appeal, reframing the budget as an “insurance premium.” By invoking the image of a citizen’s “worst day,” Smith moves the debate from municipal finance to visceral emergency response. This rhetorical device implies that questioning the cost is equivalent to questioning the value of safety itself.
Can you respond to the BPSB not sticking to the five per cent spending increase target?
there is a new Community Safety and Policing Act that demands compliance to the act and all of its standards – despite the fact that these standards are not resourced by the province
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
This response effectively shifts blame from police service management to provincial mandates. She cites the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA), which came into effect April 1, 2024, as a non-negotiable cost driver. While the CSPA does mandate new training standards, the Board avoids breaking down exactly how much of the 15% increase is legally mandatory versus discretionary.
Would you welcome [a value for money review]?
…this is demoralizing for members, they hear it over and over again…
if another police service were to be “hired” for policing in Belleville – our service would be considered disbanded – it’s part of the collective agreement and each officer would receive 8 weeks of salary for every year of their service
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
The Chair’s answer conflates a financial audit (which was asked for) with disbanding the force (which was not).
She then pivots to a “poison pill” defense. By highlighting the severance clause – 8 weeks of pay per year of service – she signals to Council that they are financially trapped. Disbanding the service to switch providers (e.g., to the OPP) would cost millions in payouts, making a “Value for Money” audit moot because the City cannot afford to act on the findings.
Coun. Carr claimed Kingston’s spending on policing is $400 per capita vs. Belleville’s $600. Why is that?
We’re accountable for policing in Belleville, I can’t really speak to that, there are too many variables.
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
This is the Chair’s weakest response. In municipal finance, comparative benchmarking is standard practice. Citing “too many variables” without offering a counter-metric (e.g., population density, crime severity index, geographic size) suggests the Board is unprepared to defend its efficiency relative to peers.
Talk about the ability of city residents to afford this proposed increase, coupled with other municipal tax hikes they may face?
I’m a tax payer too – no one wants to pay additional taxes. We, our board and service have to do a better job of letting our community know that freedom isn’t free, safety is expensive and justice is invaluable.
But I assure you this is a conversation that is likely happening in many municipalities who are struggling with policing budgets – the new act has increased our accountabilities and responsibilities.
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
Using abstract platitudes like “freedom isn’t free” to answer concrete questions about household bills attempts to take the moral high ground, implying that complaining about taxes is akin to devaluing justice.
Smith does raise a legitimate financial grievance: the Province’s court security funding formula hasn’t changed since 2012. The resulting $800,000 annual shortfall is a specific, verifiable cost that is being unfairly downloaded onto Belleville taxpayers.
Can you make general comments about what happens if you don’t get the extra money in 2026?
Something would have to give. For instance response times to calls, will that go up …
Will we lose additional officers because they’re burned out and choose to go to another community or get out of policing altogether?
What will happen to the folks who need us when they need us. Do we not respond to calls?
BPSB Chair Heather Smith
Analysis
The Chair’s answer frames the budget not as a fiscal calculation, but as a safety risk by linking funding directly to response times.
Instead of detailing specific operational adjustments (eg. reduced administrative hours, delayed non-emergency response, purchasing new phones every 4 years instead of every 3, not purchasing an armoured truck) that would have to be made, Smith simplifies a complex $33.5 million budget into a binary “safe vs. unsafe” choice focusing on 911 calls – a False Dilemma logical fallacy. This forces Council into a corner where voting against a tax hike is framed as voting for danger.
Comments
We want to hear from you! Share your opinions below and remember to keep it respectful. Please read our Community Guidelines before participating.