No candidate said yes: Residents’ group publishes police headquarters scorecard

A six-person taxpayers’ group asked every Sarnia mayoral and council candidate one question about a new police headquarters. Nobody said yes. Their scorecard is now public ahead of the Oct. 26 vote.

A group of six Sarnia taxpayers spent the nomination period asking every mayoral and council candidate the same question: do you support building a new police headquarters that would cost taxpayers $91 million or more?

According to their scorecard, nobody was listed as supporting it.

The group, which publishes under the name Sarnia Votes on the Police H.Q., produced a scorecard dated Aug. 31 listing who answered no, who hedged, and who did not answer at all. It also lists how sitting councillors voted when the file previously reached council. The document itself confirms that no candidate was placed in its “Supports New Police H.Q.” category.

Randy Evans, speaking for the group, said the point was to put the building on the ballot.

“Recognizing what was on the line with the situation, the Group felt that the proposed new Police H.Q. should be an election issue so that the taxpayers could have their say on the matter,” Evans wrote in a Sept. 14 reply to The Sarnia Journal. “That is only fair being that it would be the taxpayer who would be footing the bill for the new building.”

Who they are

Evans did not name the other five members. He described them this way:

“We are a group of six Sarnia citizen taxpayers. One is a businessman, one is a businesswoman, two are retired lawyers and two are retired journalists.”

“We are 100% supportive of the Sarnia Police rank and file.”

The group’s interest, he said, is the building, not the officers who would work in it. Preparation started about a month before nominations opened May 1. As names appeared on the city’s website, the group emailed each candidate the same question and asked where they stood.

Some answered quickly. Others did not. Although the scorecard is dated Aug. 31, Evans said the group kept the file open through Sept. 3, double-checked that non-respondents had received the email, and is “very satisfied” each one did.

“It was never the intention of the Group to advocate a position on the issue or to advocate on behalf of a particular candidate,” he wrote. “This remains the case and will always be.”

“For Sarnia, an informed voter is the best voter.”

The question they asked

The scorecard question reads: “Do you support the construction of a taxpayer paid $91M plus new police headquarters?”

That $91-million figure is the preliminary construction estimate for a new headquarters of about 98,650 square feet, based on work by +VG Architects. The Sarnia Journal has previously reported that the same planning documents exclude soft costs such as permits, taxes and specialty equipment, and that the all-in price has been projected above $120 million.

A 2023 Dillon Consulting building-condition assessment of the existing 1987 headquarters at 555 Christina St. N. put identified repairs, upgrades and related work at about $4.4 million.

City council voted 6-3 in July 2025 to set aside 11.7 acres of surplus city land on the north side of the Sarnia Business and Research Park, southeast of Old London Road, for a possible new station.

In November 2025, council voted 5-4 to add $5 million to the police budget through borrowing as initial funding connected to the project. Mayor Mike Bradley used strong-mayor powers on Dec. 5, 2025, to veto that borrowing. On Dec. 15, a motion to override the veto failed 5-4. Six votes were required.

The police board later sought legal advice over the veto. No construction contract has been awarded. There is still no funded $91-million headquarters in the 2026 city budget.

What the scorecard shows

The group sorted candidates by office.

Mayor — five candidates
Does not support: Mike Bradley, Bill Dennis, Carrie McEachran, Scott Molson, George Stanko.
Supports / uncommitted / no reply: none.

City and county council — 17 candidates, four to be elected
Does not support: Andy Bruziewicz, Peter Goodman, Ed Gresham, Mark Lamore, Chrissy McRoberts, John Richardson.
Uncommitted or qualified no: Margaret Bird; Patrick Coutu (“No at this time.”); George Vandenberg (“Maybe”); Paul Wiersma (“No, not at this time.”).
Did not respond: Bill Anning, Al Duffy, Mario Fazio, Adam Kilner, Charmaine Murray, Mike Stark, Brian White.

City council — 21 candidates, four to be elected
Does not support: Terry Burrell, Nathan Colquhoun, Josh Coutts-Smith, Stevie Devlin, Richard C. (Dick) Felton, David Ghobril, Anne Marie Gillis, Clara James, Ray McMaster, Christopher Oram, Michelle Parks, Scott Spinks Jr., Hari Srinivasan.
Uncommitted: Andrew Stokley.
Did not respond: Lo-Anne Chan, Honie Chumko, Tammy Mathieson, Roza Panjehbandpour (Phox), Christopher Pettit, Briana Reid, Jonathon Walker.

Those classifications match the scorecard provided to the Journal.

Evans said the group did not treat a non-answer as a yes or a no. Those names are listed as people who received the question and did not reply.

How incumbents voted

The group attached a second ledger: its summary of how sitting members had voted on the headquarters file.

On Dec. 15, 2025, the recorded override vote was:

In favour of restoring the $5 million, and therefore of overturning Bradley’s veto: Anne Marie Gillis, Adam Kilner, Chrissy McRoberts, George Vandenberg, Brian White.

Opposed: Mike Bradley, Dave Boushy, Terry Burrell, Bill Dennis.

The scorecard then draws a sharper line than that single vote. It lists Bradley, Dennis and Burrell as incumbents who “did not support” a new headquarters, and Gillis, Kilner, McRoberts, Vandenberg and White as incumbents who “supported new H.Q. in past voting.”

That second label is the group’s interpretation of the voting record, not a recorded council motion that simply asked whether members supported building a $91-million headquarters. Council has never taken a final construction vote.

The distinction matters particularly in Dennis’s case.

Dennis voted in July 2025 to set aside the 11.7-acre property specifically for construction of a new police headquarters. He later voted against adding the $5 million in borrowed money to the police budget in November and against overriding Bradley’s veto in December.

His record on the file therefore includes both a vote advancing the proposed site and later votes against borrowing money for the project, even though the scorecard places him in its “did not support new H.Q.” category.

Three of the five councillors who voted to restore the $5 million on Dec. 15 also answered the group’s election question differently:

• McRoberts is listed as not supporting a new headquarters.
• Vandenberg is listed as “Maybe.”
• Gillis is listed as not supporting a new headquarters.
• Kilner and White did not respond.

The group also flags three police-board records. It says Gillis, McRoberts and Wiersma each voted yes at the board in favour of a new headquarters. Wiersma chaired the board until early 2026 and is now running for city and county council. The scorecard records all three as previous yes votes, although the Journal has not independently reviewed the roll-call minutes underlying each of those classifications. Sarnia Votes on the Police HQ.docxDOCX

What the group will not say

The Journal asked Evans what the pattern of answers told him, and whether any candidate had since asked for a wording change.

He did not interpret the results. He repeated that the summary is meant to stand without comment, and that the group is not endorsing anyone.

Sarnia votes Oct. 26.