[1:00:02] have a department here which is, uh, 25% of its total budget
[1:00:06] is cost to the levy. Could it be better? Maybe so. But again,
[1:00:10] I just wanted to reiterate that we are making headway in some
[1:00:13] areas. And secondly,
[1:00:17] I kind of agree with Councilor Buro. It's tough to
[1:00:20] keep robbing from reserves. That's why we had low budgets. I was
[1:00:24] part of the budget process back when COVID was on,
[1:00:27] and to keep the budget low,
[1:00:31] we robbed from reserves. We kept it low,
[1:00:34] and then by eliminating a lot out of the budget,
[1:00:38] as soon as COVID was over, we had to put that all back in the
[1:00:41] budget. So if we had maintained a 3% or 2%
[1:00:45] levy increase through those years, we may not be looking at what we're looking
[1:00:49] at today. But those were decisions of the past. But decisions
[1:00:53] of the future will come when we have infill. You know,
[1:00:56] we've got a new development team. So we're looking at development.
[1:01:01] Every time there's infill into our community,
[1:01:05] which sometimes is, uh, answered by
[1:01:09] nimbyism where they don't want it, but the public has to realize that every
[1:01:12] time we add a development which doesn't create more roads,
[1:01:18] uh, which doesn't need new sewer mains, which doesn't need new water
[1:01:22] mains, that becomes a, a definite bonus
[1:01:25] to the community as far as tax revenue. So if we add 100 units
[1:01:30] and we don't have to add any serious infrastructure, so 100
[1:01:33] units at averaged 3 or 4,000, you were talking $300,000 or $400,000.
[1:01:39] So I just wanted to bring those points forward, even though we are using reserves
[1:01:42] now. Hopefully in future with the development and infills that we
[1:01:46] can bring those reserves back up. Thank you.
[1:01:48] Okay. Just, just so we're moving forward,
[1:01:52] I appreciate the statements, Councillor Darling, but we are looking for questions of the presenter
[1:01:56] at this time. Councillor Maton, go ahead. Thank you for your report, and I look
[1:02:00] forward to community engagement and perhaps presentation to
[1:02:04] council, as alluded to earlier. My question to you is,
[1:02:10] I just— a point of clarity.
[1:02:13] If you are retained as a consultant
[1:02:18] Could you please explain the disclaimer at the end of your report?
[1:02:27] I wish I brought the report with me. Okay, so I, I'll read. It says,
[1:02:31] um, uh, David Dexter Consultant and the Town of Cobourg
[1:02:35] are not responsible for any loss or damage which might occur as a reliance
[1:02:40] or use of the contents in this report.
[1:02:44] I'm not used to seeing a consultant put that kind of disclaimer,
[1:02:47] so I'm just wondering if you could— perhaps it's just my unfamiliarity.
[1:02:51] I'll start this off, Mr. Dexter, and then I'll let you answer afterwards.
[1:02:54] Um, then I stand, and I appreciate that. I'm going to partially
[1:02:58] answer that and then let Mr. Dexter answer the rest of that, because remember,
[1:03:01] I'm the one who retained Mr. Dexter, so perhaps I should
[1:03:05] start and then Mr. Dexter can finish. Um, when Mr. Dexter was
[1:03:08] retained, he was not retained as a professional accountant. He was retained as a member
[1:03:11] of the public in Cobourg who to in the past have
[1:03:16] a professional accounting background. He was not retained as a chartered accountant,
[1:03:19] and there, for that reason, I'm just letting you know that may
[1:03:24] take part of that, because when Mr. Dexter and I were beginning the conversations about
[1:03:27] this, we very clearly— I wanted someone who is a
[1:03:31] member of the public of Cobourg, who's a ratepayer of Cobourg, to lead that,
[1:03:35] and I wanted someone who had a professional background of
[1:03:38] more than 15 years. But that said, Mr.
[1:03:41] Dexter's retired, so I can let him explain why he put that there. But I
[1:03:45] just wanted to be very clear that when I hired Mr. Dexter, I wasn't hiring
[1:03:48] a chartered accountant. I was hiring a member of the public in
[1:03:51] Cobourg who happened to also have professional experience.
[1:03:55] Thank you.
[1:04:01] By all means, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mean,
[1:04:06] what the mayor describes is correct, right? I'm not a consultant by trade.
[1:04:09] I'm a resident with 30 years experience in the industry on
[1:04:13] the municipal finance side, so I realized there needed to be
[1:04:17] some disclaimer at the end. I looked at some of the examples of some of
[1:04:20] the reports, the financial reports that the town had done, be it KPMG
[1:04:25] or Watson Associates, and I realized I needed to identify the
[1:04:29] fact that I wrote the report and that people that are on the task force
[1:04:33] are not accountable, and that it's town report and that
[1:04:38] you don't know. I mean, indemnification is you don't know the situation
[1:04:43] of risk or something that could be claimed
[1:04:46] back at the town or something like that, right? And you need to make statements
[1:04:51] like that, like in a contract or something that you may not know, a situation
[1:04:55] where something could be used and someone said, well, I read this and
[1:04:59] I did this in my life, and because that you don't
[1:05:03] know these things, so you have to make a disclaimer of some sort.
[1:05:07] Right. Well, Miss Councillor Barber. Yeah, just very briefly, I wanted
[1:05:11] to, um, come back to something you said and, and backed up
[1:05:15] basically, uh, through, uh, what, uh, Councillor Darling also mentioned.
[1:05:19] Um, some of the things that this
[1:05:23] council has done in the last 2 or 3 years are against—
[1:05:27] and I think it was recognized by your group
[1:05:32] they are starting to show positive effects and things towards some of the finances,
[1:05:36] specifically our
[1:05:42] front desk idea, et cetera, et cetera. And I just wonder
[1:05:46] if you might just enlarge on that just a little bit. Some of the things
[1:05:48] that we've decided on over the last couple of years now are beginning to actually
[1:05:51] start to show positive effects on the
[1:05:56] budget. Budget. Thank you. Okay,
[1:05:59] Mr. Dexter, I'm going to ask a very brief question, if I may. Or do
[1:06:02] you want to take that one? By all means.
[1:06:06] I mean, we, we stuck pretty much to the financial framework
[1:06:10] and the financial concerns, so we never got into some of the deeper elements of
[1:06:14] the service. I, you know, the front desk and the, and the,
[1:06:18] and the people at the front of the building, I think that's excellent.
[1:06:22] Right? And we know— I've heard no complaints about that. I mean, for one
[1:06:25] thing, on a pure financial basis,
[1:06:29] funding for long-term capital sustainability is a
[1:06:33] multi-financial thing, right? Long-term,
[1:06:36] long-term assets, that's a wise thing to use.
[1:06:40] And now there's a debt policy in place that the treasurer brought forward.
[1:06:44] One thing that the town also brought approved is an
[1:06:47] infrastructure levy. I know it's a tax, and I complain mentioned
[1:06:52] earlier that it was one of the burdens that they put on the taxpayer,
[1:06:56] but it's on top of everything else. On its own, with normal
[1:07:00] tax rate increases, it's a good thing to do because the tax burden—
[1:07:04] the taxpayer has to be a part of the long-term sustainability of the assets
[1:07:08] that— and the services they provide. So that was new, and it
[1:07:12] was done in what, 2024, I believe? I believe that was the budget year.
[1:07:16] So that was smart as well, right? A stormwater rate's wise too,
[1:07:19] right? Because it provides for the replacement of assets.
[1:07:23] How it went about and some of the complications in between would've been nice
[1:07:27] to avoid, but the end outcome and the rationale
[1:07:30] of having a stormwater charge makes sense, right?
[1:07:34] Well, certainly redundant to say, but the
[1:07:39] tax levy pays for reserves. I mean, reserves are built
[1:07:42] out of the tax levy and a lot of people don't think that through,
[1:07:45] I think. Thank you.
[1:07:48] Simple question, Mr. Dexter, if I may. Has anyone on council approached
[1:07:52] you to do a presentation for them?
[1:07:56] Uh, to you, Mr. Mayor, this would be the first. Okay. Um, has anyone
[1:08:00] on council reached out directly to you to have a one-on-one count or meeting about
[1:08:03] the report? Uh, to you,
[1:08:07] Mr. Mayor, no. Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Dexter. I appreciate it.
[1:08:10] No further questions. Um, just to the council, No further
[1:08:14] questions. Thank you, Mr. Dexter. Appreciate it. We're going to move on to Mr.
[1:08:16] Bussan. The reason I asked those questions, Council, is, uh, as you're all aware,
[1:08:20] a meeting could have been called at any time by 4 members of this Council
[1:08:24] to go over the budget task force. Similarly, any one member of
[1:08:27] Council could have easily reached out to Mr. Dexter and gone over that task force
[1:08:31] one-on-one with him. I say that because both the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Buro
[1:08:35] have suggested that they would have liked to have a meeting before this
[1:08:39] meeting, and I just want to make sure the public knows that every member of
[1:08:42] this Council is free to conduct themselves as an independent island as
[1:08:46] they see fit, and that as an independent island, they are
[1:08:49] responsible for their sort of retention,
[1:08:53] knowledge, and building a basis. So again, just like
[1:08:57] this meeting was called by 4 members of council, anytime 4
[1:09:00] members of council could have gotten together and had a meeting called to review the
[1:09:04] Strong Mayor Task Force. Councilor Matan, I see your hand. Yes,
[1:09:09] I would actually have to comment that we rely on your leadership, Mr. Mayor.
[1:09:13] So I think we rely— council, and I'm speaking for myself,
[1:09:17] is that your leadership in ensuring that council has the
[1:09:21] appropriate information. And I would like everybody to know that I had asked if
[1:09:25] I could be an observer at these budget task force meetings.
[1:09:30] And I was at first, it was agreed to, and then I was denied.
[1:09:34] There was no public access to the task force meetings,
[1:09:37] including by members of council. So I just wanted that to be
[1:09:41] out there. That's great to cover. And it was a first-time process, But definitely,
[1:09:45] Mr. Mayor, we look to your leadership with regards to all of council
[1:09:50] also. That's my, my, my view. Well, I hope so, because here we are discussing
[1:09:53] the mayor's budget. So let's hope we follow that leadership. But Councilor Mouton, on that
[1:09:57] point, let's— I think it's great you brought forward. You're right, I did agree to
[1:10:01] that, right, initially, because I was like, oh, of course, why wouldn't you? That was
[1:10:04] out of place for me because it wasn't actually my task force
[1:10:08] to run, to select, to choose, or to out line. So I agreed
[1:10:12] to you being a participatory, uh, mistakenly, because I didn't actually
[1:10:15] check with the people on the task force first. When I brought
[1:10:20] that idea to the members of the task force and leadership, it was them that
[1:10:22] asked for, uh, the privacy to have a conversation away from both myself and
[1:10:26] all political and staff members so that they could build that trust
[1:10:30] and relationship amongst themselves. Because from the,
[1:10:34] the luncheon I had at the end of that task force with the individuals
[1:10:38] to say thank you for all the hours and hours of work. I was,
[1:10:42] uh, incredibly impressed with the
[1:10:45] congeniality of some of these members who in the past I have seen not
[1:10:49] be very friendly to one another because of their very diverse political and
[1:10:53] financial views. And I think it served us well to
[1:10:56] leave them to their own in a sense, because, uh, what I think they
[1:11:01] needed was an ability to find a trust, just like this council has had to
[1:11:03] work over the last 3 years to find a way to trust work together.
[1:11:06] This was 10 unique individuals who had to come together and come up with
[1:11:10] some recommendations. So I just— I'm glad you brought the point up. That was my
[1:11:14] mistake. I said, of course you can participate. And it was actually at that point
[1:11:17] that I was corrected and said, well, Mayor, actually, this is a group that
[1:11:21] will decide. And that was the decision of the group. So thank you for that.
[1:11:24] And I appreciate that you do follow this leadership. But again, this council has
[1:11:28] a record of calling— I think we're up to like 9 or 10 special meetings.
[1:11:31] Anytime I make a strong— Mayor, you This council seems to call a special
[1:11:35] meeting. So while I do appreciate the point that you follow my leadership,
[1:11:39] I would suggest that you only seem to want to do that when meetings aren't
[1:11:42] called. But, you know, we'll leave it at that. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. Just a
[1:11:46] comment on that. And I definitely don't want to open the Pandora's box on that.
[1:11:50] Respect the fact that we're in an era of strong mayor legislation. I just
[1:11:54] think it's important to remind everyone that council can only have a conversation on a
[1:11:59] strong mayor directive by calling a meeting and in an open
[1:12:02] forum. And with respect to the task force, yes,
[1:12:06] absolutely. I, um, as the mayor,
[1:12:09] because this was funded by taxpayers' money and it was put out into
[1:12:13] the community with a lot of recommendations that have— could have
[1:12:17] significant impact, uh, to the taxpayer service
[1:12:21] level. Some of the task force recommendations I think are really strong. I think a
[1:12:25] lot of them require additional feasibility, and a lot of them require
[1:12:29] additional unpacking. Um, so if
[1:12:33] we talk about isolated islands, we put a document out into the
[1:12:37] community of Cobourg and it creates a desert because it's sitting
[1:12:42] isolating. And to Councilor Mouton's point, I believe if I could say
[1:12:46] also the leadership, Mr. Mayor, at any time you could have created a special
[1:12:50] meeting of your entire team, which you talk about being a proud team leader
[1:12:54] and you could have presented the task force to us and
[1:12:59] the community as a whole with context from the strong leadership
[1:13:02] of Dexter and the community, Mr. Dexter and the community,
[1:13:07] rather than finding out about the task force information in
[1:13:10] a Facebook post followed up by an email. So it
[1:13:14] goes both ways. Council has to mobilize
[1:13:17] and petition a meeting where strong mayor's ethics especially,
[1:13:21] and I will stand by the fact that that the tax
[1:13:25] levy budget is a budget of the community. Uh, it's the Coburgs' budget.
[1:13:30] And so I get a little frustrated about hearing it's
[1:13:33] creating islands of isolation when in fact,
[1:13:37] um, this is why I brought forward the motion back in September when
[1:13:41] the strong mayor's timelines were published,
[1:13:44] had a more thorough timeline and release of information,
[1:13:48] and then follow-up and presentation of said material. I think could
[1:13:52] have brought the engagement and the education of council and community
[1:13:56] along, along with that. Perfect. Can I understand what
[1:14:00] would have been more thorough so that we can make changes moving forward?
[1:14:05] Well, a communication of the budget timeline,
[1:14:09] um, the presentation of the task force. Again, it could have been— I guess
[1:14:13] the question back to you, you asked Mr. Dexter, why didn't a member of council
[1:14:16] ask for a presentation? Why, Mr. Mayor, did you not present the
[1:14:20] task force information as a whole to council.
[1:14:24] Also too, on community and Engage Cobourg, it talks about there
[1:14:28] was a direction through the strong mayor to include a community engagement
[1:14:33] project timeline with the budget. So we put
[1:14:37] a budget out on Engage Cobourg, but there's been no engagement
[1:14:41] plan to put with that. So I guess I'm just, I'm just as confused as
[1:14:45] everybody and trying to follow along all the release of information. Short period
[1:14:49] of time, but I just want to make sure to make it very, very clear.
[1:14:53] It was your directive, it was your output. A presentation
[1:14:57] of the task force to all of Council and the community, I think, would have
[1:15:01] been a strong stewardship of the investment, but also too,
[1:15:05] really strong opportunity to highlight and recognize and appreciate
[1:15:10] the work of, of the task force. Okay, perfect. So I'm gonna
[1:15:14] go address those because I think it's really important. So the communication budget
[1:15:19] that would have fallen to staff. So I guess what sort of criticisms or what
[1:15:23] could staff have done better in terms of communicating the timelines?
[1:15:27] Question to myself. Yeah, but you said that the communication timelines weren't
[1:15:31] there. Well, the timelines were published several months ago. They've never
[1:15:35] needed to be updated. The only update was that the timeline was pushed back by
[1:15:39] a week to allow for the CPS presentation. But other than that, the timelines are
[1:15:43] as they were written. Several months ago. So I'm just wondering, what would you like
[1:15:47] to see the comms department do better to sort of make it more easily understood
[1:15:50] by everyone? Fair. I'm not criticizing staff.
[1:15:54] Um, I guess, why release a budget without a communication engagement plan?
[1:15:58] So why release a budget document but then it also
[1:16:01] says to release an engagement? So that's great. I'm going to answer that question.
[1:16:05] We'll just go one by one just to make sure we keep it sort of
[1:16:07] straight. Um, that's the way it's always been done. So the draft gets presented and
[1:16:10] then the engagement happens. So today the draft was presented and
[1:16:14] now the engagement happens. So that's the exact way it always happens.
[1:16:18] Draft comes forward, then engagement occurs. The difference is
[1:16:21] that I'm presenting the budget instead of staff, but the process is
[1:16:25] always the same: draft, engagement, council makes final decision.
[1:16:29] So again, I'm just trying to understand when you say we could have
[1:16:33] been more thorough and that the comms department— it was confusing. I don't understand
[1:16:38] that. So I'd just like to know specific part that was confusing.
[1:16:42] Um, I think the question— I think I'm confused in the question,
[1:16:45] but if I can go back, then why the task force document,
[1:16:49] which was published 2 or 3 weeks ago? Perfect. Again, Mr. Mayor, at any time
[1:16:53] you could have called a special meeting of your team, which you so proudly
[1:16:57] state in leading. Um, so again, the task force information
[1:17:01] could have been presented to council. I'm just saying, last week
[1:17:05] the the mayor's budget was published,
[1:17:08] and in that same documentation
[1:17:12] it said a special meeting would be scheduled in the future.
[1:17:16] Council had to petition to create that special meeting. So I guess I'm just saying,
[1:17:19] if I were the one packaging this all up and releasing it,
[1:17:22] I would have made sure that when the budget came forward that it
[1:17:26] also came forward with a comprehensive and communication
[1:17:30] plan. So if you— if staff needed more time to present that plan, then why
[1:17:34] didn't you wait on the release of the budget, knowing that the 30 days kicks
[1:17:38] off. Um, let's stop there. Just— I'm happy to hear more. I just want to
[1:17:41] answer that question. See, Yvonne, um, when the budget was presented, did I
[1:17:45] give direction within the minute to make sure the communication piece was put out?
[1:17:50] Engagement piece. Because what we've heard is that it wasn't done comprehensively,
[1:17:54] and I'm just wanting to know if you could perhaps counteract that narrative.
[1:17:58] Because the reality is, is we talked the weekend before— the Friday and the
[1:18:02] Thursday before I released the budget out the engagement piece, and I believe my
[1:18:06] direction was whatever council wants, this is their time to engage.
[1:18:10] So make sure that the council has the engagement that they
[1:18:13] look forward to. I know that was my direction to Kara Uwali as well as
[1:18:15] Jenny. I'm wondering, is that a fair assessment,
[1:18:19] or did I just sort of not tell staff what to do for the engagement?
[1:18:25] Thank you, Your Worship. Um, my understanding,
[1:18:29] um, would be yes, that you had spoken to communications staff and
[1:18:33] asked them to begin to release information
[1:18:38] and engagement. I believe Ms. Ewale and Ms.
[1:18:42] Nuttall are on the line. I don't want to speak on their behalf because I
[1:18:46] wasn't present for the conversation, so I don't really want to put words in their
[1:18:49] mouth. No problem, we'll go to Ms. Ewale. Thank you. As she's the director I
[1:18:52] dealt with as you were off that week. So Ms. Ewale, are you with us
[1:18:55] today? I am. I'm not sure you can hear me. Can you hear me?
[1:18:58] I can, yes, we can hear you loud and clear. So, Uh,
[1:19:01] what we're just sort of making sure we're all on the same page here with
[1:19:04] sort of the timelines. We've heard that some of the timelines were really confusing and
[1:19:08] were not delivered appropriately.
[1:19:10] We're looking at the specifics, and what I've heard recently is that the direction
[1:19:15] to staff wasn't necessarily clear or direct in terms of the engagement.
[1:19:20] I was wondering if you'd like to perhaps summarize and recant the conversation you,
[1:19:23] me, and the Communications Director had prior to
[1:19:27] the actual budget release being put Yes,
[1:19:31] for sure. Through you, Mayor, to the rest of council.
[1:19:35] So we had communicated several months
[1:19:39] ago the processes of the new budget process
[1:19:43] and the introduction of the community engagement
[1:19:48] through the task force. So Mayor Cleveland had
[1:19:53] expressed to us that he would be going door to door as well as the
[1:19:57] introduction of the community task force would be a new opportunity Committee
[1:20:00] for Ground Level Community Engagement.
[1:20:04] Following the completion of the report,
[1:20:07] Mayor Cleveland did direct staff to post all information
[1:20:12] regarding the budget on Engage Cobourg. So it would be a one-stop
[1:20:17] shop for members of the public to receive
[1:20:21] information on the mayor's proposed budget, but also the
[1:20:25] documents that informed the budget, which is in part the community-led
[1:20:29] task force as well as the staff budget. So all documents
[1:20:33] are housed on Engage Cobourg for any residents
[1:20:37] to take a look. We are also advising
[1:20:42] members of the public that they can come and request delegations
[1:20:46] if they have comments on the budget itself. And further,
[1:20:51] If council would like to set up, as we have done
[1:20:55] in the past, Mayor Cleveland and I did speak with this as well as the
[1:20:58] Manager of Communications, Jenny Nuttall, that it is within council's
[1:21:02] right if they'd like us to set up in-person sessions with
[1:21:08] members of the public about the budget
[1:21:12] itself. The only direction we would need from council is
[1:21:15] when and how this would come back back through a report
[1:21:19] at another future session. So that's why, as of right now,
[1:21:22] we've requested that people review all of the budget documentation and come
[1:21:27] with questions as delegations or speakers to, uh, special council
[1:21:31] meetings. Thank you, Miss Ueli. I do appreciate that fulsome answer.
[1:21:35] Um, and I've just finalized the last sort of point, Deputy Mayor,
[1:21:38] was that I could have come forward and presented the task force to
[1:21:42] council. I at the exact same time I did to all of the public.
[1:21:46] I believe that a public document like the task force budget needs to go to
[1:21:49] everyone on an equal level. It's been public to council and
[1:21:53] to the general public since the day— basically the Monday I received it.
[1:21:57] I received, I believe, on the Friday before I had the chance to
[1:22:01] read it. I felt that the budget task force did a very good
[1:22:05] job at breaking it down to a comprehensible level
[1:22:08] for the average citizen. I felt that they deduced major,
[1:22:12] major tax issues and
[1:22:15] theory to an approachable level,
[1:22:19] and I didn't think a detailed presentation was needed. I felt that all 42 present—
[1:22:22] all 42 recommendations were pretty self-explanatory, and a lot
[1:22:27] of them needed more development from a municipal standpoint anyways. These were sort of good
[1:22:30] ideas that needed to be then developed, which I would expect that they would— Council's
[1:22:34] decision. So just to sort of address some of the concerns and/or suggestions
[1:22:38] that it was a mismatch. I, I just— I'm going
[1:22:41] to oppose that. This has been very well communicated
[1:22:45] by staff, by the staff team. We've had multiple training sessions
[1:22:48] on this. We've publicly had this. There's been special meetings
[1:22:52] called about this. So I just want to push back, uh, in the sort
[1:22:56] of implication and suggestion that this is chaotic in any
[1:22:59] shape, way, or form, even when we needed to move the budget process back
[1:23:03] by a week, uh, just to make sure that we could hear from the Cobourg
[1:23:07] Police Service and have that thorough presentation, uh,
[1:23:10] that was easily achieved and everything moved back a week. So I would suggest that
[1:23:13] this is like every other budget process. Yes, the only difference is it's titled as
[1:23:17] the mayor's draft budget, but again, this wasn't just a symbolic move.
[1:23:20] This is the reality, is that it— if council wants to change
[1:23:24] everything, if council wants to readjust, if they want to start from the drawing board,
[1:23:28] that's council's prerogative, and I, I won't be getting in the that.
[1:23:33] By all means, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Cleveland. Just, uh, my,
[1:23:37] my wrap-up on this, because, uh, first of all, no criticism on staff.
[1:23:41] I just want to make that very, very clear. I did not use the
[1:23:44] word chaotic. I said confusing. And really what, uh,
[1:23:48] stemmed all of this is, first of all, in, in all this,
[1:23:51] it was a response to council creating an island of
[1:23:55] isolation. Um, I think this whole process
[1:23:59] has created that. Um, but really where my comment about the staff engagement or clarification
[1:24:03] came around, um, was on Engage Cobourg
[1:24:07] under what happens next. The first bullet point clearly
[1:24:11] stated— so when the budget was first published, the first
[1:24:14] 2 bullet points said, as per the mayor's directive,
[1:24:18] he has directed staff to engage the community. Then there was a second bullet
[1:24:22] point that a future special meeting of council would be called. Called. Council called
[1:24:28] this meeting. That's been updated to state December 15th.
[1:24:31] All the documents are there. That's really great. But really, Mr. Mayor, what I'm
[1:24:35] getting at is the foundation of what initiated
[1:24:39] my comments was asking for clarity around that first bullet
[1:24:42] point. As per the mayor's directive, he has directed staff to
[1:24:46] engage the community other than your door knocking, where we don't
[1:24:50] have any summaries of those findings. I mean, we all do our own
[1:24:54] door knocking and engagement in town calls and indirect informal conversations
[1:24:58] as members at large. Um, when I read this
[1:25:02] and when I've had members of the public ask me, how have you directed staff
[1:25:06] to engage the community? When I go to engage Coburg, I have no opportunity to
[1:25:11] engage. This is— anyways, I'm not going to hash
[1:25:15] this out anymore. I just wanted to come full circle with, um, to explain what
[1:25:19] initiated that original, um, series of
[1:25:23] my comments. Thank you. Noted. Thank you so much. Are there any questions moving forward
[1:25:26] of that? Seeing none, I think we should move on to our next speaker.
[1:25:30] Thank you for being so patient. Mr. Bisson, would you care to join us up
[1:25:33] front for your 10 minutes? We've done this before, so you know I'll put the
[1:25:37] two fingers up when we're close to 2 minutes. Mr. Bisson, we look forward to
[1:25:40] hearing your, uh, presentation.
[1:25:47] Yes, there we go. Okay, well, good morning
[1:25:51] or afternoon everyone. Uh, this was, uh, a bit of a surprise
[1:25:56] I showed up here this morning. I wasn't intending to, so I don't have prepared
[1:25:59] statements or anything like that, but I've been, um, extremely busy doing
[1:26:03] my own thing and watching you guys from afar, and I can honestly tell you
[1:26:07] that 10 months from an election, uh, seems to be the gloves are off
[1:26:11] and everybody's starting to position themselves. And we just had a a perfect example,
[1:26:14] ladies and gentlemen of the public, as to what happens in an election year
[1:26:19] when politicians start to jockey for positions on a move-forward basis.
[1:26:24] This process is a new process for COBRA. We've never had a
[1:26:28] mayor's budget before, and under strong mayor powers, it is his prerogative
[1:26:31] to be able to do that, and which he has done, and now we stand
[1:26:35] all here. One of the things that I've noted is under strong mayor
[1:26:39] powers, I don't remember seeing that the mayor has the power to
[1:26:43] be able to manipulate or dictate terms and conditions of a police
[1:26:47] services budget. I didn't see that. I may have missed it, but as
[1:26:50] far as I'm concerned, that is a whole other process.
[1:26:55] To my knowledge, there's a reason why the Police Services Board exists
[1:26:59] and not police services under council, and that's to keep the two separate.
[1:27:04] And under my knowledge, and I looked looked up, and I've asked people,
[1:27:08] but there's nothing in the legislation I can see that gives the mayor the authority
[1:27:12] to be able to dictate terms and conditions on the police services
[1:27:16] budget. Having said that, obviously somebody
[1:27:20] had to, to address the concerns of a 20% increase
[1:27:25] in that budget, and obviously that is not palpable through the
[1:27:29] population, including myself, which has— I pay taxes in this town,
[1:27:32] and back Dave's point, I don't think there's an appetite, let alone
[1:27:36] a financial condition, in which anybody's going to take a 20% hit
[1:27:39] on any big blind item like the Police Services budget. Um,
[1:27:43] one of the things that I would encourage this council, including the mayor, is to
[1:27:48] work collaboratively. I'm not seeing a whole lot of love in here. You guys are
[1:27:51] going at each other and positioning and jockeying for the next election, which is fair.
[1:27:56] Having said that, there's an entire population of 20,000 people that depend
[1:28:00] on you working together and getting getting it done, and that's not what I'm seeing
[1:28:03] here. So as far as I'm concerned, yes, I do
[1:28:07] appreciate a small increase in the levy. We've got enormous problems
[1:28:10] in regards to these reserves issues. There are big decisions that need to be made,
[1:28:15] and I'm not seeing a whole lot of collaboration, collaboration in
[1:28:18] addressing the concerns of the public, which is what you are here to serve.
[1:28:23] I have tremendous respect for each and every one of these council members, each and
[1:28:27] every one of you put your lives personally,
[1:28:29] professionally, financially aside to run for public office,
[1:28:33] and you earned my respect right off the bat.
[1:28:36] However, the terms and conditions of your mandate
[1:28:40] is to serve us, the public, not your individual interests, not your
[1:28:44] political aspirations, not your egos. And I
[1:28:48] would ask each and every one of you in this election year,
[1:28:51] especially during this time, which is an important budget because it
[1:28:55] will lay the foundation for the next council's decisions to try to get along
[1:28:59] and do the right thing for the people of Coburg. We have
[1:29:03] been through hell and back since this council formed.
[1:29:07] Crime, homelessness, drugs, the county forcing itself
[1:29:12] upon— like, guys, come on. Okay, put your differences
[1:29:16] aside for the next 30 days and do what's right for
[1:29:19] the people of That's all I have to say.
[1:29:23] Thank you, Mr. Bisson. Uh, do we have any questions at this time?
[1:29:27] I have one, sir. I appreciate it. I want to be very clear, you're correct,
[1:29:30] I don't have the ability to authorize reserves. Only this council
[1:29:35] does, Mr. Bisson, which is why this is— so, Mr.
[1:29:38] Bisson, again, we're, we're not, we're not going back in the back. And again,
[1:29:42] the entirety of the police board's budget has been approved as submitted.
[1:29:47] That's the difference, Mr. Buisson. No, no, I want to be very clear.
[1:29:51] I've attempted to meet with the Police Board. I was never invited
[1:29:55] to a Police Board meeting. I was never invited to come,
[1:29:58] and it was only after I watched a Police Board meeting online did I know
[1:30:02] that they even wanted to present to council. So then I invited them
[1:30:06] to present to council, Mr. Buisson. After they presented to council, I then
[1:30:10] sent emails looking to meet with the chief with the chair and
[1:30:14] with Roger to meet with myself and Mr. Giddings. That was also denied,
[1:30:18] sir. I've tried to act collaboratively. I would
[1:30:22] suggest, sir, when you talk about a lack of collaboration, how is
[1:30:26] it that the Police Board Service has already filled out an appointment
[1:30:29] of a conciliation officer before the budget was even presented,
[1:30:33] sir? How is it that I'm sitting here in— hold on— in
[1:30:37] receipt of multiple legal opinions that are suggesting the
[1:30:41] Police Board have— are intentionally looking to create a fight.
[1:30:45] Specifically, why is it that we are being challenged
[1:30:50] as the reason that we're not getting along, sir? And why are the other sides
[1:30:53] not held accountable? And lastly, um, I agree
[1:30:57] it is the Police Board that should be allocating reserves, and they have. In the
[1:31:01] last 4 years, this Police Board has used $9.87 million
[1:31:06] out of the corporate business service unit to fund
[1:31:10] operations. And each and every year, Mr. Bisson— hold on,
[1:31:13] I'm about to answer a question— each and every year,
[1:31:16] sir, I've sat here and asked, why is the Police Board
[1:31:21] not asking for more money, sir? So to your point,
[1:31:25] what more in collaboration would you like to see, sir?
[1:31:31] You are the mayor of Cobourg. It is your responsibility to lead this
[1:31:35] council. From the time that Strong Mayor Powers
[1:31:39] came on board, it has been contentious. No one's
[1:31:43] gonna lie about that. Now, having said that, the police services
[1:31:47] is the biggest line item on the budget by far,
[1:31:50] and I can understand and appreciate you're trying to contain costs.
[1:31:54] I get that. Having said that though, it is not through butting
[1:31:58] heads with them and going to court, and it's not by, you know,
[1:32:02] having dismissals of chief officers
[1:32:05] to be able to come to a conclusion on this. There is
[1:32:09] a Police Services Board. Two of your councillors sit on that Police Services Board.
[1:32:13] I find it hard to believe, Mr. Mayor, that you couldn't sit down with them
[1:32:17] over a coffee and start to hack some of these issues out rather than having
[1:32:20] it all go through all these technicalities. Well, let's just call it what it is.
[1:32:24] The Deputy Mayor refuses to meet with me one-on-one, and I
[1:32:28] can provide the email that shows that neither the Chief Roger nor the chair wanted
[1:32:31] to meet with me, sir. So again, I don't get to decide whether they come
[1:32:34] to use my open-door policy, Mr. Bisson. I can only create the open door for
[1:32:38] them to walk through. And again, I'm not here to— you know, you, you,
[1:32:41] you guys are all adults, right? You guys know what the gig
[1:32:45] is. You're supposed to help the population get through these things, and I'm not going
[1:32:48] to start— you know, an election's coming in 10 months. The people
[1:32:52] will decide Agreed. No question about that. And I will be active in that election.
[1:32:55] Trust me. Now, having said that, you are all adults.
[1:32:59] We're talking about somewhere in the order of $30 million that
[1:33:03] you're managing on behalf of the public. I expect that you guys get along a
[1:33:07] little bit and start acting a little bit more professional than pointing fingers at each
[1:33:09] other like a schoolyard. Mr. Bisson, I appreciate the enthusiasm
[1:33:14] you bring, but let's not start— Oh yeah, I'm not happy about it. I'll be
[1:33:17] honest. Mr. Bisson, a little bit of decorum. We're having a conversation
[1:33:21] and I can see how passionate and how emotional you're getting, but we're talking
[1:33:25] about sort of six and one half
[1:33:28] dozen the other. The police budget was approved in its entirety, all 20.5%.
[1:33:32] Every ask that was asked by the Police Board has been met, sir. It's not
[1:33:36] the end result, it's how we got here. There could have been a lot less
[1:33:40] contention and buttheading. And again, Mr. Bisson, what I would like to ask
[1:33:43] then as a final questions. You've been very poignant and paying
[1:33:48] attention to the police board meetings since, well, the last 4 years,
[1:33:51] to be honest. Can you point to a single suggestion that was
[1:33:55] made by the chief that was not allowed on the budget line item
[1:33:58] in 4 years by the police board? Because I've been unable to find one.
[1:34:02] So I guess my question is, is it really the police board's budget, or as
[1:34:05] we've heard in the most recent weekend media, it's just the chief's
[1:34:09] budget? Okay, so having said, I'm not going to go down that road. As far
[1:34:13] as I'm concerned, I haven't looked at a police service's budget in 2 years.
[1:34:16] So having said that, all I'm saying is this: the Coburg
[1:34:20] taxpayer has had enough of watching this headbutting
[1:34:24] and finger-pointing and political posturing at our
[1:34:28] expense. We want results. And as far as I'm concerned,
[1:34:32] given the condition of our streets over the last 2 and a half Given the
[1:34:36] budget items, given all of the cost increases, given the conflict
[1:34:40] with the county, on and on it goes. This next election
[1:34:44] is gonna be real important to be able to sort this out. This is Cobourg.
[1:34:47] This isn't downtown Toronto. It's not Ottawa.
[1:34:50] It's a small town on the lakeshore of Lake Ontario. Why is all
[1:34:55] of this happening under this council? This is very,
[1:34:57] very, uh, counterproductive. Have to
[1:35:01] our town. Have you been reading much news, Mr. Bissell? I read news
[1:35:05] all the time. So then you're being very well aware that this is not unique
[1:35:09] to Coburg? No, that there are almost— sorry, Mr. Bissell, again,
[1:35:12] let's have a little— I have a point of order, sir.
[1:35:16] Point of order noted. The point of order, Mr. Bissell,
[1:35:19] how you're
[1:35:24] conducting yourself inappropriately. It is No,
[1:35:28] I'm asking questions. I'm asking them calmly.
[1:35:33] Mr. Bisson, you keep interrupting while I'm speaking,
[1:35:36] yet I continue to give you the ability to finish your thoughts
[1:35:40] before I ask another question. See, you're doing it just now, sir. Point of order
[1:35:44] raised by the Deputy Mayor. By all means, a point of order.
[1:35:47] With all due respect to the speaker, I appreciate your insight
[1:35:51] and, and your comments, and my point of order right now is I feel that
[1:35:55] procedurally we are getting into a debate between a member of council and
[1:35:58] a citizen. I feel that we need to treat— you're
[1:36:02] asking for respect, so I'd like to ask that we respect the time of the
[1:36:05] speaker and the points made. And my point of order is,
[1:36:09] I believe that if we can move on in the conversation,
[1:36:12] unless there's other follow-up questions of clarity to the speaker. So my
[1:36:16] point of order is that we get back to following our procedural bylaw when
[1:36:20] it comes to— from the presentation.
[1:36:24] And instead of an interrogation from a member of council to the—
[1:36:27] um, what interrogation, Councilor, uh, Deputy Mayor? Let's just
[1:36:30] be very clear with the insinuations. There was no interrogation, it was asking questions.
[1:36:34] So would you like to recant the interrogation comment, or are you accusing me of
[1:36:38] interrogating a member of the public? I'm not going any further because
[1:36:42] I don't want to contribute to this ongoing tension. I've asked for a point of
[1:36:45] order to return to this procedural bylaw, please. And I'm willing to rule on that
[1:36:48] point of order. I'm asking if you're sticking by the statement of accusing me of
[1:36:51] interrogation. It was no— it was no
[1:36:55] accusation, it was a statement. I'm calling for a point of order.
[1:36:59] And again, the point of order is what, Deputy Mayor?
[1:37:01] The point of order is I believe as a member of council we have
[1:37:05] distracted— we have, um,
[1:37:08] drifted from our procedural bylaw. I appreciate
[1:37:12] the speaker's time, and I feel that we need to move on in our budget
[1:37:15] process. Process. Okay, so I'm just looking at a point of order.
[1:37:18] So, um, we're going to go through this because we're going to stick to the
[1:37:22] rules, as you'd like to, Deputy Mayor. Um, so a point of order— a motion
[1:37:26] on a matter of privilege shall receive a disposition. So the chair shall preserve
[1:37:30] order and decide points of order and points of privilege. When a member rises
[1:37:33] to a point of order, he or she shall ask the leave of the chair
[1:37:36] to raise a point of order, and after the leave is granted, the member shall
[1:37:39] state the point of order and sit down and remain seated until the chair has
[1:37:42] decided and stated the point of order. I'm trying to
[1:37:46] do that with you, Deputy Mayor, and I'm asking questions before I can rule on
[1:37:49] the point of order. So what I'm trying to understand is, when you accuse the
[1:37:53] chair of interrogation, is that your point of order?
[1:37:57] Are you accusing me of interrogating our speaker,
[1:38:00] and is that your point of order? Or what exactly is the point of
[1:38:04] order with which you are raising? I'm not trying to cause consternation. I'm trying
[1:38:07] to understand your point of order. So for the third
[1:38:11] time, I'm going to reiterate my point of order is I feel that we have
[1:38:14] drifted from our procedural bylaw and a respectful exchange
[1:38:17] with our speaker. And then I'm
[1:38:21] going to ask a further clarification. At what point are
[1:38:25] we allowed to ask questions, and at what point do you determine as inappropriate
[1:38:30] asking questions? I'm not
[1:38:34] going to answer that because I feel that I'm being trapped into again, and,
[1:38:36] and clearly I'm always at risk of using the wrong word So
[1:38:41] I'm just going to stick to, again, for the 4th time, I'm going to repeat
[1:38:44] what my point of order is. I feel that we have distracted
[1:38:48] ourselves from the exchange of questions
[1:38:53] to the speaker instead of
[1:38:56] just asking, you know, have you assessed the news, etc.,
[1:38:59] etc. I feel that it's gotten off from what the speaker presented. And Mr.
[1:39:03] Mayor, that is the 4th time in which I'm going to
[1:39:06] express my point of order, and you as the chair, sir, you can rule
[1:39:09] on it or not. I'm still unclear as to the point of order, so I'm
[1:39:13] going to go to the clerk, Mr. Lamer. Mr. Lamer, could you maybe walk me
[1:39:16] through what I'm to do here? Because I'm not sure what the point of order
[1:39:18] is on, and I've read the definition, but I still— I'm trying
[1:39:22] to get clarification and I don't understand.
[1:39:29] Ah, that's got you, F. I understand. So the ruling
[1:39:33] on F, Mr. Lamer, is the question Deputy Mayor, are you asking? So it says
[1:39:36] members shall be permitted to ask questions. Questions to obtain additional information
[1:39:40] but shall not make statements or enter into debate. You're accusing me of entering into
[1:39:44] debate, is that correct? Thank you for reading that out. And then
[1:39:47] yes, on the grounds of finding clarity within the point of order, I believe that
[1:39:51] this exchange has entered into the arena of debate. I would agree
[1:39:55] with you, and so I will rule you are correct in your point of order,
[1:39:58] and I appreciate the time to get that right. As I said, I'm just trying
[1:40:01] to be very clear here, Deputy Mayor. It's not about tricking or cornering It's a
[1:40:03] simple question I'm trying to understand to make sure when I do make a
[1:40:07] ruling, I'm doing so appropriately. Noting that, I will end my questions.
[1:40:10] Thank you, Mr. Bisson, for being here today. Are there any other questions? Mr.
[1:40:13] Bisson, thank you very much, sir. Have a great day.
[1:40:19] At this time, do we have any other speakers? Mr. Larimer? Okay, so we finished
[1:40:23] the delegation of speakers. We're 2 hours in. I'm going
[1:40:27] to take, I would say, a 10— let's make it 15 minutes so Mr.
[1:40:30] Mr. Buro has a chance for 2. By all means,
[1:40:34] Mr. Darling, do you have something to say too? Well, I'm just
[1:40:37] wondering if we were going to take a lunch break sometime this day.
[1:40:41] I'm fine to hammer through, but it's up to this council. As I said,
[1:40:43] it's your meeting, and I'm happy to sort of follow the will of council on
[1:40:46] this one. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to
[1:40:50] take— let's meet till 12:30 then. Is that enough of a break? That's 20 minutes.
[1:40:54] If anyone wants to grab a snack or have a break outside, that's great.
[1:40:58] We'll reconvene at 12:30, and we can make decisions about lunch at that point.
[1:41:03] Yeah, and we can think about that at lunch if staff want to talk to,
[1:41:05] uh, some of the council. Thank you very much. So to the public and to
[1:41:08] our joiners, we will reconvene in 20 minutes. Thank you so much.
[2:06:16] And we are live. Thank you very much. Uh, just to note, Ms.
[2:06:19] Vaughn is with us, just finishing up on the coffee. She was last in line,
[2:06:23] not a big deal. Um, but at this time, as we come to order,
[2:06:28] um, I believe we're done speaking. We're done sort of general level
[2:06:31] questions. I know Councilor Mouton, you warned us about multiple pages.
[2:06:35] So, uh, I'm— by all means, Councilor Veer, you got your hand up. I'm happy
[2:06:39] to listen. Sorry, um, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I do, and I do
[2:06:43] appreciate Councilor Mouton's questions. I was just wondering if,
[2:06:46] if the will of council, um, if we could actually
[2:06:50] do the police budget now, and just
[2:06:55] because we have so many in the audience, if that would be okay.
[2:06:59] By all means, I have no problem with that whatsoever. If this will of council,
[2:07:02] then we bring that one forward. Um, so yeah, what would
[2:07:05] you like to discuss, uh, Councilor Buro? Because as is, the police budget, uh,
[2:07:09] is exactly as presented from the CPS. So the floor is yours.
[2:07:14] Um, yes, I would like to, um,
[2:07:18] sorry, thank you.
[2:07:21] Um, it's on the screen that
[2:07:29] the mayor's, um, Proposed Budget 2026 Operating and Capital,
[2:07:34] uh, be amended follows: that council amend the municipal operating
[2:07:38] and capital budget to include the Police Service Board
[2:07:41] 2026 operating and capital request that was approved by
[2:07:45] the board and submitted to the municipality. Perfect. So before—
[2:07:50] I just want to clarify, so you're asking to go back to the way it
[2:07:52] was without the $1 million to offset the tax levy, is that correct?
[2:07:56] Okay, is there a seconder of this movement— motion at this time?
[2:07:59] Seconded by the Deputy Mayor. It's on the floor for discussion.
[2:08:03] Awesome. Um, if I might start, um,
[2:08:08] with the updated,
[2:08:11] um, mayor's budget, I know that that
[2:08:14] would change a lot of numbers, um, for next
[2:08:19] year. And if it would be okay, also at the will of council,
[2:08:22] that the chief would be able to come up and speak speak on the numbers.
[2:08:27] Um, I, I would be wondering, at this time the council is discussing
[2:08:31] the budget and you're asking for the impact to the next term
[2:08:35] of the police budget, is that correct? Correct. It would be, um,
[2:08:39] it's, it's kind of imperative that we do get the full outline
[2:08:44] of what will happen next year if we approve the budget as
[2:08:47] it is. So is this going to be a presentation from the accountant
[2:08:51] at the CPS Board, or is this going to be from the Cobourg Police Chief
[2:08:54] in conjunction with the Or both would be great.
[2:08:57] Okay. And just to be clear, this is a council decision. Does the council
[2:09:02] wish to— because it wouldn't be technically part and parcel of this, so it'd have
[2:09:05] to be an exemption to the rules. By all means, Councilor Mouton.
[2:09:09] Yes, I think it would be helpful, so I would support the request from
[2:09:14] the council. Okay, sounds good. Anyone else? By all means, Councilor Barber.
[2:09:19] I have a question for the person who lives— for
[2:09:23] Councilor Buro. What effect will that have
[2:09:28] have then on the 2.7% that we have? What, what effect will that have,
[2:09:30] your, your motion? Thank you. It would bring
[2:09:34] it back up to the 20.5%, which I do believe it work out to 4.98%
[2:09:40] on the tax levy total.
[2:09:43] That would be 4.9% additional, right? Additional.
[2:09:47] That would be correct, sir. Yes, sir.
[2:09:53] And just so council knows, by all means. So I just— I believe
[2:09:57] this would be an exemption to the rules. So we have to do a vote
[2:09:59] to— I'm just wondering, Mr. Lamer, treat it
[2:10:03] as a speaker before the motion— actually, motion on the floor. So we do have
[2:10:07] to do it. So we do a speaker. So that's per— yeah, we do have
[2:10:09] to suspend because the motion's on the floor. So we just have to suspend the
[2:10:11] rules. That's what I thought. So, in order to allow speaker while motion's
[2:10:15] on the floor, we just have to do a suspension of the rules. The motion
[2:10:18] is to suspend the rules to allow the Chief to speak. We need a two-thirds
[2:10:21] majority. I'm going to go to a vote. All in favor?
[2:10:26] So moved. Exemption of the rules. So we've got,
[2:10:29] I believe, 5 or 10 minutes just to confirm. 10 minutes. That's what
[2:10:33] I thought. Okay. Yeah.
[2:10:46] Yeah. Oh, yeah, with the 2.7.
[2:10:49] No. So what would happen is, if we're going to change right now,
[2:10:53] the component of the police is, I think, 1.36. Mr. Giddings can complete
[2:10:57] that. But if we added that, it would drive the levy to about 6 to
[2:11:00] 7%, somewhere in that zone point.
[2:11:07] Is the 1 million? Yes, correct. So if we're going to take that out,
[2:11:10] then you're going to see the full impact of that, which is an additional 4.27%.
[2:11:14] Instead of the 1.37— again, I'd have to get Mr. Gittings. Hold on,
[2:11:18] Mr. Gittings, before this, I just need a quick question. Um, in the 2.7%
[2:11:23] increase, what is the percentage of the 2.7,
[2:11:26] Mr. Gittings, that is made up by the police budget?
[2:11:30] So the question is, is we have a total tax levy of 2.7%.
[2:11:33] I'm trying to understand, of the 2.7,
[2:11:36] what of that is made up by the police budget as per the mayor directive?
[2:11:43] Thank you. Yes, through you. Sorry, been a long week.
[2:11:47] So I think the Town of Cobourg portion,
[2:11:51] or that increase, I guess, is 1.2%.
[2:11:54] So that's— so 1.5%
[2:11:58] is currently on— is the police budget increase already? Yes. And sorry,
[2:12:01] and just to clarify, so by going back to the 20.5%,
[2:12:06] that would result in a tax a total
[2:12:10] tax levy increase of 6.08%. Thank you very much. I appreciate
[2:12:14] that. So the total tax levy going back to the original would be 6.08.
[2:12:18] So 6%, then from the 2.7 up to that to follow
[2:12:22] this motion. Thank you. And just so council knows, we will be doing mostly recorded
[2:12:26] votes today. So the now microphone is yours, sir. So I'm assuming,
[2:12:29] are you doing a 5-minute presentation that we get to hear from the chief for
[2:12:33] 5, or how are we breaking this up? I assume that I
[2:12:36] was going to be responding to questions. Oh, oh, okay, by all
[2:12:40] means. Um, questions away.
[2:12:45] So, Mr. Bureau, did you want some questions? By all means, have at her.
[2:12:49] All right, thank you. Um, so for the— if we stuck
[2:12:53] with the mayor's budget, what would the percentage be next
[2:12:57] year? It will be back to double digits, well over 21%,
[2:13:02] because we will be be— sorry, true to me, to the member,
[2:13:05] um, we will be now putting the $1.3
[2:13:09] million now back on the levy, which we don't have now for 2026.
[2:13:14] Plus we have a recently ratified collective agreement.
[2:13:17] We'll have at that 4%, and recognizing that wages is just about
[2:13:22] 90% of that 4%, which we can't get away from, that will
[2:13:26] come down to about 3.5%. Um, and then the challenge
[2:13:30] we'll have is that currently, as it stands, we to fund all
[2:13:34] our capital dollars from the net business revenues.
[2:13:38] If those reserves are eliminated, which the plan is to be,
[2:13:42] it means that we'll have to put the capital expenses on
[2:13:45] levy as well, which will be an additional 4%. So when we
[2:13:50] look at 13% plus 4% plus 4%, it's well over 20% in 2027.
[2:13:56] Well, if I could just clarify, so This year, the Cobourg Police
[2:14:00] is getting a 20.5% budget
[2:14:04] increase, and you're suggesting that because $1 million is being
[2:14:08] moved out of reserves, we're also going to see an additional double-digit
[2:14:12] 20% increase?
[2:14:16] Oh, I apologize. The question was if we did not take the
[2:14:20] $1.3 from reserves, what will happen in 2027? If we
[2:14:25] don't take the 1.3 from— so again, I'm just trying to understand. So you're suggesting
[2:14:30] if we don't take the reserves, then there's the increase. But if we do take
[2:14:34] the reserves, again, I think we got this backwards.
[2:14:37] I'm just gonna give Mr. Sorry, I always get your last
[2:14:42] name. Thank you, Mr. Ramkinson. I just want to give you a chance to make
[2:14:45] sure we're being very clear. So right now, Councillor Bureau is
[2:14:49] asking, asking if the mayor's budget is allowed
[2:14:53] and $1 million comes out of reserves on top of the $2.8 million that
[2:14:57] the board already approved, you're suggesting that the tax levy increase next
[2:15:01] year will be in the double digits. Is that— sorry, no. So let's just
[2:15:05] clarify. Thank you. As of right now, the mayor's
[2:15:08] budget is taking— is depleting all
[2:15:11] the reserves except the building reserves. It's about $1.1
[2:15:16] million. The cost of the police budget
[2:15:19] does not change in 2027. How it's funded is going to be the issue.
[2:15:23] We will not have those reserves again in 2027 to
[2:15:27] fund the offset of the cost of the police budget, which is just
[2:15:31] about $14 million minus 4% contractual increases, which we'll
[2:15:35] have in 2027. Assuming the $2.8 million goes,
[2:15:39] we will still have a cost problem of $14 million.
[2:15:43] And I'm suggest— and I'm saying that if we don't
[2:15:48] take the— sorry, if you take the $1.4,
[2:15:52] that's just how it's funded. If we were to eliminate that,
[2:15:56] then that 1.3— but that $1.1 million still has to come from
[2:16:00] somewhere in 2027. We will not have that problem in 2026,
[2:16:05] but the funding has to come from somewhere in 2027.
[2:16:09] So 2027 will be status quo, but then come 2027,
[2:16:12] we come back to the same problem. And is there not a chance that
[2:16:17] a new council, a new police board, and a new chief are going to find
[2:16:20] savings within the current operating model? I ask this specifically
[2:16:24] because the Cobourg Police Board have twice now had
[2:16:28] the budget in front of them and have been unable to even find a 0.25%
[2:16:32] savings. And I'm wondering, is a change in the board and a change in
[2:16:36] the police and a change in council So maybe going to be able to find
[2:16:39] some savings where this board hasn't been able to?
[2:16:43] Well, so we've gone through those numbers
[2:16:47] in quite detail. I've spent a considerable amount of time fine-tuning
[2:16:51] all the numbers to make sure that it aligns with what
[2:16:55] the projections were. From my
[2:17:00] point of view, from a numbers person point of view, I don't— I can't see
[2:17:03] that we will be saving any dollars in 2027. That said, the direction of the
[2:17:07] new chief and the new board at that time may make different decisions that I
[2:17:11] would not be aware of. But as of right now, for the 2026 budget that
[2:17:14] has been presented, I can see with a level of
[2:17:18] confidence that there is no opportunities to cut any.
[2:17:23] That's great. There's no question at this point. I really appreciate that. And I guess,
[2:17:26] uh, Roger— sorry, sir, I just want to be very clear.
[2:17:30] Um, you said you've gone through it in quite detail, the board, and, and the—
[2:17:34] so could you please point to a single item that was presented in the last
[2:17:37] 4 years by you and chief that has been rejected by the board?
[2:17:42] A single, a single, a single line in 4 years, please. I wouldn't,
[2:17:46] I wouldn't say rejected, but there has been decisions made, for example, to stagger staffing.
[2:17:51] So in the 2025 budget, we, the board did approve for,
[2:17:55] uh, 6 new members to meet adequacy
[2:17:59] standards. Those 6 officers were not hired in January as the
[2:18:02] chief and the staff presented. 3 was hired in, uh, June,
[2:18:06] July, and of course we have 3 other colleges right now who start in September.
[2:18:09] So that's, uh, that was a compromise,
[2:18:12] but at the end it did meet. We did, we did gather staff,
[2:18:15] and yet we, we met for adequacy. I guess I'm confused,
[2:18:18] and perhaps you can, uh, educate me, because I've heard
[2:18:23] the chief both publicly and in this room state that that was a mistake
[2:18:27] by the board to do that. And so what I'm trying to understand is,
[2:18:30] if the chief is saying that it's a mistake for the board to have done
[2:18:33] that, and I'm asking for a single example of when the board has made a
[2:18:37] decision to counteract the chief and your budgets.
[2:18:41] It seems that the only decision council or the board made specifically,
[2:18:46] um, was then sort of called out by the chief as that
[2:18:50] decision being made. So again, is there another example? And for you, again,
[2:18:53] we're talking about 4 years and $9.87 million have been sort
[2:18:57] of taken out of the business service units over the last 4 years and used
[2:19:01] for operations. So again, I'm just trying to understand why the
[2:19:05] $1.1 million going is what we're focusing on when the board
[2:19:09] have moved $9.87 million over 4 years with not a single
[2:19:12] pushback. And I'm just trying to understand why are we now worried about a single
[2:19:16] million when close to 10 has already shifted? Um,
[2:19:19] also, I think the— sorry to interrupt— I think the chief would like to speak
[2:19:24] as well on this. We're gonna have Roger and then
[2:19:27] we'll move over to the chief. Not a them will. So again,
[2:19:30] I just— again, I'm looking for a single line item in 4 years
[2:19:34] that the board pushed back on and didn't approve.
[2:19:44] Sure. Are we not answering that question? Yes, Councilor Darrow.
[2:19:48] Um, also, one of the— we have pushed back. We've pushed back on
[2:19:52] a lot of different things of, um, hiring more officers
[2:19:56] than 6 because um, 6 just kept us,
[2:20:00] um, adequate and effective policing. It wasn't like we— there's
[2:20:04] extra, extra officers that we have. Um, we had to deal
[2:20:08] with WSIB as well. Um,
[2:20:11] and the other issue is the MOU that we signed
[2:20:16] between council and the police board. There's— we have— we—
[2:20:21] council agreed there was out of the that, uh,
[2:20:24] 2.8, we started to pay back 3% every
[2:20:28] year. This is where it comes up now, and I,
[2:20:31] I get it, but we have pushed back and worked hard and
[2:20:35] diligently over that budget. But there is nothing to cut in this budget
[2:20:39] other than using the reserve.
[2:20:43] So I guess I'll direct my question from yourself, sir, to the chair of the
[2:20:46] police board, also a councillor. Um, can you point to a single
[2:20:52] single item in 4 years of budget negotiation where publicly the board did not
[2:20:55] allow what the chief was asking for to be passed? Because from my
[2:20:59] recollection, and I've reviewed them this weekend, there isn't
[2:21:03] one. And further, Councillor Buro, I'd be interested to understand why the past
[2:21:07] 3 budget meetings you've moved that the police budget be adopted
[2:21:12] with zero debate by this council. So,
[2:21:16] I don't think that is, that is true. Um, not only
[2:21:20] have, have we asked repeatedly to present
[2:21:24] to the, to this council, is for the police, um,
[2:21:28] we practically had to, to beg in order to even come and present to
[2:21:32] this council. Um, there has been, off the top of my head, there has
[2:21:36] been, um, last year was
[2:21:39] supposed to be a 14.5% But like this year,
[2:21:43] and which I totally get, to bring that to council, which I said
[2:21:48] this in the board meeting, I can't bring this to council, is too high,
[2:21:52] not realizing the effect that it would have kicking it down the
[2:21:56] road. And what we have been doing is with the capital projects,
[2:22:00] not charging the taxpayer or putting
[2:22:04] it on the tax levy for since 2012. There's been many different
[2:22:09] many different ways that we've tried to save the taxpayers money and
[2:22:13] use the business center revenue to do that.
[2:22:17] This is what happens when we kick it down the can, and we've done
[2:22:22] this. We've done this in council. We've done just like the consultant that came in
[2:22:26] and said, with politicians coming in having low, low tax rates,
[2:22:30] that it actually hurts the infrastructure. It hurts our
[2:22:35] economy because we're not actually doing what we should be doing. Doing and setting
[2:22:39] it properly. And this, this year is where
[2:22:43] we do that. This is the time where we take all the mistakes that
[2:22:47] have been made and we fix that. And that's what this budget is.
[2:22:50] There's no frills, there's no anything else. We need to meet
[2:22:54] adequate and effective policing, and we have to,
[2:22:59] um, serve and protect the public. And that's what— and
[2:23:03] that's what this budget is doing. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding,
[2:23:06] Councilor Beer. I appreciate the opportunity, and I I appreciate your point. So your belief
[2:23:10] is that the average taxpayer in Cobourg should pay
[2:23:14] up to 6.7% on their levy because of
[2:23:19] the mistakes the board has made in the past, and that they
[2:23:22] think this year that everyone should just pony up. Oh,
[2:23:26] sorry. Sorry, is that fair that your suggestion is that this is
[2:23:30] the year that, you know, as I said,
[2:23:33] 9.87 million, the board has used from
[2:23:36] the business service unit for the last 4 years, uh,
[2:23:40] for a variety of purposes. I'm looking at it right now and they seem very
[2:23:43] reasonable. And your suggestion is that this year, when,
[2:23:47] uh, this council is proposing to move an additional million,
[2:23:51] that that's the problem, and that we're not going to look at the $9.87 million
[2:23:55] that have come out in the last 4 years? Yes, the— and it's— I
[2:23:59] wouldn't say it was a mistake every year, it was pushing it down
[2:24:04] the line line, uh, trying to save the taxpayers money. And that's,
[2:24:07] and that's exactly the same with this budget. Fair enough.
[2:24:11] So if I just, yeah, I just want to go point by point, if that's
[2:24:14] okay. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just trying to understand, because, uh,
[2:24:17] it's been 3 years where I've been pushing for the Cobourg Police
[2:24:20] to raise their asks every year. So again, I'm trying to understand
[2:24:24] now, Mr. Buro, again, sometimes I'm not leading enough,
[2:24:28] and then other times when I do lead, I'm ignored. So I'm just trying to
[2:24:31] understand here, after 3 years of asking every single time.
[2:24:35] Are you sure this is enough? Police forces across the province need more money.
[2:24:38] Are you sure this is enough? And every year I'm told that this is enough,
[2:24:41] this is enough. Now what I'm hearing is that for 3 years I, I was
[2:24:45] right that we needed to be asking for more. But again,
[2:24:49] 3 years ago we weren't in the largest and
[2:24:53] most difficult cost of living increases in a generation.
[2:24:58] So timing is everything, Mr. Bureau. And you're right, this It does
[2:25:01] move it down the line, but it moves it down to a line, hopefully to
[2:25:04] a board that is going to be willing to actually push
[2:25:08] back on Chief and staff's requests to,
[2:25:13] again, of one item, just one item during the budget process
[2:25:17] that was not allowed would be really great. Instead, what I'm seeing is $9.8
[2:25:21] million out of our business unit over 4 years and all those requests granted.
[2:25:24] And here we are 4 years later under the first of the mayor's budget,
[2:25:28] and now there's a 20.5% ask on the dollar. So again,
[2:25:32] we'll just assume bad timing, but again, I don't think it's fair to be going
[2:25:35] to the average taxpayer to make up for the mistakes of the Police Service Board.
[2:25:41] I don't think it would— I would call it as mistakes as— no,
[2:25:48] maybe it was. I'm just going with the chief's words. What I'm saying
[2:25:51] is that this is the year of fixing putting
[2:25:56] the tax— if— let me ask Roger this. Sorry, Mr.
[2:25:59] Ramkins. If we do the 20.5% now,
[2:26:05] what would it be next year? Approximately around 4% in
[2:26:09] 2027, assuming the funding
[2:26:12] formula that we have adopted from the transfers for the business center revenues remain
[2:26:17] the same. Correct. And what was the point of the MOU MOU between
[2:26:22] the town and, and the police board to use
[2:26:26] the surplus dollars from the, from the net revenues from the business and a specific
[2:26:30] purpose, um, and to ensure that the spending
[2:26:34] aligns to what was directed in the MOU, right? And also,
[2:26:38] I just want to ask again, with the added new officers,
[2:26:42] was it not the will of this council that We
[2:26:48] do downtown patrols. We have an extra officer
[2:26:52] that goes into when we had the encampment, um,
[2:26:56] and people off sick and on WSIB. Was the
[2:27:01] 6 adequate, or would it have been— actually, should we have had 8,
[2:27:05] 9, or 10 onto that?
[2:27:09] The 6 was able to allow us to meet adequate effective.
[2:27:13] So it's the minimum standard? I would say so, correct. The minimum standard
[2:27:19] is in this, in this,
[2:27:22] um, budget.
[2:27:26] Is this not the minimum standard of adequate
[2:27:30] and effective policing?
[2:27:38] Sorry, I'm not in a position to define what adequate and effective— I think the
[2:27:42] chief did a fantastic job at that last week at council defining what it is.
[2:27:45] Um, it is always nice for us to have
[2:27:49] more, so if somebody calls in sick and somebody goes off on WSOP, we have
[2:27:52] that buffer. At this point in time, based on the contractual
[2:27:55] obligations on our staffing complement, there is no opportunity for buffer.
[2:27:59] The details were provided to the finance committee well before
[2:28:03] in terms of staffing. They know their numbers, so this is what meets.
[2:28:07] I don't— I can't say that it exceeds it because again,
[2:28:10] we don't have those extra staffing. Thank you, I think that's good. We're gonna have
[2:28:14] the Chief right up, so that's a great question. And I think that's exactly the
[2:28:17] reason why the budget's been approved in its entirety, because of that presentation by the
[2:28:20] Chief. The 20.5 is going through so that we can have those officers. And to
[2:28:24] your point, Mr. Cease— sorry, uh, to your point, sir, um, we here
[2:28:29] in the Town of Cobourg have no longer played the game of hiring
[2:28:33] and manipulating numbers. I think this is a good
[2:28:36] idea moving forward with the police service, but I'm not on the board. And that's—
[2:28:40] we actually have a rule now here at this level that if you're going to
[2:28:43] hire anyone in the following year, it doesn't matter when you're going to hire them.
[2:28:46] Instead, you take the entire cost of that position and include it
[2:28:50] in the next year's budget. Any cost savings then go into a reserve
[2:28:54] for staff contingency issues. And we have to use contractors between.
[2:28:59] I highly recommend that the board look to that. It's one of the better practices.,
[2:29:02] and it ensures that the situation we're in today doesn't happen moving forward. I've got
[2:29:07] a question here from Councillor Darling, then one from Councillor Mouton. And did I see
[2:29:10] your hand, Mr. Barber? Okay, we'll start with— we'll start with Councillor Darling.
[2:29:14] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Remskin.
[2:29:18] I guess my question is, what do the numbers look like if it's a 50/50
[2:29:22] split, if half comes out of the reserves and half goes
[2:29:26] on the tax base? So as of the end of 2022, 2024,
[2:29:30] our reserves balance across all 4 accounts is just about $1.6
[2:29:35] million. As of right now, the direction under
[2:29:38] SMP was to deplete the other 3,
[2:29:41] with the exception of the building reserves, which will leave with $478
[2:29:45] million in that account. It means if you were to do a 50/50 split,
[2:29:50] we'll be doing $800,000 per se.
[2:29:53] It means that that difference, which is about $212,000
[2:29:57] will be on the levy. 212 divided 80, uh,
[2:30:00] it'll be about an additional 5%.
[2:30:02] Thank you. Councilor Matan.
[2:30:09] Yes, a question of clarification with regards to court services and
[2:30:13] court administration. Um, uh, would you be able to,
[2:30:17] um, identify— does the service
[2:30:21] receive any funding funding and how much, uh,
[2:30:25] to, uh, towards the cost of the service,
[2:30:29] court services and court administration?
[2:30:33] So just to clarify, we do get funding from two parts
[2:30:37] of funding for court security only. Court security
[2:30:41] is the task associated with manning the courthouse at 860 Williams Street only.
[2:30:47] We do get a part of funding from the province directly to
[2:30:50] the Town of Cobourg for 2025. That's about $125,000. Then We
[2:30:54] get about $553,000
[2:31:00] from the provincial CSPT grant, of which the provincial
[2:31:04] part is $125 million. Cobourg gets half a million dollars
[2:31:08] from that part. That part has not changed in about 15 years. And then
[2:31:11] the difference up to $275,000
[2:31:15] is funded directly through Northumberland County. So we do get 3
[2:31:20] distinct pieces that comprises the revenue offset
[2:31:24] for the court security bill. That does not— we do— I'm
[2:31:29] confirming we do not get dollars from any source for court administration.
[2:31:32] That's strictly the back-end, back-office function of Crown
[2:31:37] Briefs, and, and that, as the Chief explained two weeks ago. Follow-up?
[2:31:41] Yes, so I just wanted to confirm the numbers that are in the budget
[2:31:47] are separate from those
[2:31:51] sources of funding, or including the sources of funding? It is included
[2:31:55] as part of the recoveries and as part of the revenue sources. So the budget
[2:31:59] is about $14 million. I proposed about $9.2
[2:32:03] odd from the levy, which brought it at $20.5. The difference
[2:32:07] comes from the different sources, and that has been included in the number.
[2:32:15] While we're waiting for a follow-up, do you happen to know what the
[2:32:19] budget— sorry, the reserve total was at the beginning of 2025 and
[2:32:23] what the reserve total was at the end of 2025? So we're starting 2025
[2:32:28] with $1.6 million. We did reconcile 2024.
[2:32:32] Because we haven't closed 2025 yet, I couldn't comment on
[2:32:35] what the number is going to look like at the end of this
[2:32:39] month. We would not do that until the first quarter of 2025,
[2:32:43] or a little bit later depending on when we close the book— sorry, 2026,
[2:32:47] thank you— until we close the books for 2025. So I just want to
[2:32:51] confirm, when was that sort of readjustment? Because I remember looking at some documents
[2:32:54] that had the beginning at 2.6, and I'm just wondering, when did we reconcile that?
[2:32:58] So we reconcile— I reconcile that with the town, Mr. Giddings,
[2:33:01] annually. Uh, so we— the board has been provided with
[2:33:05] a reconciliation of the reserves for the last 5 years, how we started, where we've
[2:33:08] come down from and in numbers for 2023
[2:33:12] and into 2024. I'm just— I'm a little confused because I
[2:33:16] was going to ask questions that in the beginning of 2025,
[2:33:19] I was under the impression we had $2.45 million
[2:33:23] in the— or $2.6 million in reserves, and I was wondering where it had
[2:33:27] gone. And you're saying that that has been reconciled recently?
[2:33:31] Yeah, at the beginning of 2025, sir. What was our reserve balance at
[2:33:35] the beginning of this year? At the end of 2024, which will be the beginning
[2:33:38] of 2025, it's $1.6 million.
[2:33:41] $1.6 million. Okay, $1.6 million. And what was the reserves
[2:33:45] at the beginning of 2024? Ah, one second.
[2:33:50] That's the one. Thank you. So I got my years wrong. So I guess my
[2:33:53] question then, um, the reserves in 2024
[2:33:57] were $2.5 million, and then at the end of 2024 was $1.6
[2:34:00] million. So what I'm seeing is we're already using reserves on a
[2:34:04] regular basis, uh, from the CPS. Is that a fair statement?
[2:34:08] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for that question. And if, um, and this, this has not
[2:34:12] been discussed, so I'm just going to take the opportunity to probably just respond
[2:34:16] inasmuch as the question has been asked. What has happened historically—
[2:34:21] let me just back up— what has happened within the last couple of years is
[2:34:23] that we get a part of funding from the levy, which is a portion of
[2:34:27] the dollars from the overall budget of the police service.
[2:34:30] So for example, For the last couple of years, we've been funded around 70%
[2:34:36] of the total budget from the levy. The difference of that 30% is
[2:34:41] funded through the court security grant, grants that we apply for CSP,
[2:34:45] um, RIDE, and those things. So that 30% of that overall
[2:34:50] budget comes from those different sources of funding.
[2:34:54] What has happened within the last couple of years, and is that
[2:34:57] any excess excess of funding or spending outside
[2:35:01] of the funding that we get from the levy automatically gets charged
[2:35:06] to the net revenues from the business center. And that
[2:35:10] is what has happened over the last couple of years. Um, that is,
[2:35:14] um, where we are right now. The Police Services
[2:35:17] Board has not had a chance to look at some of those excesses to 2025,
[2:35:22] but that is what has happened over the last couple of years. And is it
[2:35:25] fair to say that the reason the MOU has been being pushed by the Town
[2:35:28] of Cobourg staff is because that's not actually appropriate
[2:35:32] practice to be operating that way, and instead it's just the way it's always existed,
[2:35:35] but now we're trying to move to a more appropriate way of
[2:35:38] accounting under the Municipal Act? Is that a fair statement? It will be fairly fair.
[2:35:42] I would say it's fair. So we're coming in line now with actual
[2:35:46] municipal law. So that's good to hear. I guess at this point,
[2:35:49] the nice thing is, sir, is that the reality is is this budget can be—
[2:35:53] we've got a motion on the floor to go back and to add it to
[2:35:55] the levy. So if this council wants to do that, then that'll be the,
[2:35:58] uh, the procedure forward. And I do appreciate the work because I know you've been
[2:36:02] working a lot, uh, Mr. Giddings, and you've been going back and forth, and I
[2:36:05] do appreciate all the time and effort. At this time, I'd like to invite the
[2:36:07] chief forward, I assume, if there's no other questions. Or nope, come on forward,
[2:36:11] Mr. Uh, Vender— Chief Vandergraaff. I'm trying to always use the titles,
[2:36:14] as Mr. Darling— Councillor Darling wants me to use the titles all the
[2:36:18] time, so I'm working I'm working on it, guys. Give me—
[2:36:22] bad habit dies hard. We're working on it. Welcome, Chief.
[2:36:29] Good afternoon. My intent here today is to answer any questions
[2:36:33] that you may or may have, but I think Roger's done a fair amount of
[2:36:35] the, uh, of the heavy lifting. The question's been
[2:36:39] asked and not, not duly answered about what, um,
[2:36:42] when I've been told no. So let me be really clear
[2:36:47] clear. As I present the police budget, it is not my budget.
[2:36:50] It is clearly stated within the CSPA whose budget it is. It is the board's
[2:36:54] budget. It has been the course and the record and the history in
[2:36:58] this municipality that the chief presents the nuances of the
[2:37:02] actual board's budget, generally preceded by comments
[2:37:06] of the chair. Don't know what the inference is that this is the police chief's
[2:37:09] budget. It is not. It is the board's budget.
[2:37:12] The question was asked, when have I been told no? Chair Kerr,
[2:37:17] past Chair Kerr sat right there in one of our meetings. I can't remember which
[2:37:20] money. There's been so many and said that this is the first year he's
[2:37:23] never been able to kick my ass to the curb, pardon my French,
[2:37:28] and say no to something. So you wanted exact
[2:37:33] examples prior to this, just as this term of council began,
[2:37:36] the decision of the municipality was to move to body-worn cameras. Cameras.
[2:37:40] We were one of the first in Ontario to move to this very expensive body-worn
[2:37:43] camera project, and the decision was made by then-member or Vice Chair Kerr that
[2:37:47] if we were to proceed with this project, which then began— the
[2:37:51] project began in earnest with this term of council in place— that all dollars
[2:37:57] associated to that project, both capital dollars, infrastructure dollars, and ongoing
[2:38:01] staff dollars, be borne by the, uh, Business Centre or the Corporate
[2:38:05] Services services. So that was a time where I asked for body-worn cameras,
[2:38:08] and I was told, yes, kind of, but you fund
[2:38:12] it this way. Secondly, in 2024, I asked for 8
[2:38:16] constables. Um, Your Worship, you'll recall you knew
[2:38:20] that, uh, ask was made, and, and at the board meeting, the board
[2:38:24] of the day did not approve that ask, and they sent
[2:38:28] me back with lesser than, but we appreciated
[2:38:32] it. Putting that in full context, this board was the first board in Ontario
[2:38:37] to pass a supplemental staffing model that supported
[2:38:41] our members across Ontario since 2016. As this council
[2:38:45] has heard many times, we have understood a new reality
[2:38:49] around occupational stress injuries. So this
[2:38:52] board did allow for me to take a lead, took a lead, and then I
[2:38:56] needed to increase the complement, not just replace. But increase the complement to
[2:39:01] meet the, the competing demands. The board said no. The board
[2:39:05] said no because they felt that we could do it more
[2:39:09] incrementally. I went back last year and said, yes, I still need
[2:39:13] those officers. And I said here in this room, and I've said before,
[2:39:17] we agreed on a staggered start. I wanted them all in January.
[2:39:21] I wanted those officers all trained in January. The board
[2:39:25] said no. They said, we're going to stagger them. We're going to do them in
[2:39:26] June and September. And that's fine. And I don't disagree with Your Worship
[2:39:30] and your comments that when we choose to hire staff, we should put them
[2:39:34] in for the entire year. And it would give me a bit of elbow
[2:39:38] room as chief to recognizing the full cost of this, and you don't see
[2:39:42] the increase. So I want to start by thanking the
[2:39:46] recognition that 20.5% is the natural increase. This is the correction budget.
[2:39:50] There is nothing new in this budget. Um, as I'm
[2:39:54] thanking you, I will also indicate I'm highly
[2:39:57] offended that the next chief and the next board is going to find a bunch
[2:40:02] of money because it is pretty clear where
[2:40:06] our money goes. So the new chief will have a new agenda,
[2:40:10] the new board will have a new partner in the new chief.
[2:40:14] God knows what the future looks like if he saves you or she saves you
[2:40:17] millions of dollars. Congratulations.
[2:40:22] My concern and my comments are this: we
[2:40:26] are— and I have said it was a mistake of the board to kick this
[2:40:30] down the road for $700,000. I have said
[2:40:33] that 20.5% is a big number and it is
[2:40:38] unpalatable or not palatable for many people.
[2:40:41] How council chooses to manage to fund it that
[2:40:46] is your decision. I have the 20.5% that my staff need to be successful,
[2:40:50] and I'm appreciative for that. I'm indicating risk
[2:40:54] when we push this down the road. And you've got the numbers from Roger,
[2:40:58] but another 13% and whatever that next agenda looks like,
[2:41:02] my concern is just purely that.
[2:41:06] So this board holds me accountable.
[2:41:09] Oftentimes the nos that chiefs of police in Ontario face
[2:41:15] case, rest on capital projects, wishes and desires of capital projects.
[2:41:19] They generally say yes to my reasonable capital requirement requests
[2:41:23] because they're funded by corporate services, not by the tax levy. So that's why
[2:41:27] there's this no big no or whatever that looks like. So anyways,
[2:41:30] I've said enough on this budget. I don't have any more statements to make other
[2:41:34] than questions to answer. I open up to the floor for members of council to
[2:41:37] ask the chief directly. By all means, Councilor Charlie.
[2:41:41] Thank you, Chief. Very thorough as usual. I guess, uh,
[2:41:45] I could be corrected here if I'm not mistaken.
[2:41:49] Um, this term of council, early in the term, uh,
[2:41:53] passed a motion that we would not look at OPP or any other outside,
[2:41:57] uh, interests as far as
[2:42:01] policing. Um, it's too late, and it's too late
[2:42:05] in the year now for our— we've had had several citizens and
[2:42:10] comments asking us to take a look at an OPP costing,
[2:42:14] and, uh, or maybe an amalgamation of police forces.
[2:42:20] Can you just, for an overview for those listening and for this council,
[2:42:24] give us a bit of an overview as to what that would look like and
[2:42:29] the pluses and minuses maybe of it?
[2:42:32] I'm looking at if we did
[2:42:37] dual PP costing, is it gonna lessen the police service?
[2:42:40] It might be less expensive, but is it gonna
[2:42:44] lessen the service that our community gets now? So I'm gonna interject
[2:42:48] here, Councilor Darley, and the reason I'm going to interject is twofold. One, there is
[2:42:52] a fulsome report that was provided by Northumberland County that both the chief and I
[2:42:55] had taken serious issue with because of the way that report was
[2:42:59] conducted. So if the council members want, they can always review that too.
[2:43:03] Um, I don't believe it's appropriate to be asking the Cobourg police
[2:43:06] chief to be asking, uh, the pros and cons about OPP.
[2:43:10] Um, it would put him in a professional inappropriate position to either,
[2:43:14] uh, say negative things about the OPP or his
[2:43:18] own team. I don't think that the question is appropriate personally,
[2:43:21] uh, Mr. Dawning. So I'm just going to suggest that we go in a different
[2:43:25] direction with questioning. Um, it's up for this council to decide, uh,
[2:43:28] what they they'd like to do. And it's, I think, just, just erring
[2:43:31] on the side of caution. Well, thank you. And I don't disagree
[2:43:35] with what you're saying, but as the
[2:43:38] citizens put a question out to us, I think the question has at least got
[2:43:42] to be presented. And that's all I'm doing is presenting the question,
[2:43:46] letting know that it has been asked. Maybe it's
[2:43:50] going to get answered by the next council. We'll have to wait and see who
[2:43:54] they And I do. Thank you. And I'll just state very
[2:43:57] clearly and unequivocally, I stand by what I've always stated,
[2:44:00] that the Cobourg Police Service is one of the major reasons why I chose
[2:44:04] to relocate my family here, and I stand by their service and their quality.
[2:44:07] And I would never entertain the
[2:44:11] idea of an OPP, and I'll state that very clearly at this time. Mr.
[2:44:15] Vander Graaff, I do have a quick question for you, if possible.
[2:44:22] Sometimes I think I wish I had the, the power you do,
[2:44:26] Mr. Vandergratje. And what I mean by that is the fealty you
[2:44:30] draw from your team, the fealty you have with your board.
[2:44:33] It's a, it's a remarkable state. And what I've heard is a bunch of
[2:44:36] yes-buts. I didn't hear a no. And that's where I'm trying to
[2:44:40] understand, um, because we're saying yes-but as well. We're saying
[2:44:44] yes, we agree 20.5 is needed, but we can't load it on the
[2:44:48] tax levy. We have to find a way. And I'm sorry you took offense by
[2:44:50] my statements. It wasn't meant for offense. That said, intention versus impact.
[2:44:54] So all this to say, Mr. Vander Graaff,
[2:44:58] when we look at this and we see 20.5, and you see council approving this,
[2:45:01] or looking to potentially approve the entire increase, I'm wondering
[2:45:06] what can we expect in terms of service? I'm hearing from our— my
[2:45:10] councillor, or the councillor here to the left of me, that this is the bare
[2:45:14] minimum. And I guess my question is, is, is this 20.5% getting
[2:45:18] us to a place where we actually do
[2:45:22] something when we see people smoking narcotics in a vestibule
[2:45:26] in the bank at 9:00 PM? Are we going
[2:45:30] to get the move-alongs? Are we going to get the actual response
[2:45:34] that we're looking for as a community in terms of a response that when we
[2:45:38] see those kind of videos being happening. That's what I'm understanding, because I agree
[2:45:42] we need the money, we need to support our frontline officers, and I don't ever
[2:45:45] hold our frontline officers for account for policy decisions because
[2:45:49] that's not them, it comes from the top. Thank you for being here and being
[2:45:52] from the top. With $20.5 million, can we expect to see the
[2:45:57] police get involved when it's very clear that, you know, individuals are
[2:46:00] consuming illegal narcotics at 9 PM,
[2:46:03] multiple, with clothes off, preventing our staff and from
[2:46:06] our community from using those services. I'm just trying to understand what we're going to
[2:46:11] be getting with the 20.5%. So I'll
[2:46:19] answer the first question. Um, the no was I asked
[2:46:22] for 8 officers, I got 4. That wasn't a yes but, it was a no.
[2:46:26] We can rephrase it, we can play back and forth about yes buts or nos.
[2:46:29] It was a no. Secondly,
[2:46:32] in relation to what the people, what our officers do or don't do,
[2:46:36] I'm going to simply answer that,
[2:46:39] that I hear often,
[2:46:43] you're never on foot patrol. And my initial response always, well, it's funny
[2:46:47] because when we were on there, we didn't see you either.
[2:46:50] So, um, the officers do a tremendous job to
[2:46:55] do and meet the needs However, when we are
[2:46:59] faced with questions around provincial acts that may or may not
[2:47:03] have the teeth, and we can debate that, um,
[2:47:07] what we can and can't do, the issue of chronic displacement around
[2:47:11] homelessness and addictions is just that, is a zero-end
[2:47:15] game. So we will continue to do great work.
[2:47:19] Our officers will continue to arrest those accountable
[2:47:25] accountable. My letter to the media on the weekend was, if we put ourselves back
[2:47:28] into a bare minimum circumstance where all we can do is show up and
[2:47:32] get enough people to come to work, then we're not going to do the added
[2:47:35] crime abatement strategies. I am so impressed because of the board's commitment. It takes 16
[2:47:40] months for me to hire someone and have them out as an independent
[2:47:45] officer on patrol, and I love the fact that it takes 16 months because that
[2:47:48] means I have the right person making critical life decisions around someone's charter of
[2:47:52] freedom and rights. At the end of the day, my guys and girls
[2:47:55] do a great job. We're not everywhere, we can't be everywhere at all times.
[2:47:59] If they were there downtown Monday to Friday, 8 to 4, then at 4:05
[2:48:03] we would not be there. So we do the best we can with what we
[2:48:06] have. The 20.5% is a correction budget recognizing you've hired 6
[2:48:10] new officers, and I'm appreciative of it, hired 4 more. When I became
[2:48:13] chief, I had 32 officers, we have 51. We are finally right
[2:48:17] side prioritized. Thank you, Chief. I agree. And, uh,
[2:48:21] if we go back to that time when we were talking the 68 officers,
[2:48:24] I believe you and I were in agreement that we wanted the full 68 officers,
[2:48:27] and you and I from the get were in alignment that we need more good
[2:48:31] officers like the ones we have. Give me 30%, we'll hire 4 more. The association
[2:48:35] sitting beside, it's my evaluation time, so they may have something to say. Thank you,
[2:48:38] Chief. And I do appreciate that. Again, these discussions at a
[2:48:42] high level about finance have nothing to do with our frontline officers nor the job
[2:48:45] they do. Councillor Darlan. Yes, just a follow-up,
[2:48:48] just to the mayor's comment about yourself not supporting OPP.
[2:48:52] I want to make it clear to the public that I'm asking the question.
[2:48:55] I'm not saying one way or the other what I support or what I don't
[2:48:59] support. I don't feel this is the appropriate time, but I think
[2:49:05] it's appropriate that I speak to— just
[2:49:09] sorry, just push your mic so that the public see it, sir.
[2:49:13] I've said it 100 times, I'll never stand in front of anywhere
[2:49:17] and say that the OPP isn't a great police organization. They're a fantastic organization
[2:49:21] led by great people, full stop. The policing—
[2:49:25] the choice of a municipality to have a local police service or the OPP is
[2:49:29] a local choice. There are communities such as Deep River,
[2:49:32] Elmer, Ontario, very small towns with very small police services, and they're content
[2:49:37] and very happy to have them, and they're satisfied with the service delivery.
[2:49:40] Equally, there are communities like Orillia and Napanee and other communities who
[2:49:44] would love the fact that they have an OPP Detached Commander. The model that we've
[2:49:48] delivered traditionally in Cobourg since I've been here will be different with the OPP.
[2:49:52] Not saying it's going to be worse, not going to say it's better, but it's
[2:49:54] going to be wholly different.
[2:49:57] Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, thank you, Chief. Thank you. Follow up, because that's,
[2:50:01] uh, I mean, the public has to hear these things, and, and that's all I'm
[2:50:04] bringing up. I love our Cobourg Police Service. I've supported it all along,
[2:50:09] Will it change? It may or may not, but the public has to hear the
[2:50:13] comments. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm just gonna go to Councillor Bureau, and I
[2:50:16] see Deputy Mayor. I will add to the Chief's comments, and that is, if anyone
[2:50:19] wants to look at the OPP costing, I actually would recommend that you
[2:50:22] look at the first 3 years of costing and then the following 3
[2:50:27] years of costing to get an average, and not going by what
[2:50:31] they cost for the first 3 years, because it's obviously an estimate. Estimate and
[2:50:35] then the reality. And I'd look to any forces who have switched OPP in the
[2:50:39] last 10 years, as I have, and to compare what they quote versus
[2:50:43] what the actual cost is in year 5. Councillor Buro,
[2:50:46] then I recognize Deputy Mayor after Councillor Buro.
[2:50:49] Yeah, um, I guess
[2:50:53] my question is twofold, so bear with me. Um,
[2:50:57] with the new population of Cobourg that's growing year after year,
[2:51:01] Thanks to our planning department and moving things along.
[2:51:05] Um, when I first started on council, I think we were at 6,900
[2:51:11] and something homes. We're almost at, as the mayor said, we're almost at
[2:51:14] 10,000. So, and in the future, that, as we
[2:51:19] know, there's more developments going on and on and on. So my
[2:51:23] question is, depleting the reserves are down to $400-something
[2:51:28] thousand, no capital projects
[2:51:31] for the next year or two, and with
[2:51:35] the population growth, how would that,
[2:51:40] how would that affect, um, adequate and effective policing?
[2:51:45] Would it, would it put us a year behind? Would it,
[2:51:48] um, obviously we're gonna in the future gonna have to have
[2:51:52] more officers anyways because is there's the amount of homes,
[2:51:55] amount of residents, the amount of calls. And, um,
[2:51:59] I would think that in the future, if we're doing
[2:52:03] it 30% next year, if this does pass as,
[2:52:07] as the Strong Mayor budget, then would that not automatically
[2:52:11] put the police department in a— in, uh,
[2:52:15] behind the times? And then another catch-up
[2:52:19] year would have to Captain?
[2:52:22] Thanks, through the chair, a lot of hypotheticals there. I would like to think
[2:52:26] the population is growing because people feel really safe in Cobourg and they
[2:52:30] think the police do a great job and that's why they're moving here. So that's,
[2:52:34] that's just my snideness, but I'm at that time in my career where I can
[2:52:38] be really snide. So, um,
[2:52:42] all seriousness, the growth of the community and the changing dynamics
[2:52:46] of the community, numbers and population are one thing. The changing
[2:52:49] dynamics of who's in those population makes it very different.
[2:52:53] We have a senior population requiring different demands of their police,
[2:52:56] different demands of their services, right? Um, so the growth,
[2:53:00] the growth is, is an impact. We are not reactive in that sense.
[2:53:03] That's why I asked for 8, that's why I asked for 6, is because we
[2:53:06] were recognizing the growth. Um, we are
[2:53:09] up against it, like we're lean, right? This budget is lean, and that's why I
[2:53:13] take offense to the comments, is that it's lean, lean, lane.
[2:53:16] By borrowing from reserves, you're, you're leaning yourself out
[2:53:19] in a different way. I would argue that this council— and I don't understand it,
[2:53:22] and this is for smarter people than I— does have access to developmental charges.
[2:53:27] If growth is such an issue, maybe that's somewhere council can think of in this
[2:53:31] term or future terms about how to offset costs of increasing
[2:53:34] police, uh, policing costs, be it equipment, capital,
[2:53:37] and/or staffing. But again, I don't know much about the development
[2:53:41] costs other than There's— this is— that's the big thing that's out there. But I
[2:53:44] hope I answered your question, sir. Deputy Mayor,
[2:53:49] I'm fine. It's Councilor Buro kind of touched on the theme I wanted to raise,
[2:53:52] so no need to be redundant. Thank you. Not a worries.
[2:53:56] And by all means, Councilor Barber.
[2:54:01] May sound like a silly question, but, um, where I think the
[2:54:05] argument really comes down to the extra million we're talking
[2:54:08] about transferring from the police reserve
[2:54:13] to, uh, to the budget in order to be able to get it down,
[2:54:17] uh, and off the levy. Are, uh,
[2:54:20] is there any other reserves that we could,
[2:54:25] uh, look at, uh, to do the same job? Just a
[2:54:28] question for anyone who would like to answer it. Thank you.
[2:54:32] Sorry, Mr. Barber, are you asking that question to the police or to staff?
[2:54:40] Okay, so we'll hold that. I was going to say, Mr.— sorry, Chief Vandergraaff,
[2:54:44] do you want to start? I was going to say, were you going to start
[2:54:47] suggesting pulling from the Parks and Rec, sir? Uh, thank you, Mr. So we'll
[2:54:51] save that for staff. Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Cleveland,
[2:54:55] through you to the chief. And perhaps this could have been a question to Roger,
[2:54:58] uh,
[2:54:58] 20.5 as
[2:55:03] a taxpayer, that does concern me. Compromising community policing though also concerns me.
[2:55:08] Uh, depleting reserves concerns me. So if we move from the $1.3
[2:55:12] million and it puts us down to just under that half million— my
[2:55:17] understanding is even pre my involvement on the Police Services
[2:55:21] Board and on council, previous MOUs— and MOUs evolve and
[2:55:25] change over time— were intentionally drafted to build
[2:55:29] up the those reserves. So if in one swoop we use
[2:55:34] that to meet the policing need, what I'm trying to get at is how long
[2:55:39] would that take for us to build back up said
[2:55:42] reserve, and what risks are we facing,
[2:55:46] um, with just having a reserve of half a million?
[2:55:51] Uh, thank you. Through the chair, uh, Deputy Mayor, uh,
[2:55:53] fantastic question. So it's taken us a while to build up those reserves,
[2:55:57] and we are not building them up as much as we heard earlier, um,
[2:56:01] in that we're depleting from them when we borrowed $700,000 from them last year,
[2:56:05] which was an impetus to update the MOU for the right reasons.
[2:56:09] And, um, the issue we have is that in addition to not
[2:56:14] building up the reserves, we become highly reliant on the Corporate Services money.
[2:56:18] So we're already borrowing $2.8 million. I don't want to say what
[2:56:22] the future holds, but one would suggest we will at least
[2:56:26] make that net revenue, and I would hope to see more, but you're only
[2:56:29] playing with that extra, that beyond.
[2:56:33] So we have to— every year we have to find $2.8 million, and then whatever
[2:56:36] else is there, plus capital expenses, might be what we add to the reserve.
[2:56:40] So as it looks right now, I'm going to suggest there's going
[2:56:44] to be no substantive change to those reserve accounts for the foreseeable future.
[2:56:50] Uh, Chief, can I expect at least the next 6 months you and I making
[2:56:54] some trips to Ottawa to get that $40 million, uh, police building
[2:56:57] budget, uh, moving in the right direction? Because I'm going to need your help up
[2:57:01] there, uh, to see if we can get that $40 million reserve. Because if we're
[2:57:04] trying to save up for a $40 million building, $200,000 a year,
[2:57:08] uh, the CPS will be long gone before we ever get a
[2:57:11] building built. So we're actually going to need to get up to the federal level,
[2:57:14] and I'm just making sure that we can work together and make sure that we
[2:57:17] do that. Because to your point, half million dollar reserve is going to take a
[2:57:20] long time. So we need to get to Ottawa and make sure that the federal
[2:57:23] government knows about the need for your station, sir. I'm, I'm having a real hard
[2:57:26] time with this new chief, but I'll get to Ottawa with you if it means
[2:57:30] the legacy of this service has a new building. Thank you, sir.
[2:57:34] Councilor Maton.
[2:57:37] Just, I have a few points, questions, and Based
[2:57:42] on my recollection of your presentations previously, my understanding
[2:57:46] is that there are social
[2:57:50] service organizations that provide assistance to
[2:57:54] address community needs,
[2:57:57] but they don't operate 24/7, and the police have to
[2:58:01] step in. Highly trained, able to deal with that,
[2:58:04] but because other organizations are
[2:58:08] operating maybe daytime, 8 to 4, whatever,
[2:58:12] the, uh, the rest of the day, the rest
[2:58:16] of the week, by necessity, is, is,
[2:58:19] uh, supported, uh, by policing. Is that a general,
[2:58:24] uh, statement that is accurate,
[2:58:28] that I understand? Because I have some comments and questions based
[2:58:32] on that. Yeah, uh, so through the chair
[2:58:36] to yourself, Councilor Mouton, so the statement is, as I always say,
[2:58:41] the, the social service agencies who are best able to lead in certain areas
[2:58:45] of the, uh, intersect of homelessness, addictions, poverty,
[2:58:49] um, are not the police. They're actually those agencies.
[2:58:53] And, and they're not built like police are in the sense of they're not on
[2:58:56] 24/7 clocks. Our emergency room is built on a 24/7 clock
[2:59:01] with a couple of respite beds. But those true people
[2:59:04] who can move somebody from now, moment of crisis,
[2:59:08] to dealing with it, to responding to it safely,
[2:59:12] and there's all sorts of personal safety requirements when we're dealing with people
[2:59:16] in crisis sometimes. They're just don't there. They're just, they're just not there.
[2:59:21] And those social agencies are the experts, and we as
[2:59:24] police leaders in Ontario want to see them in place.
[2:59:27] We want to see them at 1 o'clock in the morning. We want the right
[2:59:30] people dealing with the people at the right time to making real
[2:59:34] But that is really utopic in view. I honestly don't
[2:59:38] think that, because otherwise we're going to be having budget conversations around social services budgets
[2:59:42] being 20.5%, and there's a reason why policing continues
[2:59:46] to go up because the changing dynamic. So it is a statement,
[2:59:49] but at 1 o'clock in the morning when somebody is suffering in our community from
[2:59:53] a significant mental health crisis, be it situational or medical—
[2:59:57] by situational, something happened in their life at this particular moment that's making them act
[3:00:02] out or they're just under a medical distress.
[3:00:06] Outside of paramedics, great community paramedicine, outside of fire,
[3:00:10] not because the fire chief's sitting here, but these— but, but they're great people.
[3:00:13] It's the police. So where I'm headed
[3:00:17] with this, Mr. Mayor and Chief, is that I
[3:00:22] learned a long time ago that if you are able
[3:00:26] to make, you know, find the resources, skimp here and there to
[3:00:30] make it happen. Other levels of government are going, oh, they've got it figured
[3:00:34] out, we don't have to worry about giving them extra money,
[3:00:37] or the way that certain other organizations
[3:00:41] provide the services or other levels of government provide the services doesn't change
[3:00:45] because, oh, they're managing, they're managing. So I'm a little bit concerned about that,
[3:00:49] and because now we're facing this budget
[3:00:54] increase. And so my question to
[3:00:57] you would be,
[3:01:02] I see that there needs to be some political interference with
[3:01:06] regards to how things are evolving.
[3:01:09] For example, our court costs in 2020 combined
[3:01:15] was $296,127. In 2026,
[3:01:20] we are looking at 1.865947.
[3:01:25] There are some recoveries, but the
[3:01:30] more the needs develop
[3:01:33] and change, there needs to be other ways that
[3:01:40] our costs are being compensated. I don't know if I'm getting to the point here.
[3:01:44] That if we struggle to manage
[3:01:48] it all ourselves, like I'm, this might be a little
[3:01:52] bit of humor, but why is the courthouse not
[3:01:55] an independent state, right? So that they have to go
[3:01:59] out and get the funding in order to provide the services,
[3:02:03] the administration. I mean, it's just, it just falls back on
[3:02:07] this community and it's extraordinary the
[3:02:11] expense. So is there— do we need to look
[3:02:15] at things a different way in order to keep core policing?
[3:02:20] Thank you for that. Wow, you are— everyone has become amazing
[3:02:24] at asking 100 questions in one. It's great.
[3:02:27] My jury trial time, although few and far between, it's taught
[3:02:30] me well. So let's unpack this. So I agree with you,
[3:02:35] they defunded ministries. Governments have passed— I don't care what color of government—
[3:02:41] Government, governments of past have defunded ministries. And those ministries
[3:02:45] were defunded for a variety of reasons, I'm sure they were reasonable at the time,
[3:02:48] with no thought about what was gonna happen in 2025 when there
[3:02:52] was an opioid epidemic that coincided with homelessness and poverty.
[3:02:57] And they defunded all these agencies and then said, oh, the police will do it.
[3:03:00] Like, why is it that when the power goes out, my 911 communicators get
[3:03:03] phone calls to say, when's the power coming back? On. It makes no sense
[3:03:07] other than we are there when you need us. We come. We are
[3:03:11] the largest street gang in the world in the police force,
[3:03:14] so we have their numbers. You're 100%
[3:03:18] correct. I love your idea of making the courts an independent state.
[3:03:22] They can secure it, they can manage it,
[3:03:25] they can call us when all hell breaks loose, and our team will go up
[3:03:28] there and provide that emergent tactical response once,
[3:03:32] but it's not going to override when you have dueling ministries
[3:03:37] fighting about a case. So I spoke clearly about the Jordan decision,
[3:03:40] and yet you have to read it. It says that a person—
[3:03:44] and rightly so— if you're charged in the offense, you should have the right to
[3:03:47] be— your matter to be heard as soon as possible. Those timelines
[3:03:51] are, are silly. However, we're a
[3:03:55] proactive agency. I believe he's still in the back room.
[3:03:58] Sergeant Kerr is in my space. He was tasked 6 months ago with
[3:04:02] leading a substantive change at our courthouse.
[3:04:06] The substantive change in our courthouse was pre-charge consultation.
[3:04:11] In other words, before our officers laid a charge in most events,
[3:04:14] it's not all, they would speak to the Crown, and then the Crown Attorney,
[3:04:18] Ministry of Attorney General, would determine is it in the public interest to
[3:04:22] proceed with this charge, is there a reasonable probability of conviction if we proceed with
[3:04:26] this charge. We better do this work work before we arrest the person so that
[3:04:30] we can get to court faster, more efficient, more effective.
[3:04:33] That is a great system. We went to the local Crown Attorney.
[3:04:37] I went with the office. The local Crown was, hey, Chief, we're all in.
[3:04:41] This is happening in other places. They headed down the path,
[3:04:45] I mean, as fast as I like things done. They beat my timelines
[3:04:49] only to get our response 2 weeks ago, and the response was, we're having a
[3:04:53] hard time staffing the Crown position in this plan.
[3:04:58] So here we go, the Ministry of Attorney General tells me faster,
[3:05:01] better, quicker, I concur, I deploy staff,
[3:05:05] everybody in this horseshoe's mad about my court administration costs, we have the
[3:05:09] right people doing the right work, I believe Kerry's in the audience, saying we're
[3:05:13] gonna have the best digital evidence management, my board 4 years ago saw the problem,
[3:05:17] said fund it out of corporate services chief, we're not funding it on
[3:05:20] the tax levy, we've been building for this, we're there, we go
[3:05:24] to the Crown, the Crown goes, yes, let's do it. Ah, we got no money.
[3:05:29] So to your point, yes, there needs to be substantive
[3:05:33] change to affect long-term change in the
[3:05:36] cost of policing. We cannot be all things to all people
[3:05:40] anymore. We have to be first response.
[3:05:43] Chief, you could, like, I wanted to record that because
[3:05:47] I can't wait to take that statement forward the way you succinctly pointed it out.
[3:05:51] And that's why I continue to support the CPS and will always support
[3:05:55] the CPS in Cobourg because of what you just outlined. Your team
[3:05:59] actually cares about this community and actually brings innovative
[3:06:03] change and innovative solutions. And to your point, Councillor, I am glad
[3:06:06] to hear you're also thinking about a reimagined county, because I
[3:06:10] think that's the reality here. Councillor Mitan, to your point, is that
[3:06:15] we're sitting here discussing percentages between police and
[3:06:18] fire here, and we're debating that it can't cost, and it's all going back.
[3:06:22] And I think what you're seeing, Councilor Mouton, and what I'm glad to have this
[3:06:25] conversation, is that here we are in Cobourg debating a
[3:06:30] few percentages over a $30 million budget, yet what
[3:06:34] we're not talking about is the $20 million a year that leaves
[3:06:38] the Cobourg tax base and goes to the County of Northumberland. And then that
[3:06:42] $20 million is distributed throughout the County and actually
[3:06:46] increases the costs here in Cobourg. The reason we have the police budget
[3:06:50] we do, and the reason our police force have had to go to such great
[3:06:54] lengths to find innovative ways to fund their operations,
[3:06:58] is because for the last 7 to 8 years, our community has
[3:07:02] been dealing with the problems of the county on a $30 million budget.
[3:07:07] The reality is, is when you look at Peterborough and Peterborough County,
[3:07:10] Peterborough city has almost 5 times the
[3:07:14] budget of Peterborough County. Yet when you look here, we're sitting
[3:07:18] on a $29 million budget, and the county is 70 of just
[3:07:22] what the lower tiers give it. When you start adding in the provincial transfers,
[3:07:26] the healthcare transfers, all of their transfers, they're in the hundreds of millions
[3:07:31] of dollars. And it— this is the pattern that can't continue,
[3:07:34] Councillor Matan. And I appreciate you bringing it forward because we're sitting
[3:07:38] here fighting over the penny while dollar bills are
[3:07:42] being thrown away and used as firewood up at that level. Now, I'm very proud
[3:07:46] that this year the county was finally able to get to a 3.7% levy
[3:07:50] increase. It required a drastic change of leadership at
[3:07:54] the county to be able to even have that conversation.
[3:07:57] And I have been united with Mr. Vander— sorry, with Chief for
[3:08:01] 3 years, and I will remain united. We— it doesn't
[3:08:05] matter. The board board, the police, or the chief in the position, when you're tasked
[3:08:09] to clean up an entire county's mess on a single tier's budget,
[3:08:13] who's ever going to win? And unfortunately,
[3:08:17] it's the Cobourg taxpayers who are constantly asked to front
[3:08:21] the money forward for the County of Northumberland's issues
[3:08:25] being centralized here. I think, Councilor Métun, you are on
[3:08:28] point. I've been screaming from the rooftops, a Reimagine We can't
[3:08:33] do that alone. We need to talk to our tax base as well as the
[3:08:35] province. But this is the problem. We're sitting here fighting for pennies when dollars
[3:08:39] are being used at the county for firewood. And I think your point is bang
[3:08:42] on. So I just wanted to state that. Thank you, Chief, for finding a way
[3:08:45] over your career to do more with less while you've been picking up the pieces.
[3:08:50] Any further questions? By all means, Council Bureau. Um, I agree with you
[3:08:54] 100% on that. Um, and I know that I have asked
[3:09:00] asked numerous times to the minister, why would you be giving OPP money,
[3:09:03] um, last year and then capping them at this, which, which I believe
[3:09:07] in both years would total about 33% in 2
[3:09:10] years, and nothing. And when I
[3:09:14] stood up, the board was there, and I stood up and said, what about the
[3:09:18] regular municipalities? Like, that we have our own, that we have to—
[3:09:21] they are expensive. And he says— and he said, no, absolutely not
[3:09:25] in front of everybody. And I asked and asked again.
[3:09:29] Um, I do agree that there's a lot of issues that Coburg,
[3:09:33] um, at the county level should be taken care of. But,
[3:09:36] um, unfortunately, where it is right now,
[3:09:40] um, it is falling on the burden of the police. Um,
[3:09:44] but having said that, my question is,
[3:09:48] in which we coming back to our dollars or pennies that
[3:09:53] we're, we're fighting over. Um, if we deplete our reserves,
[3:09:57] what would be the better way? Deplete our reserves and kick
[3:10:01] it down the can, or take the budget out of our— out
[3:10:05] of the police?
[3:10:09] Like, I may— I'll say that again.
[3:10:12] Should— is it, in your opinion, and even ask Roger this,
[3:10:16] should we have, uh, the reserves depleted or
[3:10:22] the 20.5.
[3:10:26] I, I should run for office. I, I was going to— the duly
[3:10:29] agreed-upon memorandum of understanding between the Cobourg Police Services
[3:10:33] Board and the Town of Cobourg should stand the test of time,
[3:10:36] but I'm not in the one making a very difficult budget decision in a time
[3:10:39] of affordability crisis. But I truly believe the MOU that
[3:10:43] was was hard-fought and nos were said and
[3:10:48] feelings were hurt along the way and, and mended.
[3:10:52] Um, I think that's the rule of the day.
[3:10:57] Any further questions? Councilor Matan, by all means.
[3:11:00] Yes, I don't know who I should direct this question to, but with regards
[3:11:03] to the, the Police Service Board budget, it's from this
[3:11:08] council, it's either a yes or a no. Yes, correct. We can't,
[3:11:12] we can't suggest, you know, going splitting
[3:11:16] it between this year and next year further to Councillor Darlings.
[3:11:20] Sorry, I just want to correct. Yes. So when it comes to the allocation
[3:11:23] of reserves, yes. When it comes
[3:11:27] to operational line-by-line concerns, no, that is the job
[3:11:31] of the Cobourg Police Service. We only fund, yay or nay.
[3:11:35] Now, in terms of applying reserves, that does fall within our jurisdiction. Fall to the
[3:11:38] reserve of this council, and that is it. So because of that, what you're
[3:11:42] alluding to, that is this council's option. We can either choose through
[3:11:46] the motion that's on the table to go back and put it on the tax
[3:11:49] levy, or we can approve what the mayor's budget is, which is not on the
[3:11:52] tax levy. Brent Larimer and I do this all the time, but you can ask
[3:11:54] me any question about any line. You just can't say, hey Chief, knock off $10
[3:11:58] off of this particular line. But you're more than welcome to ask me any question
[3:12:01] about any line. It's just about council's decision is the whole
[3:12:04] budget, or yes or no. But you're more than welcome to
[3:12:08] ask me questions about why this and why that, just to be clear. And for
[3:12:11] the clarity, everything that was asked is on the budget as it stands.
[3:12:15] Any further questions of the chief? And I do appreciate this is much longer than
[3:12:18] 5 minutes, but we do appreciate you having the time and the willingness to be
[3:12:20] here, Chief. Okay, at this time, um, we've got a motion on
[3:12:25] the floor that's up for debate or up for conversation. We've heard from both,
[3:12:28] uh, Treasurer Do we go with CFO or see what is— CAO
[3:12:34] is the title. Thank you. So our CAO and Chief have both
[3:12:38] had a chance to speak. We have the motion. It is a recorded vote.
[3:12:41] Councillor Barber, uh, if I may get
[3:12:45] an answer to— oops, sorry, may I— if I may get an answer to my
[3:12:49] question, which I, uh, I apologize to the Chief, of course it
[3:12:53] shouldn't have fallen under him. Is there any other reserve reserve that,
[3:12:57] uh, that could or can be used under this circumstance?
[3:13:00] That is aye or nay?
[3:13:05] I'll leave this to staff as they're asking staff the question. I mean,
[3:13:08] it again, it does fall to all reserves of the will of this council.
[3:13:15] Uh, for you, Mayor, to the Councillor, um, just to clarify,
[3:13:19] is this to reduce the police Okay,
[3:13:24] I think in terms of utilizing another Town of Cobourg reserve just to
[3:13:28] reduce the police reserve, I would prefer not to proceed down that
[3:13:32] path. I think these are sort of Town of Cobourg reserve accounts, but again,
[3:13:35] I think if it is the will of council, but as I've indicated,
[3:13:39] I think in a few separate reports, one report that I presented in May,
[3:13:42] a financial sustainability report, and then a reserve analysis
[3:13:46] report that was discussed at the standing committee a few
[3:13:49] weeks ago is coming to regular council on Wednesday. I think in both reports I've
[3:13:53] indicated that the Town of Cobourg's reserve accounts, that's excluding the police reserves,
[3:13:57] are well underfunded compared to similar-sized municipalities.
[3:14:01] So my preference would be to not reduce those reserves further.
[3:14:05] Before I follow up, I'm going to go to CO Vaughn, who also has an
[3:14:08] answer. Thank you. Through the chair, maybe just
[3:14:12] to build upon what our Treasurer has
[3:14:16] spoken to, the other thing we've been really careful to do and really
[3:14:20] deliberate about is demonstrating demonstrating the cost for particular
[3:14:23] units of service and for particular services. So I think if you
[3:14:26] were to take a non-police reserve to fund a
[3:14:30] police budget, it helps— it continues to mystify
[3:14:34] what the costs of a particular item are. So while we
[3:14:37] wouldn't want to take reserves from the fire department to pay for community
[3:14:42] services, because when you're trying to demonstrate to the taxpayer what
[3:14:46] the cost of service is, it becomes really complex. So part of our financial sustainability
[3:14:50] plan has been about building our reserves and, and doing all that due diligence,
[3:14:54] but it's also about accountability and transparency and demonstrating,
[3:14:58] telling the story about the cost of every service so it's really clearly
[3:15:02] understood by the taxpayer as well.
[3:15:05] Follow-up, please. Just very briefly, it is the answer that I expected,
[3:15:10] but I wanted to get it on the record. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:15:13] And again, I just want to point out it a couple times it's been stated
[3:15:17] that the, the reserves would be depleted. There was
[3:15:20] a very intentional decision. It would be highly inappropriate to
[3:15:24] leave both the current and future Chief zero in the
[3:15:27] reserves. We can't plan for emergencies. If there's
[3:15:32] a, a police emergency, our CPS need to have reserves
[3:15:36] in the bank at some point to be able to fund any kind of emergency
[3:15:40] like that. So it— they haven't been depleted. Yes, they've been reduced by a
[3:15:43] million 2 or 1.3 million, but I just want to be very clear, the term
[3:15:47] depleted suggests that all of them are gone. There's 480,000,
[3:15:52] just shy of a half million, and then that, yes, they can allocate. So,
[3:15:55] Councilor Mouton. The chief raised
[3:15:59] an interesting point about development charges. And I'm
[3:16:03] just thinking ahead. Currently,
[3:16:06] police services is housed in a municipally owned building.
[3:16:10] It's quite clear that with growth of the community needs of policing,
[3:16:14] etc., that a new facility would be needed.
[3:16:18] My question would be, I guess, through you, Mr. Mayor, to appropriate staff
[3:16:22] person, are we collecting development charges
[3:16:26] for this future growth need for the town of
[3:16:30] Cobourg specific to police services,
[3:16:35] a structure like, like a new building? Excuse me.
[3:16:39] And if not,
[3:16:45] does it qualify? Does it
[3:16:49] qualify for development charges moving
[3:16:53] forward? Would Mr. Gittings like to take
[3:16:56] on that one, sir?
[3:17:00] Through you, Mayor, to the Councillor. So in the 2022
[3:17:04] development charge study, a new building was not specified under that study. So technically it's
[3:17:08] not being funded by development charges. So now we are redoing the
[3:17:12] development charge study in 2026. So that is
[3:17:16] something that we could identify. Having said that, I would clarify that only
[3:17:20] a portion of it would be applicable for development charges because some of that is
[3:17:23] a new building that's serving existing taxpayers. So only the growth portion
[3:17:27] would be applicable for the development charges.
[3:17:31] And then just to clarify as well, under the Development Charge Act,
[3:17:35] it does not include wages. And so any new staffing and things
[3:17:39] like that would not be applicable for development charges.
[3:17:42] Just to clarify, the need for this police station
[3:17:46] cannot be overstated. The timeline with which we need to ensure our officers
[3:17:50] have the equipment and the building required to do the best job they can cannot
[3:17:54] wait for another 15 to 18 years as DCs build up. This is something that
[3:17:58] needs to happen sooner than later. And so with the greatest respect to the DC
[3:18:02] plan, the reality is, is we need other levels of government to chip in
[3:18:05] and fund this because this is what we need for our frontline women. And so
[3:18:09] I've already been to Ottawa twice in the last month to start this
[3:18:13] work. We need to start advocating for the federal budget.
[3:18:16] We know $52 billion is going to be available for capital projects
[3:18:20] for communities that are there and ready to move forward. And this council and
[3:18:23] I need to be very, very on the ball with this one over the next
[3:18:26] 11 months, focusing on the advocacy piece, because the reality is,
[3:18:30] is at a couple hundred thousand dollars a year, we can't wait the
[3:18:34] 15 years to get our officers into a new facility. We We need this in
[3:18:37] the next 2 to 3, which is going to require intervention from the federal government
[3:18:41] to actually access those funds. That's something we'll be committing to. By all means,
[3:18:45] Councilor Matan. Yeah, so thank you for that explanation.
[3:18:48] I think though, moving forward, yes,
[3:18:52] to expedite the new building, new that
[3:18:57] is needed, but I think we would be remiss if we did not add,
[3:19:02] because we don't know what the future is going to bring. What perhaps growth might
[3:19:07] require. So I think it— I can't see that one would
[3:19:11] compromise the other, but definitely it is
[3:19:15] an important community facility.
[3:19:18] So I hear you, Mr. Mayor, but I think we can do both. No worries.
[3:19:21] I'm just going to go to see— do I have— who wants to ask questions?
[3:19:24] That's just so I can write it down. I've got Councillor Burkett right now.
[3:19:26] Okay. So I mean, CAO, thank you. I think this conversation
[3:19:30] helps to underscore the importance of master plans and strategies
[3:19:34] and why we do you undertake that work at the
[3:19:37] municipal level. If you do not have master plans and strategies that identify future
[3:19:41] needs or growth needs, then you're not able to inform your DC study to ensure
[3:19:46] that you're capturing those appropriate costs. So again, we,
[3:19:50] you know, while we may know organically that something may be needed,
[3:19:53] without those fulsome documents demonstrating what is needed, when it's needed,
[3:19:57] how it's needed, you're unable to collect those DCs for those
[3:20:01] those purposes. So take your point as well, uh, Councillor Maton. Certainly when we do
[3:20:05] DC updates, but we continue to work both municipal
[3:20:09] staff and police staff around how we identify those pieces, what studies are
[3:20:13] done, what plans are put forward, so that we have that really clear,
[3:20:16] concise, crisp information when we're looking at the DC study to ensure that
[3:20:20] we can collect from, from multiple parties, because we'd like to take,
[3:20:24] take the revenue from all sources.
[3:20:27] Councilor Burkett. I just want to be clear
[3:20:31] before we— before I have a, I guess,
[3:20:34] kind of a conversation about, uh, where we're going forward on this.
[3:20:38] What motion is on the floor right now? Just, I just want to go back.
[3:20:41] Mr. Lamer, if I can have it up. So the motion on the floor is
[3:20:45] to— for council to go back to the original
[3:20:49] allocation of funds where 1.3 isn't pulled out
[3:20:54] out of the police levy and it goes back to the original, uh, okay,
[3:20:56] 20.5 landing on the levy, making it 6 point—
[3:21:00] what was the number? I'm sorry, 6.08, 6.0. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, okay.
[3:21:05] No, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what we're actually
[3:21:09] voting for. At the end of the day, I think what we're
[3:21:13] looking at here is like the board has asked for the 20.5% increase
[3:21:20] increase. The mayor has presented a budget where it's taken from reserves.
[3:21:24] Obviously, other— some other council members have,
[3:21:28] you know, want to go back to what the existing
[3:21:32] was, like the ask and go put it on the levy. I think at this
[3:21:36] point, just— and this isn't really necessarily,
[3:21:40] you know, it's kind of kicking it down the road in a sense,
[3:21:43] but at the same time, I think we have to do to you.
[3:21:47] Financially, we have to look at this in a different
[3:21:51] manner. You know, with— to the mayor's point,
[3:21:55] you know, let's go into with a fair and
[3:21:58] affordable— like, there's affordability crisis, people are concerned about
[3:22:02] that. But at the same time, then, you know, we're looking at roughly—
[3:22:07] and I'm just talking about the general police budget, I'm not
[3:22:11] talking about Like, let's take the court service and that stuff out of it.
[3:22:14] I'm just talking about the general policing. Like,
[3:22:17] this is something that, you know, we obviously have bigger
[3:22:21] issues, which has been highlighted numerous times. It was a problem when I was on
[3:22:24] the board, the court services, because it's here, it's here,
[3:22:27] and it's our problem. Unfortunately, we have to live with,
[3:22:30] but there's some advocacy going on with that, and hopefully we
[3:22:34] can move forward with that in the future. But I'm just looking at the core
[3:22:37] operation, the general policing. You know, if we stick with the mayor's
[3:22:42] solution to this, you know, we're going to be looking at close to a 20%
[3:22:45] increase next year based on the projected
[3:22:49] numbers in the forecast. If we keep it as is with the 20.5%,
[3:22:54] you're, you're sitting there looking at like a roughly a 5%
[3:22:59] increase next year. Uh, so I'm
[3:23:03] looking at like, let's come up with a, a middle ground here.
[3:23:06] Let's not, you know, pull the full $1 million. I'm,
[3:23:10] I'm proposing, and I don't know what the exact numbers are
[3:23:14] unfortunately, it's, you know, I'm trying to go through it and,
[3:23:17] and figure out based on the things. I'm sure our treasurer can come up with
[3:23:21] an appropriate number, but I'm looking at at least pulling
[3:23:25] a minimum of maybe,
[3:23:30] maybe 5, maybe $600,000, you know, kind of meet it
[3:23:34] halfway. So at this time we do have a motion on the floor, though.
[3:23:37] Are you going to move to amend the motion, or do you want to have
[3:23:40] this motion voted and then we decide from there? I just want to be very
[3:23:43] clear about direction at the start. The problem is,
[3:23:45] without doing the math, I don't know where it's going to sit at and how
[3:23:49] it projects it in the new, new year. Because if— okay,
[3:23:52] so that based on my numbers like, and I'm just trying to do it from
[3:23:56] what I— the information I gather. If we do like about a half,
[3:24:00] like half it, we might be sitting at like a 10
[3:24:04] to 12% increase next year. So I'm trying to
[3:24:08] meet in the middle. The middle, obviously I realize
[3:24:11] this is kicking the can down the road, but at the same time it gives,
[3:24:15] you know, us as well as future councils the opportunity to figure
[3:24:20] out a solution moving forward with that about bearing the brunt of it now
[3:24:24] or bearing the brunt of it next council, because like, quite honestly,
[3:24:29] we'll be— both options are going to be not the best
[3:24:33] solution. So I'm just trying to be in the middle. So I don't know if
[3:24:35] I just want to ask a question because you didn't mention something.
[3:24:39] Uh, Director Gittings, when Councilor Burkett is suggesting that next year it's going
[3:24:43] to be a 20%, is that a guarantee or is that just based on,
[3:24:47] on what? Just assuming all things being equal? I'm just trying to understand where this
[3:24:50] 20% increase next year that idea is coming from,
[3:24:55] because again, I'm just trying to understand where that
[3:24:58] increase is all coming from. By all means, Councilor Perkup. So basically
[3:25:03] how I was coming to that calculations is we have a forecast of the 7.6
[3:25:10] million next year for the operational of the general, and then I base that off
[3:25:14] of if we, um, reduced the— what you're pulling
[3:25:17] doing, and then taking in consideration only
[3:25:21] doing next year, keeping it
[3:25:25] kind of at either the same, the 2.8, or just—
[3:25:30] I just want to point out, because if you look at— you're talking about the
[3:25:33] CPS budget, I'm talking about the town budget. So I'm just trying to understand
[3:25:37] the CPS budget. Oh, okay. So I'm not talking about the overall town, I'm talking
[3:25:41] about the CPS budget. And if we, if we did what you were
[3:25:45] suggesting And we, we kept it and we kept the reserve
[3:25:48] at the 2.8. We could be looking
[3:25:52] at a 20% increase. So that's what I understand. Where is
[3:25:55] that fact coming from? That's just based on where
[3:25:59] we are today, like reducing the number to the 7.6.1.
[3:26:04] And then you look at what we're going to have to grow towards next year,
[3:26:08] which is the 7.7.687
[3:26:13] million. Million. I, I'm just going to confirm with Director Giddings, is that fair that
[3:26:17] we're going to see a 20% close to, uh,
[3:26:20] budget next year on the tax levy? And does that—
[3:26:24] is that like a guarantee, or are we making a bunch of sort of crystal
[3:26:27] ball predictions right now based on a bunch of factors we don't know?
[3:26:34] Uh, thank you. Yes, through you. Um, so I,
[3:26:37] I can't speak too much because I think it's the police budget. So, and I
[3:26:41] know the the staff there had sort of indicated it would be around 20%.
[3:26:45] I think maybe the other way to look at it is by utilizing those
[3:26:49] reserves and then not having that reserve allocation in 2027
[3:26:53] would at the very least result in a 13% increase.
[3:26:56] So that's without any staffing increases or any other cost increases.
[3:27:00] So in terms of the 20%, again, I think that might
[3:27:04] be more applicable for the police to answer that. Follow-up question, Mr. Gittings. Did we
[3:27:08] not receive a draft library budget that said if we didn't get a 38% increase
[3:27:14] increase, then they would be forced to close 1.5 days. Was that something the town
[3:27:17] received originally? Um, through you, I did—
[3:27:20] sorry, it wasn't 38%. I think it was, um, the Cobourg Library
[3:27:25] would leave their original draft, uh, be able to meet the mayor's directive of 3%.
[3:27:28] They would indicate they would be required to close for a day and a half
[3:27:32] a week. Yet here we are with a slightly larger increase and
[3:27:36] yet no service reductions. Was that done through a negotiation compromise
[3:27:40] with yourself and staff?
[3:27:43] Through you. So I'd met a few times with
[3:27:48] the CEO of the library, and we just went through their budget,
[3:27:52] tried to identify a few line items that maybe they could reduce to get
[3:27:56] down to the 3%. Now, they did come in at 3.41%, but they
[3:28:01] were able to cut back in other areas. I think, in fairness,
[3:28:04] I guess their budget is maybe quite a bit smaller, and they have some
[3:28:08] different service level requirements than the police. I'm not sure if it's
[3:28:12] it's apples to apples, but not comparing the two. I just want to be very
[3:28:14] clear, in no way— I'm just trying to understand that here we had a
[3:28:17] prediction from a department that said that this had to happen, and yet
[3:28:22] we were able to find a way to not have that happen. So is that—
[3:28:25] I'm just alluding to Mr. Burkett's point that while we're suggesting
[3:28:28] there is a 20% increase next year, that would be up to the next budget,
[3:28:33] the next CPS board, which will be a new— and a new chief
[3:28:37] and, and new council. So again, I just want to be very careful
[3:28:41] by making assumptions about what the budget cycle will happen when we've seen
[3:28:45] just in this budget cycle expectations and then
[3:28:48] realities being very different. So, by all means,
[3:28:51] Councilor Buro. Um, the CAO, uh,
[3:28:55] showed us what and why we automatically have a 4%
[3:29:00] with staffing. That's inevitable. And then what
[3:29:04] if for the reserves now it would be just kicked down the road?
[3:29:08] So So I— to me, it, it's totally
[3:29:13] understandable. No, 100% agree that for 3— it'll be 4 years, I would
[3:29:17] suggest, of kicking it down the road instead of just 3.
[3:29:26] Which brings me to my point. This is the correction year, and I
[3:29:30] don't want to put that on the new chief, new board, new council. No,
[3:29:33] you want to put it on the tax levy and the tax
[3:29:37] taxpayer. Next question. Inevitable. It's— well,
[3:29:41] you interrupted and you didn't let me finish. Please finish.
[3:29:46] It's inevitable it's going to come from the taxpayer.
[3:29:50] The— we've gone to the province, we've gone to the ministry, we've gone to everywhere
[3:29:55] we possibly can to get more funding. It's, it's going to be
[3:30:00] ultimately on the taxpayer, which it should have been on for the past 4
[3:30:03] years, and actually before that. So this is the
[3:30:07] correction year, that's what I'm saying. And to your
[3:30:11] point, Councillor Buro, we've heard from Councillor Darlan beside you that because of this budget,
[3:30:15] more and more people within our community are asking for a costing
[3:30:19] from the OPP. So I guess that's my concern, is that I support
[3:30:23] the CPS, I want to see the CPS continue, and I'm looking for ways to
[3:30:27] reduce the impact on the average taxpayers so that they're not looking for alternatives,
[3:30:31] that they are instead continuing to support our frontline officers.
[3:30:35] Because no one— and I'll be very clear, it's inappropriate in my
[3:30:40] opinion to expect a 20.5% increase with and
[3:30:44] having the entirety land after $2.8 million are already being pulled.
[3:30:47] And this contention that my— the $1 million that this council is
[3:30:51] moving— again, guys, this council will decide to do it, not I.
[3:30:54] This is just a suggestion. Question, but I find it unusual that you,
[3:30:59] uh, Councillor, are having an issue with $1 million when over
[3:31:03] the last 4 years you've been charged with moving almost $10 million out of saving
[3:31:07] potentials. So why is it the $1 million that this council's thinking
[3:31:11] about moving is so detrimental, yet the $10 million
[3:31:15] that the board has moved over in 4 years was of no concern?
[3:31:20] Well, that's an inaccurate statement. Of course there was of concern. Of course
[3:31:24] there was a debate over and over again, of course.
[3:31:28] And this is what we came up with. And you're right,
[3:31:31] there— should we have done it last year? Yeah, we should have.
[3:31:35] But it's this year, so it's the right thing to
[3:31:38] do. Although 20.5% is
[3:31:42] a lot. Nobody wants to bring this budget to council,
[3:31:46] not, not me, not anybody. But it is to rectify
[3:31:50] it for the future. And as we've seen, and we said last
[3:31:55] year or next year, if we did it this way,
[3:31:59] we're looking at maybe a 5 or 6% increase,
[3:32:02] which would work out to a 1 or 2% on the levy.
[3:32:05] So to me, this is— it is the right thing to
[3:32:09] do. Yes, we should have done it before, but we can't deplete
[3:32:13] the reserves even though there's still $400,000 in there. There, there's a
[3:32:17] lot of issues that we need those reserves for. If there
[3:32:21] happens to be, um, a major crime
[3:32:25] that happened, a murder, anything, we would need those reserves to,
[3:32:28] to be able to handle it instead of going, wait a sec guys,
[3:32:32] we have to call an emergency meeting in order to get some reserves
[3:32:36] off or get some money off of the town. Fair enough. I think
[3:32:40] we've had a good back and forth, so I'm going to move on to Councilor
[3:32:42] work out. Um,
[3:32:45] so I'm willing to put an amendment on the floor.
[3:32:51] Um, so at this point, this will be an amendment to an amendment. Would you
[3:32:54] prefer instead to deal with the motion and then make a new motion, or would
[3:32:57] you prefer to make an amendment to the amendment? Sure, we can deal with the
[3:33:00] main motion, and then I can make another amendment, or if that is— if
[3:33:03] that's easier. Councilor Matani, you had a question?
[3:33:09] Um, not so much a question but a comment,
[3:33:12] Mr. Mayor. So, um, I have,
[3:33:17] you know, read about the concerns of the community requesting,
[3:33:21] you know, exploration of something that Councillor
[3:33:25] Darling said, uh, at the beginning of this conversation about perhaps
[3:33:29] splitting between this year and next year. Mr. Mayor, I see, I see value in
[3:33:34] that because a new council, rather than being handed,
[3:33:38] okay, we've solved all your problems, I think the new council needs
[3:33:42] to grapple with the state
[3:33:46] of the servicing to our community and
[3:33:51] how, if any changes or how
[3:33:56] things evolve with regards to the needs
[3:33:59] of the community. On one hand, I'd like to know
[3:34:03] what the amendment is, but I think it's up to
[3:34:06] the— to the councillor to decide whether he
[3:34:10] would like to go forward. There's nothing saying we can't
[3:34:14] move an amendment. Let's deal with the motion, then we move forward with that.
[3:34:17] Yeah, let's get the motion up. And again, there's— guys, we're going to
[3:34:20] call a vote is what I'm hearing. We'll move on a vote on this.
[3:34:23] This doesn't— if this passes, there's no need to split it because it's done.
[3:34:26] If it doesn't pass, then another motion can be moved. Forward. Very straightforward here,
[3:34:30] ladies and gentlemen. So final reading. This is a
[3:34:33] motion that was moved by Councilor Buro. He put— this is, this is amended
[3:34:38] because the motion is the budget. And so what they
[3:34:42] are amending is the budget. And so it's in— every time we put an amendment
[3:34:45] forward is a motion to amend the budget document. As we said, it's just a
[3:34:48] draft until this council chooses to be finished amending it. It does
[3:34:52] not become the budget, and it is the council's budget once it is finished
[3:34:56] the amendments. At this present, all you're doing is amending the mayor's draft.
[3:34:59] And as I As I said, we don't have to do that. We could also
[3:35:02] go back to start from scratch and go line by line again. I'm, I'm open
[3:35:05] to it. I'm just saying that it's this council's option to amend us. So we've
[3:35:09] got an amendment put forward by Councilor Buro, was seconded by Deputy Mayor Beatty.
[3:35:13] I'm open to any other further comments or conversations. I've asked for a recorded
[3:35:16] vote on this, and for clarity, this is about going back and putting the full
[3:35:20] 20.5% back onto the levy.
[3:35:25] Any other questions or concerns? No returns. Then I hand it over to Mr.
[3:35:27] Larimer, as I was the one who recorded— called the recorded vote.
[3:35:31] Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor, would you like me or Council to read the rules
[3:35:35] of recorded vote? I think we've all done this enough times to know the rules,
[3:35:38] sir, and I like that you've created easy-to-fill-out forms so that we're
[3:35:42] ready for them. Yes. Um,
[3:35:45] recorded vote. Uh, so this is, uh, amendments to the,
[3:35:49] uh, Mayor's budget per Section 6.1 Municipal Act,
[3:35:53] Section 730, Reg 530-2022.
[3:35:56] Amendment to the budget, a vote requested by Mayor
[3:36:00] Cleveland. Votes will be in a clockwise rotation as we're in council chambers.
[3:36:04] Yes, an affirmative. No, as opposed. All votes
[3:36:08] verbal. No abstention. Abstention would be a vote in the negative.
[3:36:12] Starting with Mayor Cleveland. I'm going to abstain.
[3:36:19] Um, Councillor Buro.
[3:36:23] Yes.
[3:36:26] Councilor Darling? No.
[3:36:33] Councilor Burkett? No.
[3:36:36] Councilor Mouton? No.
[3:36:40] Councilor Barber?
[3:36:46] No. Deputy Mayor Beatty? Yes,
[3:36:50] is defeated. So at this time, we will move to another motion that
[3:36:53] anyone can move to put in. Noting to Councilor Burkett, by all means,
[3:36:56] motion to go forward, sir. I'd like
[3:37:00] to put a motion on the floor that we take an additional
[3:37:05] $600,000 out of the business service reserve,
[3:37:09] or You're
[3:37:14] looking to balance it, Mr. Burkett, split in the middle. So what you would suggest,
[3:37:18] if I may, what you're looking to do is to not have the $1 million,
[3:37:21] instead leave $500,000 behind or something. You'll pick the amount that you would
[3:37:25] like to leave behind and move his motion at that amount. That would be what
[3:37:29] you're asking, unless I'm mistaken.
[3:37:33] And please, so I want to reduce it by Funds.
[3:37:40] Yes, that's correct. So to
[3:37:44] confirm, you're looking to simply only add a 2% increase
[3:37:48] to the levy. So that would take us from a 2.7 to a 4.7 levy,
[3:37:51] is that correct, Councillor? Yes, basically. Obviously,
[3:37:55] Director Giddings can give us the exact number, whatever that is, but this is essentially
[3:37:59] what I would like. We— while Mr.
[3:38:02] Giddings— to give him a second to do the math. I just need a seconder
[3:38:05] of that motion. Seconded by Deputy Mayor. It's now on the Mr.
[3:38:09] Gittings, the number would be— I know it's just over 300, so do we have
[3:38:12] an exact percentage that this would then add to the levy?
[3:38:17] Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor,
[3:38:20] the total levy would then be 4.52%. Sorry,
[3:38:25] what was the total levy going to be then? 4.52%.
[3:38:28] 4.52%. Okay, well, as I said, this is
[3:38:31] the council's budget to decide. Recording vote, I will call again,
[3:38:36] and if there's any other comments, by all means we can make
[3:38:40] them now. Okay, so the recorded
[3:38:44] vote added, we're ready to go.
[3:38:49] So I'm— or do I just start since I called the recorded vote, or do
[3:38:51] you want to, do you want to speak? A vote requested, uh,
[3:38:55] by Mayor Cleveland. Mayor Cleveland, on this case
[3:38:59] I will say no. No, I do not agree with this.
[3:39:03] Um, Councillor Buro? Yes.
[3:39:06] Councillor Darling? Yes.
[3:39:10] Councillor Burkett? Yes.
[3:39:14] Councillor Boutin? Yes.
[3:39:17] Councillor Barber?
[3:39:22] No. And Deputy Rabbidi?
[3:39:26] Yes. Carried. So to confirm, that vote has now
[3:39:30] increased the budget from 2-point-what to what,
[3:39:33] Director Giddings? So now we are sitting at a 4.52%
[3:39:37] council budget. Noted.
[3:39:41] Okay. Um,
[3:39:45] pizza's here. Apparently we have a break. It looks like we're moved. We're finished with
[3:39:49] the police budget at this time. So we'll take a rest,
[3:39:53] I guess, till what, half an hour, everybody? Is that
[3:39:57] enough time to hammer some pizza and get through this? Thank you very much.
[3:40:00] And to all the visitors and those online, we will see you in 30 minutes.
[4:15:35] might have to go.
[4:15:39] Okay, thank you. Welcome back, members of council. Councilor Burkett is in the
[4:15:43] area, just finishing up a phone call. So we are going to continue on.
[4:15:47] First of all, we do need a motion to extend past 4, so moved by
[4:15:50] Councilor Barber. Do I have a seconder right now? So seconded by Deputy Mayor Beatty.
[4:15:54] With the members of council I have present, I'm going to move to a vote.
[4:15:57] Simply, the vote is to extend the meeting past 4 hours as
[4:16:01] of right now. Staff have put that forward because technically we're coming up on it,
[4:16:03] so this processes to extend past 4-hour meeting.
[4:16:07] We don't have to if you don't want to. Again, this is the council's meeting.
[4:16:09] I'm happy to follow the direction of council. So, seeing no further questions or
[4:16:13] comments, all in favor of the motion to extend? So moved. Uh, Mr.
[4:16:17] Larimer, that takes us to where we need to be. So at this point,
[4:16:20] I turn it over to council for any further amendments, for discussion,
[4:16:23] for conversation, or for decisions.
[4:16:29] We're up to whatever you guys would like to be up to.
[4:16:33] Well, maybe— Council Bureau, by all means.
[4:16:38] All right,
[4:16:42] through you, Your Worship, to Director Giddings,
[4:16:46] how much is left in the reserve fund for Northam?
[4:17:00] Um, sorry, through you, uh, to the councillor. So at
[4:17:04] December 31st,
[4:17:05] 2024, the amount remaining
[4:17:09] in the Northam Industrial Park Reserve account is approximately $974,000.
[4:17:16] $974,000.
[4:17:21] If just a follow-up question,
[4:17:27] um, if we took $500,000 out of that and added that to
[4:17:31] the levy, how much would that work out to?
[4:17:43] So, uh, through you to the councillor, so taking $500,000
[4:17:47] out of the Northam Industrial Park Reserve account That would reduce the levy
[4:17:51] by 1.51%.
[4:17:55] Again, I would offer that— I strongly advise against that as
[4:17:58] the treasurer. I think I've indicated in separate reports from staff
[4:18:02] that continually using Northam Industrial Park to
[4:18:06] reduce the operating cost is not advisable. It's not a long-term strategy.
[4:18:11] Northam Industrial Park does require those funds for long-term capital
[4:18:14] infrastructure needs. So again, as the treasurer,
[4:18:18] I would advise against that. Follow-up.
[4:18:23] I totally understand what you're saying, and we've had a lot of talk about reserves
[4:18:27] today, but I would like to throw that amendment on
[4:18:30] the floor and for discussion of
[4:18:34] using $500,000 out of the northern reserves. Okay,
[4:18:38] so the motion is to increase the northern draw by
[4:18:42] approximately $500,000 to offset the cap, uh, the tax
[4:18:46] levy. Um, do I have a seconder of that motion at this time?
[4:18:51] Uh, as chair, if no one else wants to, I'm happy to second
[4:18:55] it so we can have a conversation again. So I'll pass the,
[4:18:59] um, chair over to Deputy Mayor, and I will second the motion.
[4:19:05] Thank you. So we have the amendment on, on the We have the
[4:19:08] amendment on the floor. We heard the remarks from the treasurer. Are there
[4:19:12] any other questions or comments? We're just gonna go to the director first, then I
[4:19:16] see Councilor Darling, Councilor Mouton, Director Gittings.
[4:19:20] Sorry, through you, I should have mentioned this initially, but we are forecasting
[4:19:24] significant capital infrastructure requirements coming through Northern Industrial Park.
[4:19:29] As you can understand, it's aging infrastructure. So we are looking at,
[4:19:32] you know, $3 or $4 million in required infrastructure needs. So I
[4:19:37] do want to emphasize that. Emphasize that continuing to take funds from Northam will
[4:19:40] compromise those infrastructure needs going forward.
[4:19:44] Thank you. Uh, Councillor Darling. Yes, thank you.
[4:19:48] Um, yes, I just wanted to confirm with the director treasurer,
[4:19:53] um, we got $283,000 from there
[4:19:57] into this year's budget. Is that correct? For— looks like 2025
[4:20:01] committed $283,000. Is that off of the 9?
[4:20:09] Yes, sorry, so I should have— that is correct. So on the
[4:20:13] reserve analysis, that does show committed funds. So those are capital needs
[4:20:17] that have been identified in the past that are ongoing. So the
[4:20:21] $974,000 would be offset against that $270,000. So it's
[4:20:25] probably a bit more, about $700,000. So again,
[4:20:29] not to keep repeating myself, but taking that $500,000 would deplete
[4:20:33] that reserve down to about $200,000 remaining. Meaning. Yes, thank you. Well,
[4:20:37] we were, we were against depleting— or some of us were against depleting the
[4:20:41] police reserve rate down to nothing. So I don't think it's good management to deplete
[4:20:45] the Northern Reserve down to nothing. Thank you. Thank you,
[4:20:48] Councillor Darling. I have to agree, especially we have to remember what
[4:20:52] we're looking at, at on December 17th, to a regular council meeting with respects
[4:20:57] to some incoming possible decisions around our
[4:21:01] reserve spend and policy My comments aside, I apologize,
[4:21:04] Councilor Tanya, you're the next in queue. Yes, I just would like to point out
[4:21:08] that in the mayor's budget format for, um,
[4:21:12] operating, on page 15, I note
[4:21:16] that, uh, the transfer from the
[4:21:21] Northam draw, uh, proposed is $750,000
[4:21:25] already, and that is a quarter million dollars more
[4:21:29] than the staff had actually suggested. And I
[4:21:33] guess I'll— I just point that out as a statistic.
[4:21:38] Thank you, Councilor Maton. Mayor Cleveland. Yeah, I just want a chance to sort of
[4:21:41] address that. Uh, good catch, Councilor Maton. So that, as I said, was one of
[4:21:45] the 3 things that I did direct staff to change from the original budget.
[4:21:49] Um, that was specific to sort of applying apples
[4:21:52] to apples in the sense that, um, if you've noticed
[4:21:56] in the budget when it came to the police sort of increase being at 20.5.
[4:22:00] I've moved to move reserves from the police to cover that. This council
[4:22:04] chose to reduce that. That's okay. On the other side,
[4:22:08] we saw a large increase required under fire, not crazy
[4:22:12] but substantial. And so my suggestion was again similar
[4:22:16] to what I was applying to the police services, using police reserves to fund and
[4:22:20] reduce the impact on the tax levy from the police board. So too I
[4:22:24] suggest to the Treasurer and put forth in the draft budget that we
[4:22:29] maintain the current pool, not increase it, simply maintain it.
[4:22:32] So, Councillor Mouton, just to be very clear, the pool was increased
[4:22:36] from staff budget to a higher amount, but that amount is
[4:22:40] the same pool as the previous year that this council decided upon.
[4:22:44] So it wasn't an increase from previous years. It was a maintenance of the same
[4:22:47] pool from the year, just not a reduction as staff had suggested.
[4:22:50] So this would be an ancillary to that, an additional
[4:22:54] $500,000, the motion. And I'll just, if it's, if I may,
[4:22:57] Chair, speak to why I wanted to second this. I think it's a good conversation.
[4:23:02] I stick with the fact that we need to get the lowest possible levy to
[4:23:06] the tax base. I've used this reference before and I'll use
[4:23:10] it again. When it comes to reserves, it's kind of like it's always good to
[4:23:13] build them. It's always important to have them, just like it's always good to have
[4:23:17] teenagers who who have part-time jobs and you teach them how to save.
[4:23:20] But at the end of the day, when your teenager just keeps coming back and
[4:23:24] asking for $10 for clothes and $10 for McDonald's and $10 and $10 and $10,
[4:23:28] when they're sitting on a couple thousand in savings, at what point as a parent
[4:23:31] do you say, you know, we're going to use some of your savings to pay
[4:23:34] for your, your needs and your wants? So that's the equivalent is the way I
[4:23:38] look at it. And in today's financial issues, I,
[4:23:42] I'm for anything to reduce that levy. And if this is the
[4:23:46] suggestion by Councilor Buro, then I support it. Thank you for your
[4:23:50] comments. Councilor Tunn. Yes, I, I can't support— cannot
[4:23:54] support it at this time because the Budget Task Force actually
[4:23:58] pointed out how valuable an asset Northam is.
[4:24:01] And, and I hear what our Director of Finance
[4:24:05] has said. I think to consider this motion at this
[4:24:09] point in the budget, maybe a little bit later later this afternoon,
[4:24:12] uh, to reconsider it. But at this time, I cannot support it.
[4:24:17] Thank you for the commentary. Any other insights?
[4:24:20] Okay, I'll call a vote.
[4:24:24] I'm going to make it a recorded vote, if that's okay, Chair. Yes. Uh,
[4:24:27] so over to Mr. Larimer, starting with member
[4:24:32] who called it. I don't believe we need the procedural rules, so over to you,
[4:24:35] Mr. Larimer. Um, Mayor Yvonne? Yes.
[4:24:39] Sorry, yes. Uh, Councilor Buro?
[4:24:43] Yes. Councilor Darling? No.
[4:24:48] Councilor Burkett? No.
[4:24:52] Councilor Mouton? No.
[4:24:57] Councilor Barber?
[4:25:02] Yes. Deputy Mayor No,
[4:25:05] it's defeated. Thank you very much.
[4:25:09] If I may, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I'll resume the chair. Um,
[4:25:13] another amendment, by all means, Councilor Darling.
[4:25:16] Um, just wanted to point out here regarding
[4:25:21] the task force, one of their suggestions was
[4:25:24] closing Centennial Pool, $138,000.
[4:25:30] Their— one of their comments was equitable community
[4:25:35] spending. Programs or services that cater to very small groups
[4:25:38] should not be disproportionately funded by the taxes. I assume
[4:25:41] that to be the community grants. I could be mistaken, which is
[4:25:45] $50,000. I mentioned the tree planting this morning,
[4:25:49] that putting it off a year is $99,000.
[4:25:52] So just pointing out to the public, and the mayor mentioned in just
[4:25:56] a to go wants versus needs. That's a total
[4:25:59] of $237,960,
[4:26:04] which is close, you know, just below 1% of the levy.
[4:26:08] So again, it's gonna, it's gonna come to a point where tough decisions
[4:26:12] have to be made, and I'm just putting that out
[4:26:16] there, excuse me, as food for thought. If I may, I'm sorry, Deputy Mayor,
[4:26:20] I have to ask you to resume the chair again. I have a very important
[4:26:23] phone call coming in that hopefully will affect future budgets.
[4:26:27] Thank you, Mayor Cleveland. Uh, so, Councilor Darling, was that just a comment at this
[4:26:31] time, or do you have a prepared amendment? Food for thought for council. Appreciate that.
[4:26:36] Other questions at this time? I have one. Oh,
[4:26:40] just, um, going through— sorry, we're just going through questions or
[4:26:44] organized amendments at this time. Going through this, uh, Director Giddings,
[4:26:48] the $10,000 multi-year commitment we've made to the
[4:26:52] fair share— Northumberland Fair Share Food Banks via an MOU in
[4:26:56] the dedicated page where fair share is listed.
[4:26:59] I'm having a hard time finding where that multi-year $10,000 commitment
[4:27:04] is. Yes. If we're talking about
[4:27:07] that, I have to call a conflict. Okay.
[4:27:12] So noted. Okay. Yes,
[4:27:16] to you, Chair. So,
[4:27:20] The $10,000 with the MOU with the Fair Share Food Bank,
[4:27:24] that is incorporated into the budget. It's under the community grants
[4:27:28] section. So I think in previous iterations
[4:27:33] of the budget, there was a separate section specifically related to the
[4:27:39] food bank. Now it is incorporated under the grants.
[4:27:42] I can find a page. Page 59.
[4:27:49] So I can confirm that then that $10,000 is
[4:27:53] factored into the annual grants program. It's in the 2025 projection
[4:27:57] balance, and we've incorporated in the 2026 budget as well.
[4:28:04] If I may ask, is that page 59 on the staff version of the budget
[4:28:08] or the mayor's version? Mayor's budget. That in
[4:28:12] my package in operations. Yes,
[4:28:16] is seniors activity.
[4:28:20] Yes. So,
[4:28:25] okay, thank you. Is it page 60 of the mayor's budget
[4:28:29] under culture and community? That has the concert band, the art gallery,
[4:28:32] concert hall. Yeah.
[4:28:35] Yeah, but I think the page numbers are
[4:28:40] off between— Yes, yes. So 60,
[4:28:43] I think it's page. All right.
[4:28:47] So are you saying, Director Giddings, the community grants, the $50,000 amount includes
[4:28:52] 10? Yeah. Thank you. Okay.
[4:28:55] Okay. I may. Yep.
[4:28:58] So I just wanted to— I did have a question on this
[4:29:02] because there is actually a specific page for the
[4:29:06] food bank, and it does not mention the amount there.
[4:29:11] Uh, through you, Chair, to the Councillor. Yes, so I, I had mentioned that we
[4:29:15] just updated the budget sheet. So although that sheet indicates that there is nothing in
[4:29:18] there, it is incorporated under the, the community grant section.
[4:29:22] So it's just, it's been allocated to a different section.
[4:29:28] And then if I may, Director Giddens, to follow up on that. So the community
[4:29:31] grants is $50,000 total less $10,000 for the fair share,
[4:29:35] it gives us $40,000. Later, somewhere else in the
[4:29:39] staff submission pages, it had $40,000 for
[4:29:43] community grants, and then there was a line item that said $10,000 for
[4:29:47] mid-year. So then we're really looking at the community grant
[4:29:51] pool for the application purposes, should that proceed,
[4:29:55] is $30,000, is the working envelope.
[4:29:59] Uh, yes, that's correct. Thank you. All right,
[4:30:03] uh, questions for members of council? Is there anything on the fair share?
[4:30:06] Otherwise, I'll welcome Councilor Buro back.
[4:30:11] Okay, if Councilor Buro is behind
[4:30:15] the curtain— there he is. I just— Councilor
[4:30:21] Darling, um, just a question for clarity, if I could,
[4:30:25] to the director. Director of Parks and Rec, or Director Giddings,
[4:30:32] um, page 53 of this, the CCC, um, I guess I'm,
[4:30:35] I'm still working off the staff. I'm hoping they're the same pages. Shows general
[4:30:39] ice rentals, and it shows an increase of $492,748.
[4:30:45] I'm just trying to figure out how it went up $492,000.
[4:31:03] Um, sorry, through you, Chair, to the Councillor. So, um, part of
[4:31:07] that increase is catching up with the current year. So if you look at the
[4:31:09] 2025 projection balance, it shows about $783,000
[4:31:13] as projected for 2025. And so I think we budgeted $782,000.
[4:31:18] Um, and then I think as well, if you look at 2024,
[4:31:22] the actual balance was a little bit less than $600,000. So part
[4:31:26] of that increase is just catching up for actuals. We've also had user fee increases
[4:31:30] as well, and there is some timing delay with that. Just when we do the
[4:31:33] user fee increase for 2025 wasn't done
[4:31:36] till a bit later, and so you're seeing a bit of catch up with some
[4:31:39] of the user fee increases as well. Okay.
[4:31:46] Other questions? Councillor Tahn.
[4:31:50] Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to preface this that
[4:31:55] I did indicate at the beginning of our gathering today that I had 4 pages
[4:31:58] of questions. I'm looking to the clerk for
[4:32:02] protocol on this. I thank staff and
[4:32:06] the CAO for responding to my questions,
[4:32:09] quite a number of them, not all of them. I still have a few left
[4:32:12] to ask, but, um, I, with regards to procedure,
[4:32:16] I'm perfectly fine in making my list of questions public.
[4:32:21] I would need staff approval to make their
[4:32:24] responses public, and I just look to
[4:32:28] the clerk on the protocol for that. It could be, you know,
[4:32:32] part of meeting minutes, or however, uh,
[4:32:35] the public might be interested in knowing all my questions and the responses
[4:32:39] from staff. Many of them were questions of clarification
[4:32:43] And, uh, but I, I look to the clerk for a
[4:32:48] suggestion.
[4:32:53] Uh, through you, Chair, I'm not sure I have an answer right now for you.
[4:32:56] I'd have to, um, because this is a— it's a statutory
[4:33:00] meeting. This is a unique situation regards to the strong mayor budget.
[4:33:05] Um, that's really the only document. And as this council knows, we did have to
[4:33:08] have an opinion on having a staff budget here as well too. So questions like
[4:33:13] like that. Um, I'm not sure how, um, through the agenda or minutes we could
[4:33:16] make that public, but there may be opportunity, maybe working, um, the council the
[4:33:19] next special round. These include as part of the public engagement part of it.
[4:33:23] Council decides to go that route, that might be an option to put it somewhere
[4:33:26] on those frameworks. I'm coming back if council has another meeting. If not,
[4:33:29] we solve it tonight. So, um, I think maybe put that on hold
[4:33:33] until later today. We kind of understand that.
[4:33:37] Councilor Tahn. So I'm ready to ask my questions that do not
[4:33:41] have answers. And just for everybody's information,
[4:33:45] I used the mayor's version of the operating budget,
[4:33:49] and then I also noted which page on the
[4:33:53] staff version the same item appears.
[4:33:57] So, um, I'll just—
[4:34:01] just before we do that, I only have one last question. Sure, absolutely,
[4:34:04] go ahead. If there's nobody else, we can— floor is yours.
[4:34:08] Just on page 39 of the mayor's budget,
[4:34:12] I'm looking at affordable housing assistance.
[4:34:18] We are at a healthy reserve
[4:34:21] balance of $750,000. I am pleased to see
[4:34:25] that we continue to contribute $125,000, which, with a recovery from
[4:34:29] Holdco, so it's net to the Um,
[4:34:33] but I don't know if council has the appetite to talk about this,
[4:34:36] or I will find a way to bring this forward through a future notice of
[4:34:39] motion. Um, we're sitting on $750,000
[4:34:45] for affordable housing amidst an affordability
[4:34:49] crisis and a backlog in housing. I say that, you know, I know my
[4:34:53] role. I know the jurisdiction of Cobourg. Um, we have
[4:34:57] a somewhat idling CIP program, which I know has to
[4:35:01] have a major rehaul or rethink. I don't
[4:35:06] know if staff want to speak to that at all, or if other members of
[4:35:09] council, if there's an appetite for discussion here.
[4:35:13] Otherwise, I will work with the clerk to figure out
[4:35:17] how to package this up and bring it forward through a future notice
[4:35:21] of motion.
[4:35:26] Are you asking if we have the appetite to cancel the CIP
[4:35:30] for now and use the reserves that
[4:35:34] you're talking about? Appreciate the question. No appetite not to,
[4:35:38] um, not to cancel it, not to pause it, because again, it doesn't impact
[4:35:42] anything that's coming from recoveries. I think I'm answering my own question, Councilor Borough,
[4:35:45] when I said that out loud, is, um, I don't know if
[4:35:49] it's germane to this meeting right now to start talking, doing design thinking around what
[4:35:53] that looks like. I just find it amazing that we have $750,000
[4:35:59] in a reserve for affordable housing,
[4:36:02] and I feel like every other week at a council meeting we have
[4:36:06] people coming at us with affordable projects,
[4:36:09] and we're, we're putting it aside. I don't
[4:36:13] think we're doing our part in investing in our own housing strategy, but that's just
[4:36:16] my opinion.
[4:36:19] I'm— yeah, I just want to follow up because I'm on page 39 and
[4:36:24] there's only $119,994
[4:36:29] left as of 2022. There had been disbursements to the developers.
[4:36:34] That's a good point. I mean, that's obviously to Director Giddings. I read that as
[4:36:37] $119,000 is what's the balance available from the 2022
[4:36:41] program, and then there's the actual current day reserve balance.
[4:36:45] I see the director nodding, but I never want to speak for staff.
[4:36:50] Nope, that's correct. Yes,
[4:36:53] what, what I said was correct. The two of
[4:36:57] them together is correct.
[4:37:01] Director Giddings, I shouldn't make fun of it. Could you clarify and confirm what the
[4:37:04] true numbers are? Yes, uh,
[4:37:08] through you, Chair, to clarify, yes, you are are correct.
[4:37:13] You can move on. Um, anything else on— otherwise
[4:37:17] I will— am
[4:37:22] I the only one having this feeling and an observation about this
[4:37:27] amount in our reserves? Councilor Metan?
[4:37:31] Just a general comment, um, based on feedback,
[4:37:34] uh, recently, earlier in this term of council,
[4:37:38] uh, I think we need to be a little bit more definitive on
[4:37:42] qualifications for these monies. I'm just looking at our Director
[4:37:46] of Development, and I believe that
[4:37:50] before we make a decision to disburse any of this,
[4:37:53] we need to be very, very clear on the rules moving forward.
[4:37:57] The province has changed some rules, um, uh, so I
[4:38:01] don't, uh, Madam Chair, I don't know if the developer— or sorry, the director
[4:38:06] would like to speak to this, but I would perhaps pause, and, and maybe
[4:38:10] Council could look at this amount, uh,
[4:38:13] over the next year if there's any qualifying projects. But my sense
[4:38:17] is that we need, uh, we need to revamp our rules
[4:38:21] for qualification.
[4:38:25] Through the chair to Councilor Mouton, so I think if it's the direction of Council,
[4:38:28] you could ask us staff to bring back a report on what we could do
[4:38:32] with the monies that in there for the affordable housing initiative
[4:38:36] now. There are some projects that potentially could meet that consideration, and I
[4:38:39] think there's some options for us to look at. So I think the best course
[4:38:43] of action would be for staff to bring back a report and present some options
[4:38:45] to Council and get some further direction. Thank you,
[4:38:49] Director Larimer. Can we make that motion here? No, that's a non— okay,
[4:38:52] I'll make note of that for a future notice of motion. Councillor Bureau.
[4:38:56] Thank you, Director. I do agree. Agree that
[4:39:01] the affordable, that plan is very important.
[4:39:05] My, I guess my question is, if there's $750,000
[4:39:09] in there, would it, will it be used from next
[4:39:14] year? Like, is that, is that the thing? Because if not, would the new
[4:39:18] council want to start that up and we put that onto the
[4:39:21] levy? And I'm just, I'm just talking
[4:39:25] here. I'm not saying do it or not. If there's no projects
[4:39:29] that's coming up that will use that, or we have to go for a report
[4:39:32] back and we don't know how long that'll take— not saying
[4:39:36] that you're not quick because you could— I'm just saying there is a
[4:39:40] lot of work being done— would that put us in the lame duck period?
[4:39:44] And if so, then, then would
[4:39:48] that money, instead of just be sitting there, would it not be better on the
[4:39:51] levy to reduce it down a bit. I just— as
[4:39:55] talking, I'm just thinking, if there's nothing going to happen with it until the new
[4:40:00] council comes in, then what would be the point of holding
[4:40:03] it when we could take it off the levy?
[4:40:07] That's fair. I think we just get back into past practice where it's—
[4:40:12] that's a one-time contribution to pay it down. Or just other
[4:40:16] school of thought is— other line of thought is, do we continue to plan
[4:40:20] for it knowing that a future program or
[4:40:24] qualifying projects would come forward? I don't know, it's— I'm neither here nor there.
[4:40:28] We don't need to— we have more real-time items we
[4:40:32] can go to. But well, then I'll make
[4:40:36] that amendment just to throw it out there, to take the $750,000
[4:40:42] in reserve. What was that?
[4:40:50] 7:42. I'm, I'm just throwing this out for more discussion to put that—
[4:40:56] what would that work out to?
[4:41:01] Well, if we did
[4:41:06] the $500,000, it would be 1,
[4:41:07] 1.45 be the same as the Northern.
[4:41:11] We did that, um, which would drop
[4:41:15] the tax levy down to 3.07.
[4:41:19] And I'm not— I'm just throwing it out there if it's just going to be
[4:41:22] sitting idle anyways. And then the new council could decide on their next budget
[4:41:29] just as a way to drop the levy. And to be honest,
[4:41:33] um, I know
[4:41:37] this, this is, um, a county council issue, and I know that when you brought
[4:41:41] this up, this is a great idea, but we're just not at
[4:41:44] there or having any projects yet. So I'll
[4:41:48] wait for a seconder to put the amendment on, and then I'll— seconder?
[4:41:53] Mayor Tideland, do you want me to pass the chair back, or are you okay
[4:41:56] if I just finish this through? I think you started it. I'm happy to let
[4:41:58] you finish, and I'm just seconding to have that conversation Thank you. Sorry, just before
[4:42:02] I call another member of council, I just— and
[4:42:06] I want to make sure not to go into Pandora's box of debating
[4:42:09] housing. Housing manager
[4:42:14] of the county, absolutely. Council— this council cannot forget,
[4:42:17] first of all, we have a housing strategy passed down to us from the
[4:42:21] county. Like, at the end of the day, we still play a role in stimulating
[4:42:25] and activating the building of housing.
[4:42:28] Um, my only concern, and I really appreciate the creative thinking,
[4:42:32] and I know Councillor Buro, you always just put things out there for a fulsome
[4:42:35] discussion, so I appreciate the spirit of your amendment.
[4:42:40] Um, however, to completely put aside
[4:42:44] years of investment into a program that when
[4:42:47] we do have an updated tool
[4:42:51] and updated policies and eligible a lot of projects,
[4:42:55] especially given the amount of nation-building vis-à-vis for housing coming
[4:42:59] from the feds, or if the province ever said, what skin
[4:43:03] in the game do you have? And we don't have money in the reserves to
[4:43:06] check that box. Like, I know that was a big requirement of the housing accelerator
[4:43:10] that we applied for last year, even though we weren't successful.
[4:43:13] I would be— for
[4:43:17] that, I can't even entertain the— and I can't give the message to the community
[4:43:22] that we're not going to continue to be a partner, in housing,
[4:43:26] whatever that may look like, once our programs are reimagined.
[4:43:31] That's my statement, but any other comments? Otherwise,
[4:43:35] I'll— Councilor Matong.
[4:43:41] Um, based on changes from
[4:43:45] the provincial government, especially this year,
[4:43:48] also hearing from a about
[4:43:52] a development project that affordable is deemed
[4:43:56] to be market rate with
[4:44:00] regards to rents. I have— I think we have a lot of questions to
[4:44:04] answer. I don't think— and I don't— and I agree
[4:44:07] with you, I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty, but I really
[4:44:12] would support a staff report back. I don't—
[4:44:17] I would rather not deplete this account, maybe,
[4:44:20] you know, take out $500,000.
[4:44:23] And but in theory, I do support the idea
[4:44:27] proposed by Councillor Buro.
[4:44:39] Councillor Darling. Yes, here we go again,
[4:44:42] looking at reserves and whatnot. And my understanding when
[4:44:47] we put the money away each year was we were putting that money away,
[4:44:49] $125,000 to be used to support affordable
[4:44:53] housing that year for whatever projects come forward.
[4:44:57] But we've used a bit of it,
[4:45:01] obviously, on page 39. But having
[4:45:05] that money sitting there, to me, there's a massive amount,
[4:45:10] and I think we could leave $242,000
[4:45:14] there. Like you say, if a project does come forward and the government asks
[4:45:18] us what skin we have in the game. But again, we've got
[4:45:22] to try to get this levy down, and I think out of all the reserves,
[4:45:25] that's one that we, we could take from.
[4:45:30] Mayor Cleveland, two points if I may. First point is,
[4:45:34] we, the skeletal, could have chosen to take the police reserves and then we wouldn't
[4:45:38] be having this conversation. So that is an option we had. We've decided not to
[4:45:40] as a council. Council, and that's fair. The, the other one I have
[4:45:44] is the council is
[4:45:48] saying when other levels of government come forward— correct me if I'm wrong,
[4:45:51] but these are the kind of reserves that we could have used. Just recently we
[4:45:55] had a group come forward about rental units, and they asked for delay of DCs
[4:45:59] and potential, uh, sort of pushbacks.
[4:46:02] These funds could be used for that as well, ladies and gentlemen. So I just
[4:46:05] want to be clear, this doesn't have to be government to government, these funds could
[4:46:08] also— any development project that comes forward that we want to
[4:46:11] help with, potentially like the one we've heard from— I wish it was the
[4:46:16] name of the group that just presented asking for— there's that
[4:46:20] one. And we also just had another one. Pardon me, PlazaCom. That was the other
[4:46:23] one. So PlazaCom came forward and asked for that specific help. So these funds
[4:46:26] could be going to that. And I just wanted to point that fact out.
[4:46:29] Uh, again, I'm— I just want to be very clear,
[4:46:32] Mr. Darling, we do have other options. If this is the fund you think is
[4:46:36] more, I'm actually siding with the Deputy Mayor while I definitely second into this motion
[4:46:40] to get on the floor. I— we have the option to reduce the levy.
[4:46:44] We have it from the police reserves. They're now
[4:46:48] going to be sitting at over $1 million. This is lower. So again,
[4:46:52] I'm open to reducing the tax levy at all costs. But at the end of
[4:46:55] the day, I've been a big proponent of rental units. I've been a big proponent
[4:46:59] of driving to more affordable development. So it's— I'm a bit
[4:47:03] of in a quagmire here because I want to see a lower lower reduction,
[4:47:07] which is why I use the police reserves in my draft.
[4:47:11] This council's decided alternatively, and yet I know that I
[4:47:15] can't afford the tax raises as a father, uh, and, uh,
[4:47:18] currently, and that we need to find solutions. So I'm in a bit
[4:47:22] of a quagmire. If this is the option that council puts forward, I'm, I may
[4:47:25] actually support it because at this point, uh, I believe it could go to better
[4:47:29] uses. But because the decisions to date, I'm probably going to support this
[4:47:33] because again, it's about that ultimate tax Levy. Thank you.
[4:47:37] Okay, thank you. I'm just gonna make that last point. Yeah, we're— I think Wednesday
[4:47:41] at regular council, to the mayor's point, we have a few different projects.
[4:47:44] We have cooperative housing coming in. We've all been having conversations
[4:47:48] with Workforce Housing with relation to our own
[4:47:53] land that we've designated. We don't always have to wait for the
[4:47:57] county to do housing. I just— I don't know.
[4:48:02] I, I, we're moving reserves around from this and this anyways. I'm just against it.
[4:48:05] But so I'll— there's no other conversation. I will call a recorded vote on this.
[4:48:19] A recorded vote requested by Deputy Mayor
[4:48:24] Beatty, uh, starting with Deputy Mayor Beatty. No.
[4:48:29] Mayor Cleveland.
[4:48:33] Say yes. Uh,
[4:48:36] Councilor Buro. Yes. Councilor Darling.
[4:48:41] Yes. Councilor Burkett. No.
[4:48:48] Councilor Mouton. Yes. And Councilor
[4:48:52] Barber. Yes,
[4:48:56] it's carried. Back to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you,
[4:49:00] Deputy Mayor. So, um, picking up where you left off, do we have another
[4:49:04] amendment to be made? Another conversation?
[4:49:09] By all means, questions. So we'll start with Councilor Muttan. I'm going to go to
[4:49:12] Mr. Darling next. I have a question. Councilor Muttan.
[4:49:16] Councilor Darling. Councilor Darling, I'm just going to write— I'm going to put a little
[4:49:19] sign right here so when I look at you Do I see Councillor Furr?
[4:49:24] By all means. So, just before you go, Councillor Mouton, I've got a quick question
[4:49:27] for the DM. So sorry, folks. Obviously, the motion passed. I just wanted one question
[4:49:32] of clarity. So, because the housing reserves have always come to holdco,
[4:49:35] but they've already been transferred over, we're holding them in reserves. That $500,000
[4:49:41] is coming out of our reserves, not holdco. Like, we've already banked
[4:49:44] it, so it's moving. Yes.
[4:49:48] Again, you are correct. That's how it would operate. Okay,
[4:49:52] Councillor Mouton, the mic is yours.
[4:49:56] Yes. Could you please tell me, Mr. Mayor, were you in the room when I
[4:49:58] asked about sharing my questions and answers to these questions?
[4:50:03] Because I've received responses from staff, but they're
[4:50:07] not publicly available. Yes.
[4:50:12] I didn't know. I can't see your light. That's why I, for some reason.
[4:50:16] Oh yeah, I didn't hear it, but I've actually been reviewing. I saw the email
[4:50:19] this morning. I read through it all, so I'm very comfortable going through. It's up
[4:50:22] to you or this council. As I said, I leave the meeting to this council's
[4:50:25] discretion. So what I was planning to do is any, any question
[4:50:29] that I had that has not a reply, I will deal with that first and
[4:50:32] then just allow councillors to
[4:50:37] review the replies. If, if So if, if the
[4:50:41] reply was simply a clarification, I won't be bringing
[4:50:44] it up. So, um, uh,
[4:50:48] let's see,
[4:50:54] um, page 12, and I'm using the
[4:50:58] mayor's version of the operating budget.
[4:51:08] My question is, uh, there's a significant increase in consultant
[4:51:13] cost for 2026. Um, is this related to,
[4:51:17] uh, uh, uh, SMP directive?
[4:51:23] Mr. Giddings, I think that's, uh, under your bracket of finance.
[4:51:30] Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the councillor. So no, that Nothing relates
[4:51:34] to Strong Mayor Powers with regards to that. So that,
[4:51:38] I think as you're aware, we did have a vacancy for the IT supervisor.
[4:51:41] So we did have a third-party contract who was providing us some
[4:51:45] assistance with some of our IT needs. And so you can see
[4:51:49] that in the 2025 projected balance as well as the 2024 actual
[4:51:53] costs in which we were utilizing those services. So we've budgeted again for 2026.
[4:51:57] Now we do have an IT supervisor. So we are expecting
[4:52:01] those costs to go down. Having said that, we have— there is still some value
[4:52:06] in being able to utilize that consultant.
[4:52:11] While you're getting the next question, Councilor Matala, I'm going to move it over to
[4:52:14] Councilor Darling. I assume you have a question as well. Just try to keep it
[4:52:17] balanced while you work your way through your questions. Thank you. Yes, I'm just
[4:52:21] looking at one of— excuse me, one of the reserves
[4:52:25] was Safe Start reserve. I just need
[4:52:29] an explanation on that. I think that was related from the COVID days,
[4:52:33] and— excuse me— is it still— you know, there's $271,000
[4:52:38] there. Is there parameters for that as to
[4:52:42] where and when it can be used?
[4:52:47] I think this goes back to you, Mr. Gittings. I'm going to keep deferring to
[4:52:50] you, the reserve king. We'll call you from now on.
[4:52:54] And if I get the page on that, Councillor.
[4:53:04] So, oh, thank you. Through you, Councillor,
[4:53:08] or through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Councillor.
[4:53:12] So this was one was a bit before my time, but from my understanding is
[4:53:16] the reserve was used to offset some of the financial pressures as
[4:53:20] a result of COVID-19. Now I do have a report going to council that
[4:53:25] was done at the standing committee a couple weeks ago, and then is coming
[4:53:28] Wednesday as well, where I've proposed about reallocating some of
[4:53:32] these reserve balances because they haven't been utilized in many years.
[4:53:36] So we're trying to consolidate some of them. So I believe that account is
[4:53:39] listed in there. Well, that to me, that's a good one because a
[4:53:44] lot of the problems we're into today were a result of COVID so,
[4:53:48] and the budgets that came through at that time. So I'm just wondering if
[4:53:52] it's— if, if it too is not a good allocation for this budget.
[4:54:05] Sorry, I should clarify, like, I presume this reserve
[4:54:09] would have been utilized for any operating deficits as a result of COVID-19.
[4:54:14] Any, you know, public health pressures and things of that nature. So I'm not sure
[4:54:18] if at this point, a few years post-pandemic, if we could argue our cost
[4:54:22] increases are related to COVID.
[4:54:27] Okay, so I'm going to sort of
[4:54:31] ignore the laughter and go with the question. Is there any further questions?
[4:54:35] It was just a statement that I should definitely 100%
[4:54:40] I can agree that that is from COVID-related issues and expenses.
[4:54:44] Like, I think at the year that
[4:54:48] COVID hit and we were in lockdown, we came up with a 0% tax
[4:54:52] increase for that year, which we're still— yeah,
[4:54:56] which— what was that? Just negative. Yeah, the negative
[4:55:00] increase. I think if we— if it's
[4:55:03] just sitting there, why can't we put it on levy.
[4:55:09] Um, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Councillor,
[4:55:14] um, I think approving a 0% tax
[4:55:19] increase and deferring the cost isn't a result of COVID That's a result of a
[4:55:22] decision by Council. But that's
[4:55:27] not a decision of the cost, right? There's cost increases. Council made a decision at
[4:55:30] that time to defer those cost increases.
[4:55:38] Follow-up?
[4:55:42] I think we're saying the same thing, um, but if that money is not
[4:55:46] allocated for, for anything, like,
[4:55:49] it's, it's sitting in a reserve, right?
[4:55:52] It's just sitting there,
[4:55:56] like, it's not earmarked for anything,
[4:56:01] right? Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the councillor. So as mentioned, I do have
[4:56:05] a report coming on Wednesday where we are going to reallocate that reserve balance
[4:56:09] because it hasn't been utilized. So we are going to likely reallocate that into
[4:56:12] the infrastructure reserve account, which will be used to fund
[4:56:16] some of our infrastructure going forward as identified in the asset management plan.
[4:56:25] Councilor Matan, I recognize you while these individuals are working on the
[4:56:29] next steps forward. By all means. Uh, could I make a suggestion
[4:56:32] that we, we track these suggestions because we have
[4:56:37] forthcoming information, uh, that would—
[4:56:41] may it be— inform, uh, the decision,
[4:56:44] and that this council be willing to meet again with
[4:56:48] regards to finalizing this budget,
[4:56:51] especially after we hear from the public. Does that make sense?
[4:56:55] Um, just to be very clear, the process
[4:56:59] from this point forward is at the will of this council. So should this council
[4:57:02] wish to take notes and reconvene another meeting, this council has the ability to do
[4:57:07] that. I believe under the SMP legislation, this council has up to 30
[4:57:10] days to make as many amendments as they would like and host as
[4:57:13] many meetings as they would like. Um, and so your point is taken,
[4:57:17] and I would simply just offer back, by all means, take as many notes as
[4:57:21] you'd like, take as many points as you'd like, and call as many meetings as
[4:57:24] required. Um, as this is, as I said, I thought
[4:57:28] I did a pretty good job ripping it all up and going, we don't have
[4:57:29] to use this, this is just an idea, and it's up to this council,
[4:57:33] uh, the final product that comes forth. So I, I think those are great
[4:57:37] recommendations. I suggest, uh, this council decides amongst themselves how they
[4:57:41] would like to to do that. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Cleveland. On that
[4:57:45] point, perhaps through you to either the CAO or Mr.
[4:57:48] Lomber, Mr. Gittings, um, so knowing
[4:57:53] that on Wednesday we're going to be entertaining, um,
[4:57:56] some reserve and spend policies,
[4:58:00] hypothetically, and I'm just going to say I'm assuming they're going to pass or with
[4:58:04] some amendments, do they take effect for 2023?
[4:58:08] And if so, how does that— what are those implications
[4:58:12] for the budget process?
[4:58:15] Because my concern is, and I was part of an era of council,
[4:58:18] as all councils are, we make a decision over here and then
[4:58:22] we go over here, we make this decision. So what I guess I'm trying
[4:58:26] to commit to say is, if we make a decision on Wednesday, and that—
[4:58:29] does that take effect into 2026? And if it does,
[4:58:32] what are those implications? Because Council's been going— I
[4:58:36] was already breaking some of those policies if we set them as of Wednesday,
[4:58:39] in my opinion.
[4:58:43] So the question, just to clarify, the question is asking— I just want to be
[4:58:47] very clear— the— you're asking the Treasurer or the CAO about what's
[4:58:51] happening moving forward? I just want to make sure the ask is clear. I,
[4:58:54] I, I lost track. I apologize. So I'm just trying to understand the question,
[4:58:56] and that's fair. I went on a bit of a ramble, so I'm just going
[4:58:59] to restate. We have a meeting, so I guess it's twofold.
[4:59:03] We have a meeting on regular council on Wednesday. We have some
[4:59:07] policies around reserves and spending on
[4:59:10] the table. First part question, if it passes,
[4:59:14] do those policies or the bylaw come in effect for
[4:59:18] 2026? They do come into effect. What implications do
[4:59:22] they have for our current budget conversations?
[4:59:25] Does that make sense? I think that's a great— much clearer. Thank you.
[4:59:30] I will let the Treasurer and the CAO answer,
[4:59:33] if whoever would like to choose to take on that question.
[4:59:38] Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Deputy Mayor.
[4:59:42] So with regards to Wednesday, we do have a reserve policy coming forward.
[4:59:46] Now, the reserve policy is essentially following what we're doing now, which is like
[4:59:50] reserve allocations are approved by Council through the budget process. So there really shouldn't be
[4:59:54] too much of an impact. With regards to these discussions,
[4:59:58] there is a recommendation coming forward which does
[5:00:02] consolidate some of the reserve balances.
[5:00:05] So if that's approved, that would take effect for 2025.
[5:00:09] So some of the reserve accounts that we're looking at now— now,
[5:00:12] having said that, sorry, I should add a lot of those allocations or reallocations are
[5:00:16] going into the infrastructure reserve, which is— I need
[5:00:20] to emphasize— is being utilized to fund fund some of the assets that
[5:00:23] are identified in the asset management plan. So we have earmarked those
[5:00:27] funds. So I am reluctant to, at this point, you know,
[5:00:30] utilize any of those funds. And as I've indicated before, our reserves are
[5:00:33] underfunded, so there's still a reluctance to be able to draw on those reserves.
[5:00:38] If council is making a decision, for example, the safe restart, to use
[5:00:41] that reserve, then I presume on
[5:00:44] Wednesday we can sort of take that out of the recommendation. But again,
[5:00:48] to emphasize, the report
[5:00:52] is reallocating those funds for future capital infrastructure needs. So there is
[5:00:55] a lot of reluctance on my end as treasurer to start transferring
[5:00:59] those reserves to reduce the tax levy at this point.
[5:01:04] Is that fair enough? I guess, um, just, yeah, I'm quite
[5:01:09] okay. I guess I have a question, um, both to Deputy Mayor or
[5:01:12] to Councilor Buro, depending on if you'd like to answer
[5:01:16] it again, I want to be very clear, this is a question, not an accusation.
[5:01:19] And if it comes across as such, I will rephrase.
[5:01:23] I'm curious as to, Councilor Buro,
[5:01:26] your move to not touch the police reserves and
[5:01:31] yet your willingness to go at town reserves. And I'm wondering if perhaps
[5:01:35] you could explain that to council or the
[5:01:39] mayor. Where we're not willing to negotiate the reserves of the police
[5:01:43] service that are ultimately at the disposal of this council,
[5:01:46] yet you are willing to sort of have that conversation around reserves that are
[5:01:50] based on the town requirements. I'm just trying to understand
[5:01:54] why is it okay on one and not on the other? And I'm not accusing
[5:01:56] that. I'm just asking if there's maybe a
[5:02:00] definition or a clarification that can be made so that I can understand
[5:02:04] the difference in your mind. Mind? Yeah,
[5:02:07] um, well, with the police reserves,
[5:02:10] there's different things that were— that could come up,
[5:02:14] such as cyber attacks, which are very expensive.
[5:02:17] Um, I know that, uh, a lot has happened in the
[5:02:21] past to neighboring towns that cost millions of dollars. Um,
[5:02:25] and from what we've had in the past with the police, such as,
[5:02:30] um, the unfortunate
[5:02:34] incidences that were major crimes that we needed to go into those reserves
[5:02:38] to make sure that we have them instead of coming back to,
[5:02:41] to council. Um, but first
[5:02:45] and foremost, I'm here to make sure as an elected official
[5:02:50] and working for the public that the tax rate is as low as it possibly
[5:02:53] can. So asking these questions and,
[5:02:57] uh, Seeing with the reserves and the answers doesn't mean I'm
[5:03:00] for it, means that I'm here to ask those questions as an elected
[5:03:04] representative of this town. Um,
[5:03:08] am I attacking them all? I'm allowed to question them, and I think that's what
[5:03:12] a good councillor does. By all means, Deputy Mayor, if you'd like.
[5:03:16] Uh, thank you, Councilor Spiro. Um, I think as of
[5:03:20] so far, I haven't been, um,
[5:03:23] looking at those reserves. I don't think I've supported a motion since that's passed regarding
[5:03:28] those reserves. My question specifically was this: I'm also just trying to— like
[5:03:32] I said earlier, we're going to be making a decision here in a few days,
[5:03:36] a decision here. So what I'm just trying to do is I'm just trying to
[5:03:38] myself making a personal commitment, uh, to be
[5:03:43] mindful of policies potentially coming into place, as well as trying to steward
[5:03:47] some of the financial management that we collectively have been doing
[5:03:51] throughout this term of council. So I don't think I've supported any
[5:03:55] other reserve conversations, and I'm going to try and stay consistent with that because,
[5:03:58] to your point, um, I myself just want to remain consistent on how I'm—
[5:04:03] as one individual is looking at this budget, which includes the reserves. Appreciate that.
[5:04:07] And I would— you're 100% accurate, I think, Deputy Mayor, on that point. I guess
[5:04:10] then I will redirect a follow-up to, uh, just Mr. Bureau. Mr. Bureau— sorry,
[5:04:15] sorry, Councillor Bureau, thank you. Bad habits die hard, and I do apologize. I'm just
[5:04:19] glad I'm going with Mr. Bureau instead of Adam So we're making steps in the
[5:04:22] right direction here. But Councillor Buro, fair enough. I guess my question
[5:04:27] is, again, this isn't an accusation, simply a question of clarity.
[5:04:31] I'm trying to understand how it is that, you know,
[5:04:35] we want to keep the tax levy as low as possible, but then we're unwilling
[5:04:39] to use the police reserves, but where we are willing to
[5:04:42] use other reserves. And again, I'm part of
[5:04:46] that. I voted to support I support the use of the affordable housing fund to
[5:04:50] reduce the levy because, again, it's an affordability issue. But I'm just trying to understand
[5:04:53] the dichotomy here of yes to some reserves and no to other reserves.
[5:04:57] And I'm just curious as to why there was such a negative
[5:05:02] or pushback. I don't use the term negative. That's adding value. Why there was such
[5:05:06] a motion before to have no police reserves touched and then
[5:05:10] the support of half the reserves touched. Yet here we are looking at moving reserves
[5:05:13] around where our the Treasurer is suggesting this is a bad idea in general.
[5:05:17] We're okay with town reserves, but we're not okay with police. I'm just trying to
[5:05:20] make sense of that. I think we're talking about two different
[5:05:25] scenarios. Um, with the police, I, I agreed
[5:05:30] on the half the reserves, but I didn't— um, I don't think they
[5:05:34] should have been touched. I— it's just kicking it down the can. Um,
[5:05:38] with these reserves here, it is specifically
[5:05:42] just asking questions. If there's ways to save the taxpayers'
[5:05:45] money, I would do that. Um, by no means
[5:05:49] does it mean that, um, I want to drain all the reserves in any way,
[5:05:53] shape, or form. We need to have them. They're important policy
[5:05:57] on Wednesday, which was going to be one of my arguments.
[5:06:00] But, um, yeah, it was just
[5:06:04] basically, uh, I— the
[5:06:08] police need them. I understand the town needs them. Two different things. But I
[5:06:12] think we're allowed— we should have conversations on each one. And it's by
[5:06:16] no means am I choosing one over the other in any way, shape, or form.
[5:06:20] But I do want to keep the levy down, as I've tried every year
[5:06:24] since I've been elected. So, um, for me,
[5:06:28] love to have these conversations. And having said that, since we're going to
[5:06:32] be going over this policy on Wednesday Wednesday, should we reconvene
[5:06:35] in another meeting instead of keep going?
[5:06:39] To me, if we're just going to be having more policies that'll be made
[5:06:42] on Wednesday, then should we even continue until after then?
[5:06:48] I, I— this is the will of this council. I will follow the directions set
[5:06:51] out, and I think that's a relatively good question. So just to understand where we're
[5:06:55] at, we don't have motion on the floor, is that correct, Mr. Larimer? There are
[5:06:58] no motions on the floor. We're looking at 3:40 approximately time. How does this council
[5:07:01] want to proceed? We can continue going and having some conversations, we can look for,
[5:07:05] uh, other questions. I know, Councilor Mouton, we're nowhere near the 2 pages,
[5:07:08] so if you want to pick up a few questions, by all means. Councilor Barber,
[5:07:11] by all means, let's get you started off. Well, I'll be very brief. I want
[5:07:15] to make sure that everybody now knows that we're actually kicking the can down
[5:07:19] the road. That's the whole expression.
[5:07:23] Uh, but I, I want to say this, that I,
[5:07:26] I would like to at least be able to leave here knowing
[5:07:30] that we've covered off the 4 pages that, uh,
[5:07:32] Councilor Mouton has, and then move forward from there. Thank you.
[5:07:36] So, Councilor Mouton, that puts the onus on you. You said you're going to have
[5:07:39] some questions that weren't answered. If she would like, and if this council is approving,
[5:07:42] I'm happy to go through the unanswered questions. I'm assuming if they were unanswered,
[5:07:45] there's a reason for that, but maybe we'll find some answers here on the fly.
[5:07:49] But mic is yours. So the good news is it's no longer 4 pages,
[5:07:53] it's about half that. So, page 22 of
[5:07:57] the mayor's budget, future parking meter change. I have heard
[5:08:01] a number of complaints that QR code tampering is
[5:08:05] rampant in various municipalities. So I'm hoping
[5:08:09] that the budget— I don't know if it's covered— that we are looking at
[5:08:14] sort of streamlining, tamper-proofing our
[5:08:17] parking meters. Um,
[5:08:20] there's 3 questions on this page. Uh, the second question,
[5:08:23] parking-related contracts, $86,000.
[5:08:27] Um, I'm not sure what that's for.
[5:08:31] Um, and also, are all parking lot rents
[5:08:35] good through to the end of year 2026? So first of
[5:08:39] all, what page are we talking about, Councilor? Page 22 of the mayor's budget.
[5:08:44] Mayor's operating under this. We're under parking. So Mr. Larimer, I guess that's your ball.
[5:08:47] Well, just to be very clear, Councillor, just so we are having
[5:08:51] a few directors who are on vacation, we have a new director, so we will
[5:08:54] do the best to get through. The reason some of your questions may not have
[5:08:57] been answered is due to vacations of a director and/or still onboarding
[5:09:01] a new one. So we'll work our way through this, but we'll start with this.
[5:09:04] Director Larimer. Sure. Yeah, through Your Worship to Councillor
[5:09:08] Mouton. So the first question, we don't have any reason to believe that any of
[5:09:12] our QR codes are being tampered with. We'll make sure that if they are,
[5:09:15] that we address that, but we have not received, or I don't have
[5:09:19] any received, any comments from staff related to that. And, but I will
[5:09:23] follow up definitely just to make sure that's okay. In regards to the $86,000
[5:09:27] contract, so previous budget we used to have parking,
[5:09:32] parking enforcement, parking on lots, and we've combined
[5:09:35] that into one parking budget sheet.
[5:09:39] The $86,000 is related to parking lot gardens,
[5:09:42] on-street garden maintenance, the Darcy Ontario,
[5:09:46] William Burnham snow removal and parking lot snow removal. So that's based
[5:09:50] on that. That used to be, and it's kind of also organized by Public Works.
[5:09:53] Laura hasn't updated it, so we just contract that out to make sure we're maintaining
[5:09:56] our lots as well too, including our
[5:10:01] lease lots as well too. In regards to the rentals right now for
[5:10:04] the lots, yes, those are currently current. As you know, there are some
[5:10:08] development discussions on a couple of lots. So, uh, right now
[5:10:11] we're holding still until kind of those results happen, or anything comes from those
[5:10:14] developers on those lots, or the landlords at least, uh, from that.
[5:10:18] Hope they answer the questions for you.
[5:10:22] Shall I continue? By all means. Okay.
[5:10:26] Um, on the mayor's budget, page 36, uh,
[5:10:31] just Just have
[5:10:37] to get through here.
[5:10:43] Yes, on page, uh, 36, uh, and it is,
[5:10:46] um, uh, with regards to,
[5:10:50] uh, social and family, the 2027 forecast
[5:10:54] is $125,000, but there's no money allotted
[5:10:58] for 2026. I'm just wondering, um, how that—
[5:11:03] this would be our forward-thinking treasurer, so by all
[5:11:07] means I'll let him answer this one.
[5:11:10] Uh, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the councillor. So, uh, not so
[5:11:14] much forward-thinking as much as making a mistake. But, um, so for
[5:11:18] 2027 and 2028, and this is on page 39, so the recovery
[5:11:22] from Holdco was been carried through for 2027 and 2028. So I'd
[5:11:26] have to update that so that the tax impact
[5:11:30] for those year— or the, sorry, the tax levy impact for those years for that
[5:11:33] specific department is nil.
[5:11:38] So I will mention page 37 is— we covered
[5:11:41] this about the food bank, $10,000. So there
[5:11:45] is a separate page which is there. Let's see.
[5:11:53] I've covered that. We've covered that. Oh, page 42,
[5:12:01] which is page 37 in the staff report.
[5:12:05] I just wanted to highlight, doesn't seem there's consideration for
[5:12:10] future additions to our dog park. We currently lease the lands
[5:12:14] for the dog park. Very, very popular. Popular, but with our community growing,
[5:12:18] I just wondered if, if there is consideration,
[5:12:21] or is that a future discussion?
[5:12:26] By all means. Through you,
[5:12:30] Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Mouton. Thank you very much for the question.
[5:12:34] You're correct, that's something that would or should come through
[5:12:38] the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and we may have already heard it through
[5:12:42] the engagement. Um, and as you know, last week
[5:12:46] at the committee meeting, we discussed additional engagement opportunities that
[5:12:51] are coming in the new year, but the information can also come through the
[5:12:56] task force to staff and to the consultants as well.
[5:13:00] Thank you. Page 53,
[5:13:04] marina security. I noticed that the cost is up 900%.
[5:13:08] It's not clear to me whether this is a private contract or
[5:13:12] whether it's a recoverable, perhaps from fees or other,
[5:13:17] let's say, a town department.
[5:13:29] By all means, after you, Director.
[5:13:33] Through you, Mr. Mayor, um, Um, thank you for the question again,
[5:13:36] Councilor Mouton. Um, from the information
[5:13:41] that I've received from our community services staff, we did
[5:13:45] experience some ongoing issues, uh, this last year at
[5:13:49] the campground and the marina. So we are
[5:13:52] looking, um, or we have seen additional costs
[5:13:56] in security. And speaking with other directors
[5:14:00] What we're hoping to do is sit down in the new year and take a
[5:14:04] look at security needs across the town and
[5:14:08] to see how we can better operate
[5:14:12] as a whole and not necessarily individual departments,
[5:14:16] also while maybe leveraging our internal bylaw enforcement staff
[5:14:19] as well. I'm just, I'm just going to jump in and
[5:14:23] say something that perhaps staff aren't willing to say. Or appropriate for them to say.
[5:14:27] Um, this has to deal with a continual issue that
[5:14:31] we're dealing with at the Town of Cobourg building, the marina, throughout town,
[5:14:34] and that is damaging, uh,
[5:14:37] our property on a consistent basis by individuals who are in our
[5:14:41] vulnerable community members. We're requiring security now at
[5:14:44] all of our buildings. We're requiring security at the marina and the campground.
[5:14:48] This is part and parcel of what we were talking about earlier. Councilor Metton would
[5:14:51] costs, uh, of being the center of social services for the entire county,
[5:14:55] yet the Cobourg tax base were bearing the costs of that. And this
[5:14:59] is another example of a $10,000 cost of security that I guarantee no
[5:15:03] other lower-tier municipality in the County of Northumberland are having to
[5:15:07] consider. They're not needing to secure their marinas or secure their buildings
[5:15:11] because they don't experience the problems we do here in Cobourg.
[5:15:16] I'll continue on page, um,
[5:15:19] 58. It's another, uh, community services item.
[5:15:26] Uh, could you please clarify what is meant by miscellaneous receipts?
[5:15:30] I know it is— it's good news, up 900%,
[5:15:34] um, but I don't know what that might mean.
[5:15:38] By all means, Director. Do you welcome the budget? Say through
[5:15:43] you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you. Um, uh, my understanding from
[5:15:47] staff, Councilor Mouton, is that is This is just a— we're
[5:15:50] working with finance on this amount, and it is, it is a good
[5:15:54] news story. Our manager of recreation services
[5:15:59] started with us about a year and a half ago and has done a lot
[5:16:02] of cleanup as far as our ActiveNet, which is our parks and recreation booking system
[5:16:07] that we use. So a lot of cleanup there,
[5:16:10] and this is just an amount that needs
[5:16:14] to be tied to a GL account. Account, but we're just working
[5:16:17] through, continually working through to just tidy up
[5:16:21] some, some GL accounts on our end. So always
[5:16:25] like when the cleanup is in the positive, Director. This is a good way to
[5:16:28] introduce yourself to the corporation and a way to make friends with our treasurer,
[5:16:31] for sure. Councilor Mouton, next question.
[5:16:35] Yes, I have heard from several citizens concern for
[5:16:39] the concert hall plaster And I am aware that there are
[5:16:43] some roof matters that are under repair that
[5:16:47] are causing leaking in the concert hall. My question is,
[5:16:52] and this is further to questions that have been posed to me, given that there's
[5:16:56] upcoming plaster repair due mainly to roof water damage,
[5:17:00] is it advisable to increase more than 100% the
[5:17:04] events, including loud event
[5:17:09] use, in the concert hall in 2026? It is
[5:17:12] my understanding the room and plaster walls were designed for
[5:17:15] acoustic music, uh,
[5:17:19] and, uh, it's not heavily amplified sound.
[5:17:23] I'm just wondering if we could get some feedback on that. I think
[5:17:27] you're up on that one too, Director, but I'm open to have anyone else.
[5:17:29] Director Giddings,
[5:17:33] through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Councillor, um, I'd have to take that away
[5:17:37] and I know you did send the questions out yesterday, so I can send that
[5:17:40] to staff and I'd have to get back to you on that. I know we
[5:17:44] have been doing some roof repairs before we do work on the plaster in the
[5:17:48] concert hall, just in terms of a clear process of when we're doing the capital
[5:17:52] work. But I'd have to take that away and get back to you.
[5:17:58] Getting close to the end here, Mr. Mayor.
[5:18:01] Councilor Matan, there is absolutely no rush. Take your time. So I
[5:18:05] actually do have some questions with regards to some large numbers numbers
[5:18:09] on the development department side, given that we
[5:18:13] did have a planning department. And I was surprised
[5:18:16] that the, uh, the,
[5:18:20] the large— the largeness of the numbers, given that we did
[5:18:24] have something before. So I don't know whether
[5:18:28] this is more of a one-to-one conversation, but, uh,
[5:18:32] is there a simple explanation And
[5:18:36] I look to the director. By all means, uh, do you have a page that
[5:18:40] you'd like to talk about just so that the public can turn to it?
[5:18:42] And we have an allocation. Is there a specific page you want to talk?
[5:18:44] 69. Thank you so much. I'll turn the mayor's budget.
[5:18:48] I'm happy to turn the mic over either to the CAO or to the director
[5:18:51] of development. Thank you.
[5:18:55] Through the mayor to Councilor McTavish. So I'll give a kind of brief synopsis or
[5:18:58] scenario about what the cost drivers are to the development. Division this year, and then
[5:19:02] happy to take any other follow-up questions. So, uh, there are 3 FTEs
[5:19:05] that are being reallocated internally, uh, to the Planning section.
[5:19:08] So those are showing up in the budget this year. So those are fully approved
[5:19:12] and funded through the 2025 budget already. So those are not a net increase,
[5:19:16] those are just an internal reallocation, uh, to the department there.
[5:19:19] Uh, second, uh, is a decrease in planning revenues for
[5:19:23] next year. So in 2025, we carry $300,000 through.
[5:19:28] So I took a look at the past years being 2023, 2024, and 2025,
[5:19:32] and our actual planning revenues were between $130,000 and $150,000
[5:19:36] or so a year. So we have lowered that projection from $300,000 to
[5:19:40] $150,000 for next year. We're sitting at about $133,000 this
[5:19:44] year, and we just got another check for $27,000, so we're about $160,000. So $150,000
[5:19:48] is kind of the average baseline for the last 3 years. I didn't think it
[5:19:51] would be appropriate to over-project predict what we thought the revenue would be.
[5:19:54] So best practice was to look back to what our actuals
[5:19:58] were in previous years. There's been an increase in
[5:20:01] the consulting line item in development as well too. So we have several
[5:20:05] appeals that we are going to be dealing with at the OLT coming into 2026.
[5:20:10] So there is money for legal and consulting fees for that.
[5:20:14] There's some work that we're proposing to do in terms of engagement
[5:20:18] with First Nations and duty to consult. So there's some money that have been put
[5:20:21] aside for legal fees of that as well too. The comprehensive zoning bylaw is
[5:20:24] coming to a decision of council on the 17th.
[5:20:28] There's a chance that may be appealed in 2026, so we have
[5:20:31] to be prepared for that appeal as well too. And then there's other— sorry,
[5:20:37] consulting fees that are in there for, say, heritage work that has to happen as
[5:20:40] well. So those are just some of the special items that we've flagged for this
[5:20:43] year in addition to normal work that we'd use lawyers and consultants for in
[5:20:47] terms of site plan agreements and development applications.
[5:20:50] Just to add to this before we go to your next question, at the next
[5:20:53] council meeting, we'll be seeing a report come forward about a lot of this reallocation
[5:20:57] and the decisions. Just recently, I had a meeting with the Director of
[5:21:01] Public Works, the Director of Development, and CAO Vaughan. We went
[5:21:05] over the strong mayor directive that was given several months ago.
[5:21:08] Um, all the staff have found a way to come together on the same page.
[5:21:11] As between directors, as they always do, and came forward and
[5:21:15] began presenting to me. And I said, oh, if you all agreed, and they all
[5:21:18] said yes, I said, well, then bring it to council, because if the 3 of
[5:21:21] the professionals agree, then I think it's time for council to hear that. So I'm
[5:21:25] looking forward to hearing that. It's on our next agenda. I believe some of that
[5:21:28] will be showing up. I'm not 100% sure if it's this one or the January
[5:21:30] one, but I know it's coming soon. As I know Director
[5:21:34] Wills and Director Challenger are both sort of working working through the weeds of
[5:21:37] the details. But yes, the point here being that there are no
[5:21:41] net levy increases. This is simple reallocation from one department to the next.
[5:21:45] And I actually want to commend— appreciate Director Challenger— I want to commend staff on
[5:21:49] this because it's very easy to overestimate revenue and
[5:21:53] then deal with it later. It takes a courageous leader to be transparent
[5:21:58] and accept that the revenue projections— I needed to come back in line. And so
[5:22:01] this is the kind of work that I just want to say is great that
[5:22:03] We have directors and the treasurer working together to not just sort of hope that
[5:22:07] we're going to have $300,000, but actually look at the fact that it's never come
[5:22:10] to fruition. So why do we keep putting that number down there? Especially considering
[5:22:14] this council has given clear direction to the development department to get back to the
[5:22:18] basics, to clean up the mess so that we can start the next term of
[5:22:21] council, whoever that might be, sort of with a fresh, fresh approach.
[5:22:24] So my commending again, that's hard to do, and it takes courage
[5:22:28] to reduce revenues. Revenue in a, in a budget season. So good job, team.
[5:22:32] It's called realism. By all means, Director— sorry, Councilor Mouton.
[5:22:35] Yes, on the same page, uh, 69, I noticed
[5:22:39] a significant increase for the Committee of Adjustment of over, over 330%.
[5:22:43] Uh, could you please identify
[5:22:46] what's happening? I'd love to start that one, but I believe that's going
[5:22:50] to be regarding our OLT, but maybe I'm
[5:22:54] wrong. Through the chair to Councilor Burtell.
[5:22:58] So what I've tried to do in the budget this year is align costs
[5:23:03] with the actual respective different departments and planning. So we have Long Range
[5:23:07] Planning and we have Development Review. So I think this is just a typo that
[5:23:11] we didn't catch to move forward, that it should read Development Review instead of Committee
[5:23:14] of Adjustment. So what I've done is I've taken the costs
[5:23:18] that are actually in Development Review and the costs that are actually long-range planning.
[5:23:21] So those staff that are there and any of the requisite expenses that are there
[5:23:24] and have two distinct divisions, because right now everything was just lumped kind of into
[5:23:28] planning and we don't really know what the true cost of that is. I think
[5:23:32] it's important for Council and the public to understand what those cost drivers are.
[5:23:36] And if we look to do like a planning fee study in, say,
[5:23:39] 2027 or beyond, I think it's important for us
[5:23:43] to be able to really understand kind of what those costs are and what's driving
[5:23:46] driving them, and especially as it relates to if we look at amending our fees
[5:23:50] at some point in the future, they can be requisite of the actual costs that
[5:23:52] are there. I do know there's one thing I do need to flag because
[5:23:56] it's on Councillor Mouton's question, so I'm sure it's going to come up soon anyways.
[5:24:00] There was a mistake on my end that I have to own.
[5:24:04] So in the long-range planning section, we had some
[5:24:07] amazing kind of changes that didn't make it through just because of timing towards the
[5:24:11] end. So 2 things that were going to be removed from there. So there's the
[5:24:15] Heritage Conservation District Plan and the
[5:24:18] Downtown CIP incentive program. So there's recoverables for
[5:24:22] both of those. So it would be— those would both come off and it would
[5:24:25] be no impact to the tax levy.
[5:24:28] And where it says development area Cobourg East, that should have been updated for
[5:24:31] the actual official plan in itself because the Cobourg East was
[5:24:35] funded and started this year, but it's the OP. OP that is going through
[5:24:39] for next year. Follow up.
[5:24:42] This is on page 72. Yes. Okay, so, uh,
[5:24:46] yes, you did anticipate my question, which was the OP.
[5:24:50] Uh, so will you be reissuing that page,
[5:24:53] or Mr. Mayor, you would be— oh no, my draft is done. I've already ripped
[5:24:57] mine up at this point. This is Director Gittings. Uh, so could you
[5:25:01] please repeat what— I'm sorry, I didn't— I wasn't sure what page you were
[5:25:05] on, and I And could you please repeat those items? Sure.
[5:25:09] Through the Mayor to Councilor McTavish. So I'm on page 72 of
[5:25:13] the Mayor's budget. So there was 2 special projects that were noted,
[5:25:16] the Heritage Conservation District Plan, the Downtown CIP incentive
[5:25:20] program. So both those would be falling off, so the costs and the recoverables.
[5:25:24] And we had— I missed updating where it says development area Cobourg East, that should
[5:25:28] read the Official Plan projects. So that would bring forward a budget for the OP.
[5:25:31] Project for 2026, and those other 2 would fall off.
[5:25:36] So again, more reallocation, not new funding, not new models, simple reallocation. Is that
[5:25:40] fair to say? Uh, through the mayor to the mayor,
[5:25:44] yes. So it would be no impact to the tax levy. Uh, the OP
[5:25:47] is being funded in part from Development Charges Reserve, and the rest will be coming
[5:25:51] from the Planning Studies Reserve.
[5:25:54] Thank you. So again, once again, this budget does have a very very, uh,
[5:25:58] I think balanced approach to using capital and reserves. By all means, Councilor Matong.
[5:26:02] So that means— so with the 2026 budget
[5:26:06] under this page, would that be closer to zero at
[5:26:11] the bottom? This one I'm
[5:26:15] open to. It looks like we're saving $250,000 here.
[5:26:21] Sorry, what is the question, Councilor Matong? I just want to I understand.
[5:26:26] So the question is, we've had a couple of studies that are removed
[5:26:30] off the list, but they may have been recoveries,
[5:26:36] and then we had a study that was clarified
[5:26:40] that it will in fact happen, the OP. So the, the,
[5:26:44] the final number there on the 2026 budget on page 72,
[5:26:47] which now reads $287.94, will Through
[5:26:57] the chair, Chair to Councilor McTavish, it'll still read, um,
[5:27:00] $287,994, uh, because there's a cost
[5:27:04] and then a recovery, uh, for those two special projects that were, uh,
[5:27:07] highlighted on here. So that nets out to zero.
[5:27:10] Um, there were the development area, Cobourg East, that should read
[5:27:14] official plan. Uh, there are recoveries for that as well too, so we can pull
[5:27:17] $65,000 $25,000 from development charges because it's identified in the DC
[5:27:21] background study, and then the remainder of it would be funded through the
[5:27:25] planning studies reserve. So you'll note I'm putting money into the planning studies reserve
[5:27:29] this year. So my plan is to put a small amount of money each year
[5:27:32] into the reserve so that we have a fully funded planning study reserve
[5:27:36] when we need to draw from it, and then the remainder balance would be drawn
[5:27:39] from that this year.
[5:27:47] I'm on my last page.
[5:27:54] Why is that? We need a motion to extend.
[5:27:58] Oh, do we need an actual proposal to do those, or those aren't just to
[5:28:02] be— oh, because it's already been drafted and prepared, it needs to be adjusted.
[5:28:04] Nice catch, Mr. Larimer. That's why they pay you the big bucks, sir.
[5:28:08] So the The ask from our director is to
[5:28:12] basically do what was meant to be done in the past. Is that correct?
[5:28:19] Yes. And for the— well, yeah, I just need that last number for our clerk.
[5:28:23] Further, that council add how much?
[5:28:27] So we're essentially where it says recoveries development area Cobourg
[5:28:30] East. That would be just replaced with the official plan. So we're budgeting essentially
[5:28:35] the same amount that we did for the Coburg East Secondary Plan this year.
[5:28:38] And then we would have to change the funding allocation. So part
[5:28:42] of it would be coming. So you'll see $65,000 is in there for the reserve,
[5:28:46] and then it would just be the remainder that comes from the planning
[5:28:50] studies. And just for the public's edification, Director Giddings,
[5:28:54] these things have already been talked to by you and approved by the two of
[5:28:58] you. We're not just doing this on the floor. Is that correct?
[5:29:04] I'm getting a bunch of head nods to the public who don't know the sign
[5:29:08] language of yes. That's yes. So there we go. So this is not director—
[5:29:13] one director just making amendments on the floor. This has already been discussed by staff
[5:29:17] being brought forward and we're making the amendment. So, Mr. Larimer,
[5:29:21] are we clear on what we're doing from a perspective?
[5:29:25] No worries, we'll take a vote.
[5:29:28] Moment. We're just going to hold a minute to give Mr. Larimer a moment to
[5:29:31] get straight, and then we will move on to that question.
[5:29:36] 23355, same number,
[5:29:40] same number, correct.
[5:31:21] Miss Johnson, just have a quick look, as long as Miss Director Giddings, if the
[5:31:24] two of you can just confirm that this is what's required.
[5:32:01] Open whenever you guys want to do.
[5:32:18] Yeah, I'm just— go ahead, Councilor Matan, while the directors are looking to see that
[5:32:21] this is acceptable. Uh, yes, a question to
[5:32:25] the developer— uh, director, sorry.
[5:32:28] I've done it again. So when we move— remove the Heritage
[5:32:33] Conservation District Plan special project and special project for downtown CIP,
[5:32:37] is that for 2026, or are you— what is the
[5:32:40] intention there? Because those are both valuable projects.
[5:32:45] Is it to defer to some time
[5:32:48] in the future through the Mi'kmaq Council?
[5:32:52] Yes, so it would be to defer those projects. So Next year, the priority is
[5:32:56] going to be getting the comprehensive zoning bylaw approved and implemented,
[5:33:00] finishing the Coburg secondary plan, and then all of the work that needs to happen
[5:33:03] on the new official plan. So those are our policy priorities coming
[5:33:07] into 2026. Anything that we wouldn't consider— I
[5:33:11] don't consider foundational will be 2027 and beyond. Once we get kind of those
[5:33:15] core planning documents done,
[5:33:18] then we can start to look at other items. If I may, Mr. Mayor,
[5:33:21] then if we use the word remove, that we remove for 2026,
[5:33:25] or use the words defer until
[5:33:29] a future budget year, those two projects. I just,
[5:33:32] I think they're valuable. I don't think I want to say that we're— they're
[5:33:36] going to disappear entirely. I have no problem that we're still looking for a mover
[5:33:39] and a seconder. So this is still in discussion. So by all means,
[5:33:43] I think the clerk's hearing that and moving that.
[5:33:47] So moved by Councilor, uh, Barber, seconded by Councilor Any
[5:33:54] other questions or concerns at this time? I just want to make sure that we're
[5:33:58] doing this, uh, on the up and up,
[5:34:01] so to speak. Director Challenger, we're all good on your side with
[5:34:05] what's been proposed,
[5:34:09] uh, through the mayor. I would just have to double-check with the
[5:34:13] treasurer or with the clerk. Um, I think
[5:34:17] so. We We've got $65,000 for the official
[5:34:20] plan project that is coming from development charge
[5:34:24] reserve. So that's noted in there as well. I just need— I think we need
[5:34:27] some clarity that $168,255 would be funded from the
[5:34:32] planning studies reserve as a recoverable.
[5:34:36] Yeah. At $168,255.
[5:34:46] And Mr. Mayor, if it's okay to, to use the word defer rather
[5:34:51] than remove in the first paragraph.
[5:34:55] I noted that. Um, is that the hand raised there, Deputy Mayor? Is there another
[5:34:59] question on top of that? Deferred, not removed. Is that
[5:35:03] understood? The two movers
[5:35:07] and seconders are fine with That.
[5:35:12] Okay, any other further
[5:35:16] considerations, issues, negotiations?
[5:35:19] Deputy Mayor, in the past when we've
[5:35:23] deferred, is it just assumed that the deferral, it'll be rolled over into
[5:35:27] 2027 for discussion? I know in the past we've indicated as
[5:35:31] such. I just, I don't know if we need— does imply that the deferral
[5:35:35] means it just bumped up a fiscal year.
[5:35:38] Otherwise, if we need to indicate that in the motion,
[5:35:43] uh, I— Mr. Chair, um, uh, in response to the Deputy Mayor,
[5:35:46] I'm okay to, to include to defer, uh, to 2027,
[5:35:51] and then that, that time, uh, it can be decided
[5:35:54] by council whether it's deferred, uh, further.
[5:36:01] Yeah, next year will be another strong mayor budget, whoever the mayor
[5:36:05] is at that time. So it doesn't really matter what you defer because it'll be
[5:36:09] up to the mayor at that time to present it at that time. Could I,
[5:36:12] could I then include the date just as a little reminder, a gentle reminder?
[5:36:16] This is your motion. I have no issues or concerns. Uh,
[5:36:20] so, but just, just be very clear, the same thing will happen
[5:36:23] next year is it'll be up to the mayor at the day to decide whether
[5:36:27] they want to consider that or not. But I, to the Deputy Mayor's point,
[5:36:30] I don't want to lose track of it. So noted.
[5:36:35] So sure, if they want to put that in, that,
[5:36:38] that it, it comes back to the— I think to the idea is that they'd
[5:36:42] like it to go back to the way it always was.
[5:36:48] The concern is that there's the heritage plan and the special recovery
[5:36:52] project would be forgotten, and time. So just for simplicity,
[5:36:55] if I may offer that the first line, that the long-range planning project
[5:37:00] sheet, uh, uh, to defer to 2027
[5:37:04] the 2026 special budget projects,
[5:37:11] or whichever— whatever the clerk feels is most suitable.
[5:37:16] Councillor earlier
[5:37:20] that to defer something generally meant a year. Uh,
[5:37:23] if, if that's true, we certainly don't need to add the year in there.
[5:37:26] But if I'm wrong, then fine. Let's just, uh,
[5:37:30] whatever needs to happen to move forward and get this done onto the next subject,
[5:37:33] I'm for that.
[5:37:38] Okay, any further questions or concerns regarding it?
[5:37:42] Seeing none, all in favor? So moved. Thank you very
[5:37:45] much, Councilor Muttah. Any other questions? Yes,
[5:37:48] one last one. Sounds like a plan. Okay, so on,
[5:37:53] on page 50, there is a reference to the marina workshop
[5:37:57] roof is being replaced, which raises the question.
[5:38:00] I believe the town has contracts for solar panel,
[5:38:04] solar panel installations on many town-owned
[5:38:09] roofs, and I was wondering if we could get an update
[5:38:13] on that. That revenue-generating
[5:38:19] process and whether the marina building or
[5:38:23] the new roof on the, um, the proposed new roof on the utility
[5:38:27] building could accommodate solar panels as well. I don't
[5:38:31] think staff's going to have that answer today, but definitely I think we should take
[5:38:34] note of that. I'm seeing a head bob from the director. We've heard
[5:38:38] mixed emotions and mixed feelings and mixed facts around this.
[5:38:42] When we look at the fire hall museum and that
[5:38:46] building and all the complications that the town has had to address because
[5:38:49] of that contract, I would suggest that we be very cautious moving
[5:38:53] forward. I'm seeing the head bob of my CAO, or the CAO to
[5:38:58] the right of me, agreeing with this fact that when we do those installations,
[5:39:01] they often have a turnaround repayment of up to 10 or 20 years.
[5:39:05] It requires future councils to then navigate a problem. But I saw
[5:39:10] Director of Public Works— Director of Parks and Rec.
[5:39:13] Thank you, Lucretia. Director Barker, no, and I'm sure she'll get back
[5:39:18] to you with that study and/or report for the future.
[5:39:22] Okay, going once, going twice, sold on Councilor
[5:39:27] Métan's questions. We're sitting at 4:10. What would this council like
[5:39:31] to do next? Councilor Buro.
[5:39:35] If we could reconvene on another day if we need to.
[5:39:39] I know I got— I gotta get going soon. Um, so yeah,
[5:39:43] as I said, this budget is at the council's discretion for up to 30
[5:39:46] days. Uh, this council gets to choose how many times they'd like to meet and
[5:39:50] how many amendments. So, Councilor Matan, I would support
[5:39:53] the Councillor Buro's, um, idea, and it would be very helpful
[5:39:58] to have all the budget sheets up to updated,
[5:40:01] uh, current current, uh, to the, uh, further the—
[5:40:05] from discussions today. So, Councilor Matan, you're looking for some
[5:40:09] of the amendments to be put into a draft budget. Is that what you're asking?
[5:40:15] Because right now there's the mayor's draft budget,
[5:40:19] and then there's a few amendments, but none of those amendments have actually been voted
[5:40:23] on yet. Like, they're amended, but it's not— the budget hasn't been passed yet.
[5:40:26] So they have been included in the budget. So those— perfect. So then we can
[5:40:30] just simply have the Treasurer update the amended amendments to date, and then
[5:40:33] you'll have that at the— I'm noticing a smile, which means that's possible.
[5:40:37] Thank you. So yes, I think that's very plausible, uh,
[5:40:40] Councilor Matane. Deputy Mayor. Thank you,
[5:40:43] Mayor Cleveland. I was going to ask a similar question. So the amendments that have
[5:40:47] been made today, if I can use the word— so now we have the mayor's
[5:40:50] draft budget has now been revised as
[5:40:54] a council budget now, the council
[5:40:58] budget. I can use that language because— okay, Council, the, the draft 2026 budget has
[5:41:01] been revised. I did send a motion to the clerk for consideration.
[5:41:05] I don't know if this Council— oh, I mean, I'll put on the floor,
[5:41:07] but if we reconvene again to just review the
[5:41:12] revised budget, the beginning when we opened up, we did talk about some type of
[5:41:16] community engagement. Um, I mean, I'm open to wordsmithing,
[5:41:20] but I put this together earlier this this morning.
[5:41:24] If there's a seconder, I'd be happy to speak to it, but I do what
[5:41:27] I'm— Seconded
[5:41:31] by Councilor Darling. May I? By all means. So again,
[5:41:35] it's just to— so it's now the
[5:41:39] council's— the community's budget. It's been revised,
[5:41:43] putting on to engage COBurg with a short survey, or at least a simple—
[5:41:47] and a simple form to collect feedback might
[5:41:52] be helpful. I also wanted to include a presentation from the task force,
[5:41:55] but I don't know if that— the task force report,
[5:42:01] how pertinent that is at that time. I think we've done a good job of
[5:42:04] working through. So in closing,
[5:42:08] I feel a responsibility to put an invitation out to the community
[5:42:12] to very short high-level survey, a pulse check on the budget,
[5:42:16] and a correspondence form, um, so that we've
[5:42:19] at least offered that, uh, invitation to, uh,
[5:42:22] to the community. Um, and I've put in December
[5:42:26] 27th as a ballpark date. It could go into the new year. I would
[5:42:30] look to the mayor and/or the clerk, um, to advise on, um,
[5:42:34] the, the timelines before us.
[5:42:39] Uh, CAO Vaughn, would you like to take a stab at that in terms of
[5:42:42] this by 27th, meaning we're not until the new year till the second
[5:42:50] I'm sorry, Your Worship, what are you asking me to take a stab at?
[5:42:55] So the Deputy Mayor's put that forward. Sorry, I just wanted to see
[5:42:59] that, if that's okay, that the next report would be gathered,
[5:43:03] the public feedback would be gathered by December 27th, which would mean
[5:43:07] the next special meeting of council would have to be after the December 27th revised,
[5:43:12] and the next— the 30 days ends January 9th, I believe,
[5:43:16] 7th. So that— what would that mean is this budget would be approved
[5:43:20] at some point between the 27th and the 7th.
[5:43:23] Does that work for staff?
[5:43:30] So, uh,
[5:43:34] I think understanding that there are vacations that have
[5:43:38] been scheduled during the holiday period. So being as respectful as that, I'm just taking
[5:43:41] a quick look at our coverage just to see who is off
[5:43:46] and on. Certainly staff are going to do everything in our power to
[5:43:50] abide by the wishes of Council.
[5:43:54] If we have a little bit of wiggle room in those dates
[5:43:58] with respect to, you know, if we're gathering it by the 23rd, July 27th.
[5:44:01] Let's have a few days that we have some turnaround time. So staff do
[5:44:05] have a couple of vacation days that they have
[5:44:09] some space to come back. If Council
[5:44:13] wants to propose some, some dates, I'd be reluctant as
[5:44:17] a staff member to suggest the date that Council would, but certainly a
[5:44:21] few days' grace would be appreciated given the time of year.
[5:44:29] Mr. Mayor. All right, by all means. I'm just writing a note there. Yes,
[5:44:31] Councilor Darlington. Question, uh, for the rest of council,
[5:44:35] we've got till the 7th, so as long as it's passed on the 7th,
[5:44:39] is that correct?
[5:44:42] Before the 7th. Okay, so we got basically looking at the
[5:44:46] 5th or 6th of January, which gives a few days after January
[5:44:51] 1st holiday. How does everybody look
[5:44:59] So the question was asked by Councilor Darling about days. We'll hold that.
[5:45:02] Councilor Buro, it's already on experiencecober.ca,
[5:45:08] correct? So no, just to be very clear, Councilor Buro,
[5:45:12] the mayor's draft budget is on Engage. What the deputy mayor
[5:45:16] is suggesting is that that be replaced with the 2
[5:45:20] amendments, the 2 amendments, so that the police— yeah,
[5:45:24] the Police Reserves versus the Northern Reserves.
[5:45:32] Thank you. We've had a few amendments today,
[5:45:36] but so it's on Engage Cobourg. My understanding was, as I
[5:45:39] look at it, so just the documents are there. There's been no, um,
[5:45:43] survey, there's been no comment window for submissions.
[5:45:48] It would be very late at this point. Again, I'm just standing by my personal
[5:45:52] principle as a member of council on engagement.
[5:45:57] That's all. I, I feel I have a responsibility to put this out
[5:46:01] there for council to discuss. I recognize it's a very tight window,
[5:46:05] um, so we can update
[5:46:09] what's on EngageCo-op Algonquin Anishnaabeg, um, the task force. I would
[5:46:13] love to have a few questions specifically about the task force
[5:46:17] because to the earlier point, going into next year, if this
[5:46:21] is a pulse check on where we're going, the community really has to have
[5:46:25] an understanding of the reality we face.
[5:46:29] I'll just leave it at that.
[5:46:33] Councilor Matana, and just before your question, again, the other option is, is we could
[5:46:36] just move to approve the budget. Budget as amended today. I just throwing that out
[5:46:39] there. This council does have that ability as well. Councilor Mouton,
[5:46:43] if I could ask the Director of Finance— so now we are looking at
[5:46:47] calling this the council budget, it's the draft council budget.
[5:46:52] Um, realistically, making these changes,
[5:46:55] uh, making sure everything is, uh, okay, and posting
[5:46:59] it on the Engage Cobourg website, how many
[5:47:03] How many days would you need to do that realistically?
[5:47:09] Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor— to the Councillor,
[5:47:13] I've been updating this stuff as we go, so I can get it done tomorrow
[5:47:17] morning. I would— sorry, I would suggest that Director Gittings was hopeful that we would
[5:47:20] have a budget document for today at the end of this meeting, so that he's
[5:47:23] been going on the fly because staff are eager to get those orders out to
[5:47:27] get this work going. That's what I was referring to here. About that.
[5:47:30] So, uh, by all means. Um, yeah, I,
[5:47:35] I for one don't have any other cuts or amendments
[5:47:38] to the budget. Um, I'm— if anybody else does,
[5:47:43] let me know, but I'm, I'm okay with passing it today.
[5:47:49] Councilor Garland? Yeah, just, uh, for the final number, we've thrown around a
[5:47:53] bunch of numbers here. Just what is with all the amendments today? 8, what is
[5:47:57] the final number? Uh,
[5:48:01] through you— uh, sorry, long day— through you,
[5:48:04] Mayor, to the councillor, uh, the final is right now at 3.01%.
[5:48:14] At this point, uh, so this is the options, um, so we
[5:48:18] right now we have a motion on the floor to push
[5:48:22] this back and have another meeting. We can deal with that, or we can do
[5:48:25] what this council wants. Again, the council's budget has been done.
[5:48:29] We've got 3-point. I'm open to suggestions.
[5:48:33] By all means, Councillor Darling. Yes, I second this motion. I kind
[5:48:37] of agree with that the Deputy Mayor is saying, but, uh,
[5:48:40] no matter what we pass and when we pass it, there's still going to be
[5:48:43] complaints. So I'm thinking 3.01. We're not going to do
[5:48:47] much better than that, and uh, with the holidays and everything
[5:48:51] else that's going on, I don't know how many people are going to be that
[5:48:54] interested in the next couple weeks of what's really going on. But, uh,
[5:48:58] so I'm not going to support the amendment that I seconded, and I would put
[5:49:02] a new amendment on the floor if this one fails. So are you pulling your
[5:49:06] seconding at this point, Councilor John? Because that— you're allowed to do that. I'll just
[5:49:10] pull the motion. Motion pulled. Noted.
[5:49:13] Motion on the floor. Would anyone like to propose a new motion? Councilor Councillor—
[5:49:20] I propose that we accept the budget as amended.
[5:49:26] Noted. Do I have a seconder at this time? Seconded by Councillor Buro. We— oh,
[5:49:29] sorry, sorry, I caught you late there, Councillor Burkett. I am seeing you, and I
[5:49:33] appreciate the clerk's team having him up on the screen at all times. If we
[5:49:36] can somehow figure out how to do that moving forward— pardon
[5:49:41] me, we have a report for that, of course. To have a report for that,
[5:49:43] but, uh, I look forward to that report. But yeah, thank you very much.
[5:49:46] So we now have a mover and a seconder to accept the amended budget.
[5:49:50] Now, when we're talking about the amended budget, are we talking about all of the
[5:49:53] budgets, or are we talking about the operating budget first, then we're going to pick
[5:49:56] it and go through all of them? Or did we want to just do a
[5:49:59] single motion that approves all the budgets? It's open to, uh, council's choice,
[5:50:02] and I just want to be very clear. Councillor Darling, um, as we've had very
[5:50:06] little discussion on the other ones, I think everybody's all quite agreeable on the
[5:50:10] other ones as far as operating capital, environmental, and stormwater.
[5:50:13] So I would propose that all 2026 budgets be approved at
[5:50:17] this time. So the clerk's team, just to be clear, we've got a clarification from
[5:50:20] the mover. I'll check with the seconder that he supports that motion, that all 5
[5:50:23] budgets are approved in a single motion, not just operating capital,
[5:50:26] but also stormwater, environmental capital, and what's the
[5:50:30] last one I'm missing? I know there's a 5th one. Operating capital,
[5:50:33] stormwater, environmental, and environmental
[5:50:37] capital. Environmental capital. That's the one I always forget. Forget it, I appreciate it.
[5:50:41] Sometimes it takes a while for me to catch up, Director. Um, so that's
[5:50:45] all 5, so we're going to put all 5, uh, to accept as amended.
[5:50:51] The council approve, and it's no longer the mayor's budget. Council approve.
[5:50:54] It is the council amended budget. You— I will
[5:50:58] call it, you know, names matter. Mr. Larmer, go ahead.
[5:51:02] Mr. Larmer, so through you, uh, this motion
[5:51:06] is good, it provides direction, but the 30 days doesn't matter about this.
[5:51:09] So it's 30 days. So even Council makes this motion today,
[5:51:12] January 7th is when the date of the budget will come in effect. So my
[5:51:17] suggestion is Council has authority to reduce the number of days needed
[5:51:21] for the passing of the budget. So I have a suggestion just to make us
[5:51:25] all clear, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, Your Worship,
[5:51:29] is that maybe we pass this direction,
[5:51:33] to the Treasurer, myself, to prepare that motion for the Wednesday regular
[5:51:37] meeting, to have it on the agenda with a date to
[5:51:41] amend the timeframe for the approval of the budget from 30 days.
[5:51:45] If Council has an ability, we can debate, you guys can debate at that time.
[5:51:47] You might hear for a couple days from the public, but that's just an option.
[5:51:51] Or you can prove it all today, but you still would have to reduce the
[5:51:54] number of days anyway. So either meeting, so it allows the Treasurer and
[5:51:58] ourselves to kind of gather our thoughts to get a good motion for you,
[5:52:00] how you want for the public to see, but totally up to this council.
[5:52:03] But the days have to be reduced. Other than that, it'd be January 7th
[5:52:07] that would take effect, even with this motion today. Notice the motion right now,
[5:52:10] just— okay, so I've understood that. Does anyone else have clarification on
[5:52:14] that? Um, so the suggestion
[5:52:19] from Mr. Larimer is to simply hold till Wednesday to make a final and sound
[5:52:22] vote. I'm seeing some nods of approval, but that's the move. Um, does anyone
[5:52:26] want Because even if we do approve a full exception and support the
[5:52:30] budget, that doesn't mean that council can't call a secondary meeting and make amendments
[5:52:34] at that point. There still is within that 30. So we can simply approve this
[5:52:38] motion. If council decides to change their mind, they can call a second meeting and
[5:52:42] amend it. On Wednesday, we're going to hear from the treasurer and Mr. Larimer,
[5:52:46] a suggestion of how to shorten that period, and then we'll go forward with that.
[5:52:52] Thank you. The only piece I wanted to add is that working with Mr.
[5:52:54] Gittings in communications, we could update community engagement pages. So that
[5:52:59] it's very clear what the amendments were as a result of the meetings today.
[5:53:02] So then the public is aware prior to Wednesday what
[5:53:05] council is actually contemplating. So then it is out in the public domain,
[5:53:09] 'cause I think that's very important. So just wanted to capture that piece
[5:53:12] as well, that we will ensure that that is made public as soon as possible.
[5:53:16] So in that case, I guess we're gonna defer this vote and it would be
[5:53:19] the maneuver, right? We defer.
[5:53:23] Yeah, so basically we said we have We haven't— we
[5:53:27] had moved it, we had seconded it. The motion was to approve and it's fulsome,
[5:53:30] but what we're hearing now is a deferral of this motion till Wednesday is what
[5:53:33] I'm hearing. So moved by the defer— so deferred by Councilor Darling,
[5:53:37] second defer— or seconded by Councilor Beothuk to defer till Wednesday.
[5:53:44] It's okay, we're just working through the, uh— I,
[5:53:47] I like when the clerks have to figure out exactly the minutia detail.
[5:53:51] It's, it's why they are the clerks.
[5:55:00] Okay, so now we have the motion to refer, moved by Councilor
[5:55:04] Darling, seconded by Councilor Buro. The council refer the motion regarding the
[5:55:08] budget to the December 17th, 2025 Okay, perfect. We can read.
[5:55:12] Any further questions on the comments? Seeing none, all in favor? So moved.
[5:55:16] That puts us to confirmatory bylaw.
[5:55:20] So I need a mover and a seconder. There's a confirmatory. So moved by Councillor
[5:55:24] Barber. Do I have a seconder for the confirmatory bylaw? Councillor Burkett, I saw on
[5:55:28] Pompous. Is that correct? Yeah, got the head wave. Perfect. Thank you. Any questions,
[5:55:32] concerns? Seeing none, all in favor? So moved. Thank you very much,
[5:55:35] Council. We will adjourn this meeting, being there no further business.
[5:55:39] Business at 4:25
[5:55:52] PM. Signature, sir. You and your—