[0:31] Thank you. Vigner gathered on the traditional territory of the

[0:39] Hana Nashani peoples, the Mohawks of Aquasasan, the original keepers

[0:43] of this land. As satlers, we are grateful for the

[0:45] opportunity. To meet here, and we thank all the generations

[0:47] of people who have taken care of this land. For

[0:49] thousands of years. I'd ask that if you're able to

[0:52] please rise for our national anthem.

[1:27] Don't. Take.

[1:43] Us. Free.

[1:58] And.

[2:13] Thank you. Can I roll call, please, Madam clerk? Mayor,

[2:22] townhouse president. Councilors, Claude Macintosh. Dean Hollingsworth. Happy New year.

[2:32] Good. Present. Getty linux. Dennis submarine, elaine McDonald.

[2:42] And friend and Gunjo. Thank you. Just one quick announcement.

[2:48] Today, just prior to this meeting, myself and the CEO

[2:50] were able to attend. A pre budget consultation for the

[2:53] province with MVP George de Rouse, the parliamentary assistant to

[2:56] the minister. Of Finance and Minister Nolan Quinn, along with

[2:59] other representatives of agencies and organizations in city of Cornwall.

[3:02] To provide input on the upcoming provincial budget. Seemed relevant

[3:06] to mention, considering we're meeting regarding our own. Budget. Any

[3:09] addition, solutions or amendments to the agenda. Seeing none can

[3:14] get emotionally adjoped. The agenda for this afternoon, please. Councilor.

[3:21] Good. Seconder. Councilor Hayber, all in favor? Carried. Thank you.

[3:29] Any declarations of interest. Pecuniary interest council Baer thank you,

[3:34] Mr. Mayor. At the beginning of the budget process, I

[3:35] did submit a conflict of interest form for the entire

[3:38] budget. Process, including this in the following meeting. About the

[3:44] social development council? I'm still employed with them part time.

[3:47] They are on this. Agenda, I will declare and walk

[3:50] away for those items. Thank you. Any further declarations? Seeing

[3:56] none. Move on to action reports, Madam clerk. The action

[4:03] report. Number one, proposed budget amendments by members of council

[4:07] for this. 2026 budget. The action recommended is that council

[4:13] receive the report. And review and vote on each proposed

[4:17] amendment individually as they are presented. Would you like me

[4:22] to begin with the first report, Mr. Mayor? Yes, please.

[4:26] First report. Proposed by councilor Kedir Neba. And seconded by

[4:31] councilor Sarah. Good. Now, therefore. Be it resolved that council

[4:35] amend the mayor's proposed budget as follows. Number one, that

[4:39] the logistics supervisor position in the 2026 Paramedics services budget.

[4:48] Be reinstated to assist with downtime and vehicle turnover at

[4:51] shipped end, increasing ambulance readiness and response. Time and enhance

[4:56] overall system efficiency. Number two, that the financial impact of

[5:01] this change is an increase of $116,752. To salaries and

[5:08] benefits. Item three, that paramedic Services is a shared service

[5:12] with the United counties of SDG. And that this increase

[5:16] be funded based on the current funding formula. 63.15% for

[5:21] sdg. And 36.85% for Cornwall, with Cornwall's share of $43,023.

[5:30] Being funded by the tax base and that this resolution,

[5:33] if approved by the majority of council, be submitted to

[5:36] the mayor and clerk in coordinates with section two 8416.

[5:41] Four of the municipal act and that under section 280

[5:44] 416, four. Should the mayor veto this? Amendment adopted by

[5:48] council. A council may, in accordance with the regulations, override

[5:52] the head of council's. Veto under section four, if two

[5:55] thirds of the members of council vote override the veto

[5:58] at its January 20, 926. 2026 as permitted under section

[6:04] 284. 16 five of the Municipal Act. Thank you. So

[6:09] move to the vague council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So

[6:12] I'm bringing this. Motion forward. Because this position is not

[6:14] just about administration for the sake of administration, it's about

[6:18] ambulance readiness, response times and patient safety. We've been told

[6:22] directly by the chief of paramedic services that the logistics

[6:25] supervisor plays. Wood play a key operational role in. Reducing

[6:29] downtime, improving vehicle turnover at shift change and getting ambulances

[6:33] back on the road faster. When ambulances are tied up

[6:37] longer than they need to be. Response time increase. Response

[6:41] times increase. When response times increase, outcomes worsen. It really

[6:46] is that simple. We also need to look at this

[6:49] decision through the lens of where our community is headed,

[6:51] not just where we are today. Cornell's. Population is aging

[6:54] faster than the provincial average. As that trend continues, we

[6:58] know with certainty that EMS call volumes and complexity will.

[7:03] Increase, not decrease. This is not speculation. This is demographic

[7:07] reality. Paramedic services is already under pressure from hospital offload

[7:10] delays, higher acuity calls, and longer turnaround times. Without dedicated

[7:15] logistic oversight. Those pressures fall back onto frontline paramedics and

[7:20] supervisors whose primary focus should be. Patient care, not system

[7:24] coordination. The logistics supervisor role is intended to support the

[7:28] system as a whole, ensuring vehicles, equipment and staffing logistics

[7:32] are managed efficiently so paramedics can focus on responding to

[7:35] emergencies. It's preventative. It's an investment in preventative measures. The

[7:41] cost to Cornwall is approximately $43,000. In the context of

[7:46] public safety response times and increased demand on EMS. I

[7:49] think that's a pretty prudent investment. This motion is about

[7:52] being proactive instead of reactive. It's about ensuring our EMS

[7:56] system. Is structured to meet the growing demand, not struggling

[7:59] to keep up after the fact. So, for those reason,

[8:01] I strongly encourage my council colleagues around the table to

[8:04] support the reinstatement of the logistics supervisor position. Mexi, thank

[8:10] you for the comments. I see some hands moving, Councilor

[8:14] Hollingsworth. Post Christmas funk, your worship. I'm not going to

[8:22] support it for a couple of reasons. First of all,

[8:27] Technically speaking, one could argue the motion itself is out

[8:30] of order. In the sense that. Structurally speaking, is that

[8:35] right? Where it's supposed to work is council establishes a

[8:41] level of service administration, then goes and determines the cost.

[8:47] I. E. People and resources brings a report back to

[8:51] council with the cost and the need that it takes.

[8:54] And then council either approves or not approves by us

[8:59] trying to determine how. Many human beings we need to

[9:02] run the corporation. Is arguably not really what our role

[9:06] is. We don't decide how many humans we hire. We

[9:10] decide the level of service, and we decide how much

[9:13] money we spend on that level of service. And then

[9:16] say, hey, admin, go and make it work. So, on

[9:20] that note, one could argue that it's already technically out

[9:24] of order. The second reason why I'm not prepared to

[9:27] support at your worship is that this budget was coming

[9:30] in around 18, 19%, 20% originally. My understanding is each

[9:36] department was asked to figure out how to try to

[9:38] get it to four. Every department. Has probably made some

[9:42] kind of concessions along the way in terms of who

[9:45] they would like to have that would allow them to

[9:48] run their department more effectively. The argument would suggest that

[9:53] if we say, yeah, paramedics, you get an extra person,

[9:57] then every department could easily make the same argument, that

[10:01] we would be better serviced if we have more. People.

[10:05] Well, we've kind of already established. That we're trying to

[10:09] manage our costs. That's kind of where the budget was.

[10:12] Starting point. And finally. The fact that. Admin was not

[10:18] given permission to reduce service to the ambulance. Would suggest

[10:23] that. If they would suggest that whatever cuts or changes

[10:28] they've made in terms of the operation, if it hasn't

[10:31] reduced service. Because we've told them. We don't want you

[10:35] to do that if it doesn't. Reduce service, then. I

[10:39] would think have figured out we can run this service

[10:42] based on the current complement if they weren't capable of

[10:45] running the service on that current complement, then that means

[10:49] it's. A reduction of service, which, in fact, Does not.

[10:52] We haven't given any direction to that regard. So approving

[10:56] this motion. As I said, is already. A not really

[11:01] our role. Be. Certainly could make an argument for everybody.

[11:07] And finally, there's no mention of reduction in service. Currently

[11:11] based on the budget complement. Therefore, I have to assume

[11:15] we're able to continue to do what we're doing. Thus,

[11:19] I will not support the motion. Thank you. Councilor. Good.

[11:25] Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. And I don't want

[11:27] to sound snarky as I say this, but my recollection

[11:30] is that last year the counselor made a motion to.

[11:33] Remove six FTE from the new. Figure out who they

[11:39] were doing. Not by a dollar. Debate through the chair,

[11:41] please. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I believe it was a

[11:45] number of ftes to reduce. But don't quote me on

[11:49] that. What I would like to know about. This, preferably

[11:54] from our chief paramedic, if he's able to respond. Sorry,

[11:56] Bill. I'm looking around for you. Would be. What would

[12:02] including this position. In the overall complement of paramedic services.

[12:07] Change for the recipients of your service across Cornwall and

[12:11] SDG. Chief Lister. No.

[12:22] There. Okay. Sorry about that. So the question was, what

[12:29] would happen to the recipients without this position? Well, with

[12:32] the position with. The position. Initially, you would see very

[12:37] little change. Because this is a growth position.

[12:47] This starts the ball rolling towards bigger changes. As we

[12:51] go on, so I'll try and quantify it for you.

[12:53] Takes about 45. Minutes to get an ambulance turned around.

[12:57] And we're working on reducing that turnaround time. This would

[13:02] be the first step in that. So in 2020. Six.

[13:07] We would just get the ball rolling. We would see.

[13:10] Maybe a few minutes. At most on. That implementation. Into

[13:17] the future. We're hoping to get that down. To. Minutes

[13:23] that the ambulance would be waiting. For being fully ready

[13:26] and able to roll out the door. Like from through

[13:30] you, Mr. Mayor, down from 45 minutes to minutes, like

[13:34] a few minutes for a few minutes, how long would

[13:37] you say it would take to effectively roll out that

[13:40] process because you mentioned that this would just be the

[13:42] starting phase. It would probably be over a year or

[13:47] two until we get there. My other question, because obviously

[13:51] this budget item impacts the counties as well. Have they

[13:54] approved their budget? As of yet. And if we include

[13:57] this in our budget, how would that impact their process?

[14:01] Do we know. Mr. Sal. Through. Mr. Mayor, I have

[14:08] not talked. To the CEO in the counties recently, but

[14:13] by all accounts, through the media, they passed their budget.

[14:15] And approved it. Okay. Ms. Bailey had her hand up.

[14:21] Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I did have an

[14:23] opportunity to speak to the CAO because it did impact

[14:26] the budget for SDG. What she informed me was that.

[14:32] They have passed their budget. They've included the amount. They

[14:35] understand the city's budget. Is draft. As long as the

[14:38] city is not projecting. Deficits for its 2025 year end.

[14:44] They do have a tax stabilization reserve that they utilize.

[14:49] For any budgets that are currently in draft that may

[14:52] see changes before they're approved by other groups. Okay, perfect.

[14:59] Can we see what impact it would actually have visually,

[15:02] to include this in the 2026 budget? So it's a

[15:07] .5% change, which represents I didn't catch in dollar. Amounts,

[15:12] how much it represents to the average.

[15:22] Dollar in a bit. To be honest, from my perspective,

[15:27] paramedic services. Across all emergency services are ones that we

[15:32] hope we never have to rely on. But when we

[15:34] do. It really is life or death. This isn't a

[15:36] service that is unique to a certain age group, a

[15:38] certain vulnerability. It is really something that serves all demographics

[15:43] across our community and I want to ensure that when

[15:45] we're in a tough budget year like this, where we

[15:48] know that. The increase is above what we want, that

[15:51] we are at the same time bringing greater value to

[15:54] our residents. Now, if I know that it cost me

[15:57] an extra dollar 50 to potentially reduce, turnaround times for

[16:02] the paramedics from 45 minutes down to a few minutes.

[16:05] I see that. As being value that is worthwhile to

[16:08] our residents. I am willing to support this because of

[16:11] that specific reason. However, if this doesn't pass, what I

[16:15] would like to see is a report come back to

[16:17] us in the next term about how we can ensure

[16:20] that. We have this strategic. In order to reduce this

[16:26] turnaround time and become very, very efficient in the way

[16:28] that. We control the logistics of our paramedics. Thank you.

[16:33] Thank you. Before we continue, I had a question. On

[16:36] the amount that was put on the screen, it reads

[16:37] $43,023. The report indicates $116,752. Okay. My mistake. Okay. Thank

[16:47] you. Further comments. Councilor McIntosh three Mr. Meredith built. When

[16:56] we talk about turnaround times, some people might misconstrue that

[16:59] as time and ambience responds to critical call. You've got

[17:05] the code system now the color code system. Would this

[17:08] effect in any way? Those top priorities if you didn't

[17:11] have this person? Through you, Mr. Mary. Potentially it could.

[17:17] If an ambulance isn't ready, it can't. Go. It has

[17:20] to be stocked and ready to go. We currently are

[17:27] managing it. So the answer is yes. It could, in

[17:33] effect, do that, but. It hasn't had significant impact to

[17:39] now. Thanks, Bill. Further comments questions Councilor Ginjo. Thank you,

[17:47] Mr. Mayor. I'm not going to support this motion. For.

[17:54] The main. Reason that it was asked. Not by the

[18:01] staff, but by. The consular. I totally understand. The reason

[18:07] why. My colleague is asking this, but. I think last

[18:12] year. You had the opportunity. To present us your need.

[18:19] And Jesus was not in, am I right? It was

[18:24] in the 2025 budget. We didn't stop the position because.

[18:32] We had to wait for job descriptions to be completed.

[18:37] By then we were into this budget preparation time, and

[18:40] we withdrew. The position because it hadn't been filled yet.

[18:46] Okay. Thank you. But once again, I see that it's

[18:50] going to increase the tax at the end of the

[18:53] budget. What I'm not supporting at all. And the impact

[19:02] of adding one position, as you said, for sure it's

[19:06] going to be positive. Through the staff. But. One word

[19:13] you pronounce. What? It's not going to be significant. And

[19:17] we have to deal, we have to shows what is

[19:19] going to be very impacting the life of our citizen

[19:24] now. So since based on that, even if I understand.

[19:30] From where this motion is coming. I'm not ready to

[19:35] support it now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Further questions commentary.

[19:41] Mr. Co okay. Thank you very much through Mr. Mayor.

[19:45] I appreciate. The motion coming forward and appreciate also. The

[19:51] counselor's concerns to ensure we have the resources we need.

[19:55] For our ambulances, for the community. However. The decision to

[20:00] fill or not fill a specific, established position. Positional and

[20:04] we met as a senior team many times. And I

[20:07] can say it's the delegation of authority under the Municipal

[20:11] act through the CEO. For staffing. But as a senior

[20:14] team, we met many times. There was a listing of

[20:17] many positions. Through the budget that we did not fill,

[20:21] and we could go around the outside here and talk.

[20:23] To every senior manager about staffing, and I guarantee you,

[20:30] They'll all have a significant need. But. We're in a

[20:35] difficult budget. We've made the decisions. That we have. The

[20:40] budget to be approved by council. The strong mayor authorizes

[20:44] a certain level of spending and the complement of positions

[20:47] that we put forward. And it shouldn't really mandate the

[20:50] feeling of. A position. That'll become difficult in future budget

[20:56] years if we start having general manager against general manager.

[20:59] And department against department. But I can assure you we'll

[21:04] work closely. With everybody through the next year to identify

[21:08] positions. And budget accordingly for them. So it's my strong

[21:14] recommendation. That this goes beyond. What council should be doing

[21:21] on the operational side through the budget process. I guess

[21:26] I'd like to end with it comes down to service

[21:28] delivery as well, and. Whether a service is being delivered.

[21:34] And that would require full service delivery review. That hasn't

[21:38] been completed in this municipality for over ten years, and.

[21:46] We're looking at probably between three and $500,000 to do

[21:49] a full service. Delivery review. Which we didn't bring forward.

[21:55] Because of the tough budget year. Thank you. Councilor bear,

[22:03] would you like to wrap up? Yes, thank you, Mr.

[22:04] Mayor. Like to respond to some of these comments. I

[22:07] do think we heard that this would have a significant

[22:10] impact on our residents. Unlike what was mentioned by one

[22:14] of our colleagues here, it was mentioned that within a

[22:16] couple of years, the wait time would drastically be reduced.

[22:20] And I think. We hear that the impact won't be

[22:24] immediate, but if we wait until next year or. The

[22:27] following year. We're just kicking the can down the road

[22:29] and waiting longer and longer. And longer for impact. I

[22:35] would disagree. That. This is operational. This is budget. What

[22:40] happened was. The team at the city. The administration created

[22:45] a budget. That budget then had to be picked apart.

[22:49] To get some savings to get us to a lower

[22:51] tax rate. The department included. This position hadn't been filled

[22:56] yet. They wanted to fill it. They put it in

[22:59] the budget, but because it hadn't been filled, it was

[23:02] the easiest thing to cut because you're not eliminating someone's

[23:06] existing position. So I'm not coming up here today and

[23:09] saying, hey, I think we need a mechanic. In paramedic

[23:12] services, which I think. You do possibly need some support

[23:15] there. I may have heard, which is not a proposal

[23:18] I'm not saying that. I'm not making something up. I'm

[23:20] saying something that was in the budget that was removed

[23:23] should be re added as we have been. We heard

[23:26] from the department. It would significantly impact down the road

[23:30] response times. It will take time. If we don't. Do

[23:33] this today. Or next year. We're waiting years down the

[23:36] road to make significant impact. So because it was in

[23:40] the budget. I do believe that we have authority. I'm

[23:42] starting to learn that. We probably have less and less

[23:44] authority. Than previously expected, and our role as counselors are

[23:49] less and less relevant, which is really unfortunate. Because I

[23:53] think we should have a say in terms of the

[23:55] level of service. And that does include. Our say in

[24:00] whether a position should be added or removed. And so

[24:05] that is operational. Sure. And I think we should have

[24:08] some kind of opportunity to give feedback in terms of

[24:11] the operation and the service level. And so. The few

[24:16] minutes that this would save is lives. I think in

[24:18] some cases, maybe not a lot. In the first few

[24:21] years, but in the long run, It? Absolutely. Would get

[24:26] to a point where maybe not. It may not save

[24:29] a ton of lives, but one is enough. This little

[24:33] budget piece is enough if it saves one life, if

[24:35] it brings somebody to a hospital. Sooner than. Needed, then

[24:41] it is worth it for me. The 0.5, the dollar

[24:44] and some sense that I'm going to pay extra in

[24:45] taxes is worth it, because when I'm going to need

[24:48] that one day. I want it there fast. And we

[24:50] as a council, if we don't. Vote for this today

[24:52] our saying that we are not interested in reducing wait

[24:56] times and I think our county counselors are very interested.

[25:00] In wait times because. They are waiting longer for ambulance

[25:04] services in the counties, and I think they want to

[25:06] see something. Like this to improve wait times for them

[25:09] as well. Thank you. With that, I'm going to call

[25:13] the vote. All in favor? All opposed? Motion is not

[25:21] carried. Thank you. Madam clerk. Items or recommendation number two

[25:28] is proposed by councilor Sarah Good, seconded by councilor Todd.

[25:33] Bennett. I'm ahead of myself in the agenda. Thank you.

[25:44] Proposed by councilor Todd Bennett and seconded by councilor Dean

[25:48] Holingsworth. Now. Therefore, be it resolved. Thank council. I'm in

[25:53] the mayor's proposed budget as follows that $54,000 be added

[25:58] to the 2026 budget for the SDC, which is the

[26:02] Social Development Council. That this increase to the 2026 budget

[26:07] be funded by general taxation. That the resolution, if approved

[26:12] by the majority of council, be submitted to the mayor

[26:14] and clerk in accordance with section 284. 16, four of

[26:19] the municipal act and that under section 280 416, four

[26:23] should the mayor veto this amendment adopted by council. That

[26:26] council may, in accordance with the regulations, override the head

[26:30] of council's veto under section four. If two thirds of

[26:33] the members of council vote over ride. The veto at

[26:36] its January 29, 2026. As permitted under section 284 16,

[26:41] five of the Municipal Act. Thank you, Councilor Bennett. Thank

[26:48] you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, I do thank Councilor Hollingsworth

[26:51] for seconding the motion for the sake of just having

[26:53] this conversation. I appreciate it. I'm going to go. Through

[26:55] a list of things the social development council does for

[26:58] the city and the region. It's a long list. As

[27:02] I go through it, I just want you to think

[27:03] about. Whether you think this important thing that they do

[27:06] for our community, and if you feel that each one

[27:09] of these initiatives is a help to our community. So

[27:14] programs, events, collaborations, initiatives enabled by the Social Development councils.

[27:18] These are programs such that they support network's ongoing collaborative

[27:22] tables employment employability network regional coordination of employment and workforce

[27:26] development agencies volunteer administration. Administrators network supporting volunteer engagement infrastructure

[27:32] across all sectors regional emergency and strategic response Council community

[27:36] coordination during emergencies and crisis, vibrant communities where they're working,

[27:41] particular poverty reduction, which I think is something we're struggling

[27:44] with employment and economic participation initiatives. Annual Cornwall and area

[27:48] job fairs one of the region's. Largest employment events, employer

[27:52] panels, workforce readiness workshops, sector specific employment events. Cross agency

[27:58] coordination to reduce duplication and improve employment outcomes for youth

[28:02] seniors. We have the youth engagement fair. We have seniors

[28:06] focused health, safety and information affairs, community lead youth programming.

[28:11] Leadership initiatives. Workshops and engagement sessions addressing safety, well being

[28:15] and social inclusion and Cornwall youth space planning coordination partnerships

[28:19] and implementation of youth focused infrastructure programming in safe public

[28:22] spaces. Cultural and community events. The Cornwall Culture Fest. It's

[28:26] an annual celebration of diversity across Cornwall. And SDNG and

[28:30] Aquasosti supports the culturally inclusive festivals, events, community celebrations, collaboration

[28:36] with cultural newcomer and indigenous partners, ensuring accessibility and representation,

[28:41] community safety and capacity building programs where the administer. Building

[28:45] Safer Communities Micro grant program on behalf of funding partners,

[28:48] support for youth serving organizations delivering crime prevention and well

[28:51] meaning initiatives coordination of community led safety prevention resilience projects

[28:56] food security your brain on food a youth and young

[28:59] adult food literacy nutrition education program, community food access and

[29:03] food security initiatives through. Cross sector partnerships, organizational, administrative support.

[29:09] For the community in kind support to grassroots groups and

[29:11] emerging organizations, acting as a backbone organization. When communities, groups

[29:16] lack staffing, administrative capacity. 30 seconds. Transition Cornwall. Community led

[29:20] sustainability, resilience. Working group, Tenant association of Cornwall and Area

[29:25] Housing Advocacy and tenant capacity building an idea community coalition

[29:30] for quality, diversity, inclusion, anti oppression collaboration. I'll follow up

[29:34] with my wrap up. Councilor Alingsworth. Thank you, worship. As

[29:42] my colleague has already said, I offered to second the

[29:44] motion. Understanding, a reasonable chance. I'd vote against it, but,

[29:50] God, he'd have an opportunity. To make his pitch. I

[29:53] will, in fact, not support the motion at the moment

[29:56] of truth for a couple of reasons. Chief Stevenson and

[30:00] I were talking before the Christmas break about the highest

[30:02] budget I've ever sat through and this is it. 5.4%

[30:06] is the highest. Potential rate that I have ever sat

[30:10] through in 20 some years of doing budgets. Always been

[30:14] of the opinion that budget should reflect both the rate

[30:17] of inflation. This one does not. Now, don't misunderstand. We

[30:22] started around 20%, I think. Admin has done an excellent

[30:25] job of trying to rain things in and get some

[30:28] semblance of control. So it's not a finger pointing thing,

[30:32] but I think we're kind of at the top level

[30:34] that we should be. My colleague points out that SDC

[30:39] has done a lot of great things, and he lists

[30:41] a whole bunch of things they've done, and I'm sure

[30:42] they're all valid. And they're all great, but there's other

[30:45] organizations. Big brothers, Baldwin House Boys and. Girls club beyond

[30:50] 21, who also do really great things for the community,

[30:54] who also could probably. Use some money, but they have

[30:58] chosen not to come here and ask us to fund

[31:01] their operating. Budget. And while sometimes they have come and

[31:04] say, give us some money for a special project which

[31:07] we may or may not have supported. We don't fund

[31:10] their operating budget. They go out and fundraise and look

[31:14] for revenue through other sources. That's just what they do.

[31:18] And I kind of think. That's maybe what STC needs

[31:22] to start thinking about. And finally. Our county brethren. Have

[31:29] not provided a great deal of financial support historically. Maybe

[31:34] I've got this wrong, but it's. My understanding is historically,

[31:38] the last couple of years. The counties have provided a

[31:42] chunk of funding, and we have provided a chunk of

[31:44] funding, and from what I've been told this year, the

[31:48] counties have not provided a big chunk of funding. I

[31:51] think $1,000 was the number I heard. So the fact

[31:55] that somehow we're supposed to kind of carry the ball

[31:59] with this doesn't. Seem to be a fair way of

[32:02] operating. I think that. SDC maybe needs to take a

[32:07] page from other organizations that don't come and ask. Us

[32:11] for money who figure out how to manage it. And

[32:13] I know that we have given money. To some of

[32:16] these groups for, like, a one time funding. Go and

[32:20] build this or fix that. But this seems to be

[32:22] an operating thing, and I just don't think. I want

[32:26] to see the city continue to do that because the

[32:29] argument could be made. You could fund all of these

[32:31] outside agencies because they all do great work. And finally,

[32:35] the. Worship that I think is important is that this

[32:41] budget is an attempt to try to manage costs. And

[32:44] I believe. My experience has been the community really doesn't

[32:48] want to spend any more money in terms of taxes

[32:51] for services. The sense I'm getting is we're kind of

[32:54] at our limit. Hence, I'm not going to support this

[32:58] particular motion. Thank you. Thank you for the comments. Councilor.

[33:04] Good. Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I'm

[33:13] glad that my colleague brought this forward. And I know

[33:16] in the last two years, as the SDC has come

[33:19] to us for funding, as their funding source basically vanished.

[33:26] We're trying to find a way to. Ensure that we're

[33:30] not putting the bill for this. And I want to

[33:34] bring us to that point. I also think it's important

[33:37] to understand that the SEC is very unique in the

[33:42] way that they operate. In that they interact with every

[33:46] nonprofit that you've mentioned in your statement. They've acted as

[33:50] incubators to allow organizations like diversity to even obtain their

[33:55] charitable status. They organize these key events in our community

[34:00] that would cost us tens of thousands of dollars to

[34:03] organize and operate ourselves. They have direct benefit to our

[34:07] community. And I know that over the course of the

[34:10] last year, or two. For the course of the last

[34:15] year. The process of transitioning to the Eastern Ontario Training

[34:20] Board has commenced, but that transition is still not fully

[34:24] underway. Now, if that funding isn't received, it means likely

[34:31] that we will not. Have another senior spare, which is

[34:34] usually biannual. We didn't have it last year. But we

[34:36] should have it this year. We likely won't have the

[34:39] job fair. The youth engagement fair. And so I think

[34:43] we really need to consider that this is an impact

[34:46] to the services that we provide. We have the authority.

[34:52] To invest strategically. In areas that will impact a vast

[34:57] majority of our citizens. And I think that with. The

[35:02] broad breadth of groups that this organization serves and supports,

[35:07] even just being the banker for events applying for grants

[35:11] that other organizations might not have the band with their

[35:13] capacity to do. I'm in favor of supporting them for

[35:18] this last year. And working with them to potentially establish

[35:22] some mous to figure out how can we ensure that.

[35:27] We're still able. To. Solidify. These services that they are

[35:32] providing in our community because we've recognized the value of

[35:34] them. I hope that my colleagues agree, and if not,

[35:37] we'll move on to the next motion. I guess. Councilor

[35:41] McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I. Found this. This is

[35:47] a very challenging issue. And I have championed the Social

[35:52] Development Council all along, and I spoke at length on

[35:55] their behalf. During the last term. And the counties both

[36:00] agreed to come up with 60,000 some dollars, I believe.

[36:04] But there have been some changes since then. But I

[36:08] think maybe the first part that makes me think that

[36:11] I'm not going to support this now. This is originally

[36:15] a social development council, was supported by provincial funding, and

[36:18] this is one more example. Of downloading that we have

[36:21] had to absorb. And. I think, given the climate of

[36:27] the times, I think we have finished absorbing what the

[36:31] province. Has abandoned, literally. But I don't think those social

[36:37] development council aims and goals have been abandoned because I

[36:41] note that. I believe the social services department was going

[36:44] to absorb some of the functions of the social development.

[36:47] Council. Am I right about that? If I can ask

[36:50] Mrs. Morgan. Ms. Morgan. Through you, Mr. Mayor, the human

[36:54] services department has undertaken the community safety and well being

[36:58] plan portion. Of part of what SDC was doing. Good.

[37:03] Thank you for that. And I note that as councilor

[37:08] good mentioned, Eastern Ontario Training Board. Has spoken. To absorb

[37:14] some of these responsibilities, whether they're there yet or not.

[37:17] I don't. Know. But they too are dependent on provincial

[37:19] coffers, I believe. So I don't think it's up to

[37:24] us to supply what the province isn't. Willing to do

[37:27] if it comes to that. And when it comes to

[37:29] employment, all the employment services. The social development council did.

[37:35] We're taken away from the social development council a year

[37:38] ago. Or maybe it was even. A year and a

[37:39] half ago now. When our social services department, too, lost

[37:43] the programming it was able to do with provincial funding

[37:47] and all of that went to the province, I believe.

[37:49] I guess Ms. Morgan could attest to that. Having happened

[37:52] or not. I believe the responsibility for basically for employment

[37:56] services was taken out of the city and transferred to

[37:59] the province. Successfully or not? I don't know. But somebody

[38:04] spoke up for it and took the responsibility. I think.

[38:06] Am I right through, Mr. Mayor. The employment portion of

[38:11] Ontario Works was uploaded to us, a centralized organization. That

[38:18] centralized organization works with our employment service organizations within various

[38:23] cities to offer that service now. They're not the same

[38:28] as what SDC was offering. Not the same stuff, okay.

[38:33] Well. As much as I have appreciated with the Social

[38:35] Development Council has done. And. I think it's up to

[38:42] them to find. Another funder because obviously the county. 30

[38:47] seconds to partner with us. And the province isn't when.

[38:53] It comes to poverty reduction, this is really acute. But

[38:55] I think the real poverty reduction is going to be

[38:57] in hard cash. I can't imagine what kind of program

[39:00] you can do with. People, apart from giving the money,

[39:03] which is what's desperately needed. Would be really effective poverty

[39:07] reduction. So I'm not going to support this. And I

[39:12] do hope that. Other. Means. Processes step in and. That's

[39:19] time, counselor. Thank you. Thank you. Further comments? Questions? Councilor

[39:23] savory? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. I for one,

[39:30] value the work of the Social Development Council as to

[39:33] all the others, surround the council table, I'm going to

[39:36] relate to my experience with regards to the senior fair.

[39:39] We didn't have it this past year. We are in

[39:41] the process of planning it for 2026. One of the

[39:46] biggest criterias of it is to try. To look at

[39:49] ways in which to bring greater revenues so that it

[39:52] almost becomes cost neutral in delivering that service. It is

[39:57] a challenge because there's limited resources within the community to

[40:00] support that quite often. In a number of these projects.

[40:03] This seed money is needed for them to be able

[40:07] to move. Forward to have the foundations and to develop

[40:10] the consistency of these programs. In that respect. I can't

[40:16] undermine the value. Of the work that is done by

[40:19] the Social Development Council and why it deserves. The support

[40:23] that they are asking. I do find it rather odd

[40:27] that they are getting two kicks at the can, so

[40:30] to speak. For government support. Or municipal support here, although

[40:35] you can't control the resolutions that are put there. If

[40:38] there's unsuccessful in one. They're going to get a second

[40:41] kick at the can, so be it. So. If the

[40:48] amount being sought wasn't so high and if it was

[40:51] kind of combined with regards to the second request for

[40:55] the 25,000. If it was embedded. Into the one. I

[41:01] could see. Possibly some greater support around the table for

[41:06] such a move in that I'm wondering if there's any

[41:09] consideration in that respect, Mr. Mayor. Okay? Because this motion

[41:19] has already been tabled. We'll finalize this motion. Then we'll

[41:25] move to the next one. Councilor. Mr. Merritt. I'm going

[41:28] to ask the clerk here, but a motion that gets

[41:31] tabled. Can be amended at any given time. You are

[41:35] correct, councilor. So I guess I'm asking this be considered

[41:41] as an amendment that the $25,000 request for support be

[41:46] rolled into this 54,000 and you would have a motion

[41:51] for. $54,000, 25,000 of which is to be for the

[41:56] hiring of a part. Time person. Under the Eastern Ontario

[42:00] Training Board for the Social Development Council. The rest of

[42:03] the money to go. Towards. The seed projects that they're

[42:07] carry on. If I understand. Your request, councilor. Correctly, you

[42:14] are proposing to increase it an additional $25,000. No. I

[42:19] am. Asking that the 54,000 bead, the amount that they

[42:23] receive, but. There will be two components to it. There'll

[42:28] be a reduction of the money that would basically be

[42:31] $29,000 for seed projects, it'll be $25,000 for. The creation

[42:38] of a position. That's how I see it.

[42:58] Mr. Mayor, if I could advise. And just for clarity's

[43:06] sake here, if this amendment is accepted by the mover

[43:10] and seconder. And if it is turned down, that does

[43:13] not mean that the third resolution that we have on

[43:16] the agenda is off the table. This does come back

[43:20] for discussion as well. Yes, the second resolution is still

[43:26] on the agenda for discussion and debate. Now, if I

[43:31] understand what you are recommending 1 second time or get

[43:35] a second kick at this 29 of the $54,000 that

[43:40] is proposed. For sdc. Counselor wants to identify. A split

[43:49] on that money telling us DC how to spend it.

[43:51] So 29,000 in the general operating and 25,000. To hire

[43:58] an additional person, a part time person, to do the

[44:01] work. In essence, that is. What I'm proposing, and it

[44:06] does not stray from what is actually the content of

[44:09] their resolutions, because when you read it, and as presented

[44:11] by councilor Bennett, they want money to be able to

[44:14] carry on a number of the projects that we're doing.

[44:17] We're saying we're giving you that money. We're also saying

[44:20] we're giving you the money. To hire an individual, but

[44:24] it is going to be in just this one resolution,

[44:26] and the total is going to be 54,000. Dollars. I'm

[44:32] unsure, councilor, if council is entitled to give directions to

[44:37] SDC on how to spend the money that. Is being

[44:44] given to them but am clerk. I think council does

[44:46] have that wherewithal because in responding. To the resolutions that

[44:52] are presented. We are basically addressing the premises of what

[44:55] they're requesting. In the money. $54,000 to go for seed

[45:01] projects and $25,000 to go for the hiring of an

[45:05] individual. I am seeing in this resolution that we are

[45:08] going to give you 29,000 for. Seed funding and 25,000.

[45:14] For the hiring of an individual. It amounts to the

[45:17] same thing. It is a cut in the total amount.

[45:21] That they are seeking, but. It does play the King

[45:24] Solomon role here of giving you the best of a

[45:27] very difficult situation. All right. Are you proposing that as

[45:31] an amendment? An official amendment, councilor. I am, if the

[45:35] mover and secondary were accepting of it. That would be

[45:39] an official amendment. Perhaps you may request for someone else

[45:42] to second the motion. Is there a seconder, Councilor Hollingsworth,

[45:50] or you're second? Put your hand up. Okay, I'll ask

[45:55] again. Is there a second or for the amendment? Councilor

[45:57] McDonald.

[46:12] We're now debating the amendment specifically. We'll get back to

[46:15] the main subject after. This, so I'll start with Councilor

[46:18] Hollingsworth. The answer will be no either way. Can I

[46:21] just get it read back so I know exactly? What

[46:25] it is I'm debating because it seems kind of muddied

[46:28] to me, right? Now. All right, let me find that

[46:31] section here. That 54,000. That $54,000 be added to the

[46:36] 2026 budget for SDC and that SDC be given the

[46:42] directive that $29,000 would be for seed project. And $25,000

[46:47] towards the engagement of a part time employee. Fair enough.

[46:52] I'll make it succinct. Your worship, I don't want to

[46:56] support giving money to anybody because I don't want to

[46:59] raise any more costs to the taxpayers. Thank you. Thank

[47:06] you, councilor. Good. You're next. And councilor Ginjo. Thank you.

[47:08] Through Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment.

[47:12] I don't necessarily think it changes meaningfully the original motion.

[47:16] And further to that, I don't know that we necessarily

[47:19] have a mechanism in place to have them report back

[47:23] to us on how that money was spent, and if

[47:26] that's the business we want to get. Into. I know.

[47:29] For instance, with our municipal grants, it's very, very specified.

[47:33] They need to report their expenses, et cetera. That's an

[47:36] administrative burden to us, and to them. But I would

[47:42] imagine that they'd be amenable to discussions about where the

[47:45] money goes and ensuring that. These particular events. Continue to

[47:49] be funded through some of this. I'm not going to

[47:52] support the amendment because I don't think that restricting any

[47:55] money. Is necessarily productive, but I will support the main

[48:00] motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ginjo. Mr. Mayor, I'm

[48:06] not going to support. The amendment because. I'm not prepared.

[48:12] Even if I recognize that SDC is a very big

[48:14] player in our community. But we are going through a

[48:18] very tough. Budget time, so I'm not prepared to give

[48:24] that much money to SDC. So I'm not supporting the

[48:28] amendment. Nada. I'm not supporting the motion, too. Thank you.

[48:31] Mr. Mayor. Thank you, councilor Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[48:35] Through you. Well, I do appreciate what my colleague is

[48:39] trying to do here. They currently have two part time

[48:44] employees. One is on the way with the door within

[48:46] weeks. Just as a plan to exit, which is going

[48:50] to leave one part time anyway. A lot of this

[48:53] money goes towards. Not really seeding these organizations, but keep

[48:59] keeping these things afloat and sponsoring these events and there's

[49:02] $54,000 isn't even close to what it cost to put

[49:05] all these events on, it's not even close. It's a

[49:09] very small portion. Almost every one of these events requires

[49:12] somebody to go and get sponsors for. So major corporation

[49:17] sponsors, individual sponsors. Sometimes other levels of government sponsorships. That

[49:23] in itself is a full time job because it doesn't

[49:25] cost $54,000 to do all these things. It costs hundreds

[49:28] of thousands of dollars. The 54,000 is going to be

[49:33] spent on a part time employee, and some of these

[49:36] events, but for the most part, that person's job is

[49:39] to get sponsorships. So these events can happen. These organizations

[49:42] get the help they need. Youth spaces. Get support. The

[49:51] cultural events get support. That's what they do. And what

[49:54] they do is they go. Out and find all this

[49:56] money to do it so they are only have a

[49:58] part time and the money will go towards exactly what

[50:01] you're proposing. So to give them a percentage. I don't

[50:07] think is right because maybe it's 26,000 in the other

[50:10] or maybe it's 31,000 in the other, but I'm not

[50:12] going to. Try and put handcuffs on how they spend

[50:15] it for a couple of percents one way or the

[50:16] other. I think the original motion that I had made.

[50:21] Will basically do the same thing. It just gives them

[50:24] more control. Thank you. Further comments on the amendment. Council

[50:30] savory. Do you want to wrap up? Thank you, Mr.

[50:33] Mere. I really don't have anything to add by way

[50:37] of comment to it. I did see this as a

[50:40] situation where we're trying to give them the best of

[50:42] both worlds at the same time. As I mentioned in

[50:46] my earlier comment, Projects that are being undertaken, such as

[50:50] the senior fair. We're trying to. Be more invigorated with

[50:58] regards to trying to get community support so that. There

[51:02] is greater or less impact on dependence of support from

[51:06] the council or from the city and in that respect.

[51:11] I think it would apply all across the board to

[51:13] all of their projects. But I know the challenges that

[51:15] are out there. I read the room. I understand the

[51:19] thinking. And we'll have the vote. All right. Thank you.

[51:24] You're going to call the vote on the amendment. All

[51:26] in favor? All opposed? The amendment is defeated. We're back

[51:35] to the main motion. Any further comments on the main

[51:39] motion? Councilor Bennett, do you want to wrap up? I

[51:44] do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that big list I

[51:48] just read, as I mentioned in my comments to the

[51:52] amendment, we just spoke about. This 54,000 doesn't. Cover almost

[51:59] any of this. What this does is it facilitates these

[52:02] things from happening, because the group goes out, finds the

[52:06] money to make sure these events happen, they get the

[52:08] sponsorships that needed. To make these events happen. And we

[52:11] talk about this is a tough budget year. This group

[52:15] is very much involved in poverty reduction. You're talking about

[52:18] a tough budget year. How much more is going to

[52:20] cost our human services when more people are being forced

[52:23] to other homes. How much more is it going to

[52:25] cost us when more people are showing up at food?

[52:27] Banks. To get the support they need because of the

[52:32] economy we're in, and we have an organization here. Who's

[52:35] one of their mandates is to make sure that people

[52:38] are able to stay in their homes, people are able

[52:39] to get food. Youth are being taught and educated on

[52:43] the importance of food literacy, so they know how to

[52:46] what is a good food, how to prepare it. These

[52:50] sound like simple things that we all take for granted.

[52:52] But these aren't simple things. These are problems. We have

[52:55] one of the highest populations for people on social services

[52:58] in the province. By far. Who's supporting those people? Us.

[53:02] Because we want to say, $54,000 in a tough budget

[53:05] year. That $54,000 barely covers the cost of what this

[53:10] group does for the people that are truly vulnerable. In

[53:14] our community. The fact that the SD and G didn't

[53:17] see the value in that doesn't mean we're carrying the

[53:19] ball for SD and G. It means we're. Caring about

[53:21] the people that live in our city, and if they

[53:24] don't want to. Take part, that's fine. They have other

[53:26] predators. They may have other ways of taking care. Of

[53:27] it? I don't know. But all I know is the

[53:30] people in our community are. Struggling, and a lot of

[53:32] them are suffering, and somebody's got to look. After it.

[53:34] And we don't have the capacity to do it all.

[53:36] We just don't. To me, this is the $54,000 is

[53:41] saving us hundreds of thousands, but that's. Just my opinion.

[53:45] I'll leave it for the rest of you to consider

[53:47] when we make our vote. Thank you. Thank you. That

[53:50] I'm going to call the vote. All in. Favor. All

[53:53] opposed? Motions defeated. Thank you. We'll move on. Madam clerk.

[54:07] The third proposition this evening is proposed by Councilor Sarah

[54:11] Good, seconded by councilor Todd. Bennett. Now therefore, be it

[54:15] resolved by council am in the mayor's proposed budget as

[54:18] follows that the city provide SDC with 25,000 in 2026

[54:23] to support the hiring of a part time staff member

[54:26] to continue their work through this transitional year. And that

[54:30] the amount of 30,000 dedicated to your arts council be

[54:34] reduced to 25,000 to offset the cost and that the

[54:37] amount of 35,000 dedicated to diversity cornwall be reduced to

[54:41] 25,000 to offset the cost and let the net increase

[54:45] to the budget any amount of $10,000 be funded by

[54:48] the tax base. And at this resolution, if approved by

[54:51] the majority of council, be submitted to the mayor and

[54:53] clerk. In accordance to section two 8416, four of the

[54:57] municipal act, and that section two 8416. Four. Should the

[55:01] mayor veto this amendment, adopted by council by council, may,

[55:05] in accordance with regulations override the head of council veto

[55:08] under section four. If two thirds of the members of

[55:12] council vote to override the veto at its January 29

[55:14] 2026, as permitted under section 284 16 of the Municipal

[55:19] Act. Councilor. Good. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. We

[55:26] are in the business of making difficult decisions. That's no

[55:31] surprise. And. There is no decision that we make that

[55:35] is any more difficult than our budget decisions. And when

[55:39] it comes to supporting outside agencies, there's so many considerations.

[55:44] This is something that's come up year after year after

[55:46] year as a challenge for us because we recognize the

[55:49] value that they provide to our community. And as councilor

[55:52] Bennett mentioned, It would cost us. Several times more the

[55:58] amount to do all of this stuff ourselves than it

[56:02] does to invest just a very small amount. This motion

[56:08] is, in effect, my last ditch effort. And I'll be

[56:11] very honest. When I had a conversation. In regards to.

[56:19] Including this in the budget. I said, quite frankly, I

[56:22] don't know that the rest of council will support adding

[56:24] 54,000 to the budget, even though the impact on the

[56:29] overall tax is minimal. It has to be something that.

[56:36] We can justify. And. Have a very minimal impact. Can

[56:40] we include in there with the addition of $10,000? Would

[56:44] be. Okay, so we're talking. $0.45. So.

[56:55] $0.45. To the average taxpayer. Am I right with that

[57:00] math? No. It's less than that. It's like $0.20. No.

[57:05] Okay, whatever. It doesn't matter. $0.45. I am not thrilled

[57:11] about the fact that it takes away from other community

[57:13] organizations, but the purpose for doing so is to ensure

[57:17] equity between the organizations, the outside organizations who we are

[57:21] supporting through. This process. I think this is a reasonable

[57:28] amount. And through discussions with some of the members at

[57:31] the SDC. Obviously not my colleague here, but the nice

[57:36] lady in the crowd over there. This is like the

[57:39] bare minimum. This is really the bare minimum. That can

[57:44] allow them to even apply for the other funding that

[57:48] is necessary in order to continue. This organization and should

[57:52] this be the province's responsibility? Yes. Would I love for

[57:55] them to be paying for it. Yes, but we have

[57:58] a responsibility to our residents in Cornwall to ensure that.

[58:02] We are supporting. Programs that give them a greater security

[58:09] in life, that help them with employment opportunities, that help

[58:13] reduce poverty, ensure that our young people are safe and

[58:17] well adjusted. And I believe strongly that this organization has

[58:21] a huge role to play here. I'm not willing to

[58:24] let them sink. Program. So I implore you to improve.

[58:29] This very. Very minimal increase of $10,000. To this budget.

[58:37] Thank you. For the comments. Councilor Bennett. Thank you, Mr.

[58:43] Through you. I've made all the comments I think I

[58:44] need to make as to why. We should be supporting

[58:46] this organization, but. I had a conversation, obviously, with councilor

[58:51] good about this. It's unfortunate. We need to cut others

[58:55] to try to make something more palatable for us, but

[58:59] I can't stress enough. We cannot let an organization like

[59:05] this just go. After funding them for well over a

[59:11] dozen years. Whether it was in the province responsibility, sure.

[59:16] Was that funding helping our citizens? Absolutely. When the province

[59:20] stopped, do we let our citizens hang? I don't think

[59:23] that's what we do. I think this is a nice

[59:27] compromise to what I just tried to have passed. It

[59:32] gives them some the money that hopefully they can. Stay

[59:37] hope for this year and keep their good work going.

[59:39] That they do. They are partnering with the OTB will

[59:43] be under their umbrella. So some of their administration straight

[59:44] of costs are coming. Down. So I'm hoping that this

[59:49] compromise passes. Because we cannot underestimate the value of this

[59:53] organization has on our more vulnerable citizens. I know, we're

[59:56] hearing a lot of complaints from the people that are

[59:59] paying these. Tax increases, and I understand the frustration. I

[1:00:03] have a house I'm going to be paying. These increases.

[1:00:07] But I do see that this increase. Is a little

[1:00:11] easier to swallow if I know that we're doing what

[1:00:14] we can to look after our more vulnerable citizens. I

[1:00:16] think this is a nice compromise, and I will support

[1:00:18] it. Further comments. Excuse me, councilor McDonald. Thank you, Mr.

[1:00:25] Mayor. So. I found a particular element of this motion

[1:00:32] extremely hard to countenance and. That is. I mean, I

[1:00:37] think when we come here, we want to add something

[1:00:39] to the budget. We're adding it to the taxpayer. There

[1:00:43] isn't a single tax paper who stand up and say,

[1:00:45] I've got deep. Pockets. But the taxpayers have deeper pockets

[1:00:50] than those organizations from whom this motion suggests we take

[1:00:55] some of the funding. Because that funding, first of all,

[1:00:58] isn't assured. It hasn't been passed yet, and I do

[1:01:02] have some problems with that mechanism this year that was

[1:01:05] adopted whereby people could apply directly to the mayor's office.

[1:01:11] But that's neither here nor there. Some of that money

[1:01:13] that we're talking about. Allocating. In this motion comes from

[1:01:18] some of. Those bequests, I guess you could call them,

[1:01:22] or allocations. And they're not. Certain. But this just shows

[1:01:26] how small the pie is when you start stealing pieces

[1:01:29] of somebody else's. Piece of pie. This is an absolutely

[1:01:32] objectionable motion, and. I just. Reject. Rejected. Thank you. Thank

[1:01:41] you. Further comments, questions? On council. Good. Do you want

[1:01:45] to wrap up? Thank you so much. It is objectionable

[1:01:51] that we are willing to not support an organization that

[1:01:55] hands down impacts more other nonprofits within our community than

[1:02:00] any other. And I would bet money on that. We

[1:02:04] are not taking away from any other organizations. They have

[1:02:08] not received that money. We have not approved this budget.

[1:02:11] This is a compromise to ensure that we are being

[1:02:13] strategic in where we are. Investing our dollars to have

[1:02:17] the maximum impact for our residents. I caution all of

[1:02:22] you that if we see the vacuum that is caused

[1:02:26] by the absence of the SDC and next year and

[1:02:30] next term, when we're all running for election, we're hearing

[1:02:32] about these events that are no longer taking place, these

[1:02:36] tables that are no longer sitting. People who don't have

[1:02:40] a voice anymore. Because the place where they went. Was

[1:02:44] a table that was organized by the SDC, was an

[1:02:47] event that was organized even the Nerf wars where the

[1:02:50] kids go and this seems so. Trivial, but it isn't.

[1:02:56] This is what keeps our kids from getting in trouble.

[1:02:59] This is. What keeps our seniors well connected to our

[1:03:01] community and supported. This is what allows people who have

[1:03:04] been out of employment for a significant period of time.

[1:03:09] To get back to get on their feet. And so

[1:03:12] I really believe that this is a fair compromise. It

[1:03:16] provides three organizations with an equal amount of funding that

[1:03:20] should. Be enough to help them get by this year

[1:03:25] in a very hard year for all of us. 10,000

[1:03:29] is not going to have a meaningful impact on this

[1:03:32] budget, on what people pay. But it will have a

[1:03:34] meaningful impact on these organizations. I urge you to vote

[1:03:37] in favor. Okay, thank you. With that, we'll call the

[1:03:41] vote. All in favor? All opposed. Motion is carried. Thank

[1:03:47] you.

[1:04:00] Madame clerk. The next item of business is the adjournment.

[1:04:06] Mr. May. Before we get there, are there any other

[1:04:08] motions that were not submitted in advance that any council

[1:04:11] would like to table at this time. Councilor Alingsworth. I

[1:04:16] have a question, you, worship, in terms of where we

[1:04:19] go now. Because I don't know. So the budget from

[1:04:24] an inn was presented. Council has decided to add a

[1:04:28] little extra cash. You have this veto provision or whatever

[1:04:33] the case may be. So, like, is our budget. When

[1:04:38] do we officially have a budget? Ms. Bailey. Thank you.

[1:04:45] Through Mr. Mayor. Two things. There hasn't been any amendments

[1:04:51] requested by counsel for the mayor's consideration for the water

[1:04:54] and wastewater budget. And because there isn't any, that budget

[1:04:58] is deemed adopted. At the January twelveth meeting, administration will

[1:05:04] put on both the water bylaw and the sewer. Bylaw.

[1:05:09] To secure those rates for 2026. And start our billing

[1:05:14] process for the taxation or general taxation budget. There is.

[1:05:20] One amendment from council that was approved. Therefore, that amendment.

[1:05:25] Will be provided to the mayor for his consideration. He

[1:05:31] has ten days to provide. His decision. If he approves

[1:05:36] it, the budget steamed adopted. If he does not approve

[1:05:39] it, it comes back to the January 29 special budget

[1:05:43] meeting of council and council can override the mayor's. Veto

[1:05:48] with two thirds vote. So, just so I'm clear, worst

[1:05:52] case or longest case, I guess, is the better word.

[1:05:56] We have a budget by the end of January, assuming.

[1:06:00] If you chose to veto. I don't know what your

[1:06:03] thinking is. But realistically, at the end of January, we

[1:06:08] will have a budget no matter what. Is that making

[1:06:11] sense to you? Yes. Shake itself out. Thank you. Councilor

[1:06:17] Ginjo. Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I think this

[1:06:24] is the first budget. That we have with the strong

[1:06:28] mayor. And I'm going to be honest with you. It's

[1:06:31] a new process that I'm going through. And. I have

[1:06:37] a lot of questions about Jay's budget. Do we have

[1:06:42] as counselor the power to discuss. Funds that were allowed.

[1:06:52] By the mayor. If yes, what is the process? Well,

[1:06:58] council, we were just doing that today via the motions

[1:07:01] that were submitted in advance. Motions? Can be made from

[1:07:04] the floor, but now's the time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor,

[1:07:09] because here tonight, we're just discussing. Motion. To allow budget

[1:07:15] to organization. But let's say I want to discuss how

[1:07:19] to withdraw. Budget that is allowed to. The airport. Yeah,

[1:07:27] absolutely. Anything in the budget, any motion regarding the budget

[1:07:31] can be introduced today. Ideally it was meant to be

[1:07:33] submitted in advance to be added to the agenda for

[1:07:38] discussion. Similar to the three that we just discussed. But

[1:07:43] yes. You can put forward a motion now to discuss

[1:07:48] that and see if there's a seconder. Thank you, Mr.

[1:07:51] Mayor. Because honestly, This was the first time. That. I

[1:07:58] was going through this. And yes, I have few questions,

[1:08:02] at least, that I would like, so. We still have

[1:08:05] 1000. More than 1000 that we're going to allow. To

[1:08:11] the. University. Sorry. To the Cornwall Regional Airport. I remember

[1:08:18] that. We opened the discussion, like, two years ago. This

[1:08:25] is still on the table. And. Once again this year

[1:08:29] we're going to spend more than 1000. For this airport.

[1:08:35] I would like to bring this discussion under the table,

[1:08:38] and if I have a second. I would like to

[1:08:42] withdraw this budget if there is no impact. Into. Our

[1:08:48] relationship with. The airport. Thank you, Mr. Mayo. Okay, is

[1:08:51] there second or for that motion to withdraw funding from.

[1:08:53] The airport. Councilor sabre. Okay, so. Sorry. One time.

[1:09:05] Can you provide the number, please, councilor? I need the

[1:09:11] council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Page. 233. Cornwall and Regional

[1:09:20] Airport. It's 1010 hundred. Okay.

[1:09:32] There's a motion on the table. Councilor, do you have

[1:09:34] anything further ahead as we entered the debate on it.

[1:09:36] Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have a lot of issue. Regarding

[1:09:45] this budget and. It's very tough. To allocate budget into

[1:09:52] our community. And we are struggling. About. Many. We are

[1:10:01] struggling. About. Giving budgeting organization from Cornwall. And once again,

[1:10:10] we had long discussion about. The impact of having. Our

[1:10:16] funding the Cornwall and Reginald Airport, and I think we

[1:10:21] had a couple of discussion here and still. I. Still

[1:10:27] don't understand the impact of these airport. Into the Cornwall

[1:10:33] life. So since we are going through very tough budget

[1:10:37] time, 30 seconds. I will invite my colleague to consider

[1:10:44] withdrawing. This budget. To the cornwall regional airport. Thank you,

[1:10:49] Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cao. So, rolling back to 1984, there's

[1:10:56] an agreement between the city of Cornwall. And the township

[1:11:00] of South Klinger. We jointly own the airport. That carried

[1:11:04] on for a number of years, and then four years

[1:11:06] ago, through emotions for the city. Of Cornwall. The city

[1:11:09] of Cornwall passed a motion through council. That they wanted

[1:11:15] out of the airport agreement. There's no exit clause in

[1:11:18] the agreement. Such that we have been in negotiations as

[1:11:23] a city to get out of the agreement. And that's

[1:11:27] where it stands. Alternative to the treasurer because I wasn't

[1:11:30] here last year during budget, but. The deferred revenue paid

[1:11:35] for the contributions last year to the airport. That now

[1:11:40] does not exist. So we have a responsibility based on

[1:11:43] the agreement we currently have. With the township of self

[1:11:46] lunger to pay that amount. Until such time, we're no

[1:11:51] longer. In the agreement with the airport. So we through?

[1:12:04] We presently are in negotiations with the township of South

[1:12:06] Glengary. To exit from the agreement. But there is no

[1:12:10] agreement yet. We have not agreed. On the exit terms.

[1:12:17] So because we can't agree on the exit terms. We

[1:12:24] continue to pay our portion of the operational costs. I

[1:12:30] don't know if Treasurer Bailey wants to have any further.

[1:12:33] Ms. Bailey, do you have. Anything to add? Maybe just

[1:12:39] further detail on the deferred revenue. The deferred revenue was

[1:12:43] monies. Held by the airport for previous year's surpluses. And

[1:12:48] deficits. So the net of the surpluses and deficits it

[1:12:51] was held. With the airport as deferred revenue, and that

[1:12:55] was how we made our payment. In 2025. So it's

[1:13:00] not like the city did not make its payment. It

[1:13:02] did. Just a further. I recently met with the CEO

[1:13:09] in south klinger. And through the direction of council. We've

[1:13:13] been going back and forth. We expect a response. From

[1:13:15] them. Soon. But it continues on without an agreement. Thank

[1:13:23] you. I have Councilor Macintosh. Next. Paris peace accord took

[1:13:27] less time. I've been here twelve years, and we've been

[1:13:31] discussing it for twelve years. I don't think it's ever

[1:13:36] going to be solved, because if we haven't. Done it

[1:13:38] now. I think we had. A law firm from DLG

[1:13:43] maybe involved in this at one time. It just never

[1:13:47] ends. I'm almost ready to give up on this one.

[1:13:54] In your talks to the new Cl who's very familiar

[1:13:57] with our position. Any optimism there. So three. Mr. I'm

[1:14:01] very familiar with the other side, too. That's, right too.

[1:14:04] I forgot. You can know that I'm well versed in

[1:14:08] trying my best to get the best. Deal for the

[1:14:10] city. So through Mr. Mayor to the councilor's point, we

[1:14:18] are to pay the operational costs. For 2026. That being

[1:14:25] said, I think we need to bring it back to

[1:14:26] council. It's a closed session item in terms of negotiations,

[1:14:29] right. Where we don't want to talk about negotiations and

[1:14:32] open session. Okay, Councilor Alingsworth. Simply put, your worship, I

[1:14:39] will not support the motion. We are contractually obliged to

[1:14:42] honor this. Period. And to not honor it, we potentially

[1:14:47] put the municipality at risk. Everybody wants to save money.

[1:14:51] I get it. But currently we have a contract. I'm

[1:14:56] prepared to honor that contract. Thank you, Councilor Salvary. Thank

[1:15:02] you, Mr. Meer. I'm supporting the. Motion for debate purposes,

[1:15:07] but a lot of curiosity with regards to it. When

[1:15:11] you actually look at the budget items, the line items

[1:15:14] and that 2025, actual zero. 2025. Budget zero. And then

[1:15:21] we hear deferred. I would have loved to have known

[1:15:24] that. There was a deferred that, an actual fact that

[1:15:26] the money did come from a pot. Somewhere to address

[1:15:30] it and. When you see a 100% increase on this.

[1:15:37] You're basically asking yourself, well, what did we do last

[1:15:39] year? That there is zero payment. Zero payment, and yet

[1:15:43] it came from another envelope somewhere else. And that. It's

[1:15:48] somewhat confusing, but at the same time, I kind of

[1:15:52] wonder as to how a decision was made that it

[1:15:55] wouldn't be zero. Because. As much as. My friend, Councilor

[1:16:00] Haulingsworth is saying that we have a contractual obligation. There

[1:16:04] was pretty solid direction, and we had taken a pretty

[1:16:07] hard line in discussions with regards to the future of

[1:16:11] our arrangement. And I was somewhat reading this line item

[1:16:16] of the opinion, oh, gee. Our hard line. Basically represented

[1:16:21] a stop in payments, and now I'm finding out that

[1:16:25] there's actually been a process that payments were made and

[1:16:28] honored. Ms billy. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. The

[1:16:36] decision to utilize the deferred revenue held at the airport

[1:16:41] for the city's 2025. Transfer payment was communicated through the

[1:16:45] 2025 budget and again through the 2026 budget. So we

[1:16:51] have language within our executive summary that noted that in

[1:16:55] the 2020. Five budget and then in the 2026 budget.

[1:16:59] We indicated that in 2025, the payment was made through

[1:17:03] deferred revenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess I'm going

[1:17:07] to have to do a second read on. That summary?

[1:17:10] Because I didn't pick up on it. Thank you. If

[1:17:12] you have any questions. Let me know. Thank you. Further

[1:17:15] questions? Comments? Counseling. Ginjo, do you want to wrap up?

[1:17:20] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So once again, yes, we are

[1:17:24] in contract. But I don't understand why we're going to

[1:17:27] pay. Even. If. We know that. It's not going to

[1:17:35] help us. We're just spending money. For nothing. So going

[1:17:41] through this stuff budget, I think this is one thing

[1:17:44] that we should think about cutting. And we have. To

[1:17:50] do our homework to cut it. So I hope that

[1:17:53] my colleague will support it and cut. It. At least

[1:17:56] it's going to save some money from Conwell resident. Thank

[1:17:59] you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. With that, we'll call the

[1:18:02] vote. Is everyone familiar with the motion? Is. Looks like.

[1:18:06] Yes. All in favor? All opposed? Motion is defeated. Thank

[1:18:14] you. Council, Ginja. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Another question that

[1:18:22] I wanted to discuss tonight is about. The Santra sank

[1:18:28] that we are going to give $50,000. I went on.

[1:18:36] Internet and I checked. It's the first time that we're

[1:18:44] going to give five. 50,000 to this organization, and it

[1:18:49] looks like. It's a religion organization and. I'm not open

[1:18:57] at all to. Give citizen money to an organization that

[1:19:03] is based on trust or religion because. We are here

[1:19:09] to manage money. Of resident and not to give money.

[1:19:15] Based on religion. So I'm not open to give this

[1:19:20] money, and I'm begging. My colleague to withdraw this money.

[1:19:25] To the funding that we're going to give to this

[1:19:27] organization. I hope. I'm going to have a colleague supporting

[1:19:32] this motion so we can remove this. Thank you, Mr.

[1:19:35] Mayor. Is there a seconder for the motion? It's page

[1:19:40] 233. It's center 105, counselor. Is there a second or

[1:19:47] for the motion? I'll ask a third time. Is there

[1:19:51] a second or for the motion? Can you repeat motion?

[1:19:58] Madam Clerk, my understanding of the motion is to remove

[1:20:01] total funding to center 105 in the amount of, I

[1:20:05] believe, $50,000. I'll ask another time. Is there a second

[1:20:10] or. Motion does not carry forward.

[1:20:24] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the last point. Municipal grant

[1:20:29] program. I just want to understand a little bit how

[1:20:33] we're going to increase. By 1630. 8%. The money that

[1:20:38] is allowed to grant in our community. Is it necessary?

[1:20:44] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What page are you referencing, counselor?

[1:20:48] Sorry. 233. You,

[1:20:58] Mr. Mayor. 233 municipal grant and we are increasing. My

[1:21:05] understanding we're going to increase. This budget by 1530 8%.

[1:21:14] My question is, is it necessary or what is the

[1:21:18] explanation of this increased? Mr. Mayor, thank you.

[1:21:29] We're on the page. Sorry, councilor. Are you? Yeah, but

[1:21:35] where? On the page. Sorry. Municipal just on the bottom.

[1:21:41] Oh, I see. Okay. Ms. Bailey.

[1:21:55] Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. This is actually just

[1:21:58] an accounting of how the municipal grants program works. The

[1:22:02] Municipal grants program has $170,000 net. And how the accounting

[1:22:08] works is that in one year, They may not. Of

[1:22:13] course, they never spend over. They always approve applications under

[1:22:18] that amount, and then money is going to a reserve,

[1:22:21] and so there's a difference between what is pulled from

[1:22:24] general taxation year after year, depending on how much money

[1:22:28] is actually coming from the reserve, but. The envelope itself

[1:22:33] has not changed. And so the municipal grants review committee

[1:22:37] has met. They've gone over those applications. They've made their

[1:22:42] decisions. That report will be coming. To the second January

[1:22:46] of the second meeting in January. But what you're seeing

[1:22:50] at the bottom of page 233 isn't an increase in

[1:22:55] the envelope itself. It's just the way the envelope is

[1:22:57] funded. True, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Good to

[1:23:01] hear that. And I hope we're going to have the

[1:23:05] opportunity. To discuss about. The grant in our community. Thank

[1:23:11] you, Mr. Mayor. That was all. Thank you, councilor. Any

[1:23:17] final motions that were not submitted in advance. Then with

[1:23:24] that, I will call for adjournment. Councilor Savran. Councilor Hollingsworth.

[1:23:33] All in favor? It's carried. Thank you. We are adjourned.

Special Meeting of Council

Agenda

Transcript