Thank you. Vigner gathered on the traditional territory of the
Hana Nashani peoples, the Mohawks of Aquasasan, the original keepers
of this land. As satlers, we are grateful for the
opportunity. To meet here, and we thank all the generations
of people who have taken care of this land. For
thousands of years. I'd ask that if you're able to
please rise for our national anthem.
Don't. Take.
Us. Free.
And.
Thank you. Can I roll call, please, Madam clerk? Mayor,
townhouse president. Councilors, Claude Macintosh. Dean Hollingsworth. Happy New year.
Good. Present. Getty linux. Dennis submarine, elaine McDonald.
And friend and Gunjo. Thank you. Just one quick announcement.
Today, just prior to this meeting, myself and the CEO
were able to attend. A pre budget consultation for the
province with MVP George de Rouse, the parliamentary assistant to
the minister. Of Finance and Minister Nolan Quinn, along with
other representatives of agencies and organizations in city of Cornwall.
To provide input on the upcoming provincial budget. Seemed relevant
to mention, considering we're meeting regarding our own. Budget. Any
addition, solutions or amendments to the agenda. Seeing none can
get emotionally adjoped. The agenda for this afternoon, please. Councilor.
Good. Seconder. Councilor Hayber, all in favor? Carried. Thank you.
Any declarations of interest. Pecuniary interest council Baer thank you,
Mr. Mayor. At the beginning of the budget process, I
did submit a conflict of interest form for the entire
budget. Process, including this in the following meeting. About the
social development council? I'm still employed with them part time.
They are on this. Agenda, I will declare and walk
away for those items. Thank you. Any further declarations? Seeing
none. Move on to action reports, Madam clerk. The action
report. Number one, proposed budget amendments by members of council
for this. 2026 budget. The action recommended is that council
receive the report. And review and vote on each proposed
amendment individually as they are presented. Would you like me
to begin with the first report, Mr. Mayor? Yes, please.
First report. Proposed by councilor Kedir Neba. And seconded by
councilor Sarah. Good. Now, therefore. Be it resolved that council
amend the mayor's proposed budget as follows. Number one, that
the logistics supervisor position in the 2026 Paramedics services budget.
Be reinstated to assist with downtime and vehicle turnover at
shipped end, increasing ambulance readiness and response. Time and enhance
overall system efficiency. Number two, that the financial impact of
this change is an increase of $116,752. To salaries and
benefits. Item three, that paramedic Services is a shared service
with the United counties of SDG. And that this increase
be funded based on the current funding formula. 63.15% for
sdg. And 36.85% for Cornwall, with Cornwall's share of $43,023.
Being funded by the tax base and that this resolution,
if approved by the majority of council, be submitted to
the mayor and clerk in coordinates with section two 8416.
Four of the municipal act and that under section 280
416, four. Should the mayor veto this? Amendment adopted by
council. A council may, in accordance with the regulations, override
the head of council's. Veto under section four, if two
thirds of the members of council vote override the veto
at its January 20, 926. 2026 as permitted under section
284. 16 five of the Municipal Act. Thank you. So
move to the vague council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So
I'm bringing this. Motion forward. Because this position is not
just about administration for the sake of administration, it's about
ambulance readiness, response times and patient safety. We've been told
directly by the chief of paramedic services that the logistics
supervisor plays. Wood play a key operational role in. Reducing
downtime, improving vehicle turnover at shift change and getting ambulances
back on the road faster. When ambulances are tied up
longer than they need to be. Response time increase. Response
times increase. When response times increase, outcomes worsen. It really
is that simple. We also need to look at this
decision through the lens of where our community is headed,
not just where we are today. Cornell's. Population is aging
faster than the provincial average. As that trend continues, we
know with certainty that EMS call volumes and complexity will.
Increase, not decrease. This is not speculation. This is demographic
reality. Paramedic services is already under pressure from hospital offload
delays, higher acuity calls, and longer turnaround times. Without dedicated
logistic oversight. Those pressures fall back onto frontline paramedics and
supervisors whose primary focus should be. Patient care, not system
coordination. The logistics supervisor role is intended to support the
system as a whole, ensuring vehicles, equipment and staffing logistics
are managed efficiently so paramedics can focus on responding to
emergencies. It's preventative. It's an investment in preventative measures. The
cost to Cornwall is approximately $43,000. In the context of
public safety response times and increased demand on EMS. I
think that's a pretty prudent investment. This motion is about
being proactive instead of reactive. It's about ensuring our EMS
system. Is structured to meet the growing demand, not struggling
to keep up after the fact. So, for those reason,
I strongly encourage my council colleagues around the table to
support the reinstatement of the logistics supervisor position. Mexi, thank
you for the comments. I see some hands moving, Councilor
Hollingsworth. Post Christmas funk, your worship. I'm not going to
support it for a couple of reasons. First of all,
Technically speaking, one could argue the motion itself is out
of order. In the sense that. Structurally speaking, is that
right? Where it's supposed to work is council establishes a
level of service administration, then goes and determines the cost.
I. E. People and resources brings a report back to
council with the cost and the need that it takes.
And then council either approves or not approves by us
trying to determine how. Many human beings we need to
run the corporation. Is arguably not really what our role
is. We don't decide how many humans we hire. We
decide the level of service, and we decide how much
money we spend on that level of service. And then
say, hey, admin, go and make it work. So, on
that note, one could argue that it's already technically out
of order. The second reason why I'm not prepared to
support at your worship is that this budget was coming
in around 18, 19%, 20% originally. My understanding is each
department was asked to figure out how to try to
get it to four. Every department. Has probably made some
kind of concessions along the way in terms of who
they would like to have that would allow them to
run their department more effectively. The argument would suggest that
if we say, yeah, paramedics, you get an extra person,
then every department could easily make the same argument, that
we would be better serviced if we have more. People.
Well, we've kind of already established. That we're trying to
manage our costs. That's kind of where the budget was.
Starting point. And finally. The fact that. Admin was not
given permission to reduce service to the ambulance. Would suggest
that. If they would suggest that whatever cuts or changes
they've made in terms of the operation, if it hasn't
reduced service. Because we've told them. We don't want you
to do that if it doesn't. Reduce service, then. I
would think have figured out we can run this service
based on the current complement if they weren't capable of
running the service on that current complement, then that means
it's. A reduction of service, which, in fact, Does not.
We haven't given any direction to that regard. So approving
this motion. As I said, is already. A not really
our role. Be. Certainly could make an argument for everybody.
And finally, there's no mention of reduction in service. Currently
based on the budget complement. Therefore, I have to assume
we're able to continue to do what we're doing. Thus,
I will not support the motion. Thank you. Councilor. Good.
Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. And I don't want
to sound snarky as I say this, but my recollection
is that last year the counselor made a motion to.
Remove six FTE from the new. Figure out who they
were doing. Not by a dollar. Debate through the chair,
please. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I believe it was a
number of ftes to reduce. But don't quote me on
that. What I would like to know about. This, preferably
from our chief paramedic, if he's able to respond. Sorry,
Bill. I'm looking around for you. Would be. What would
including this position. In the overall complement of paramedic services.
Change for the recipients of your service across Cornwall and
SDG. Chief Lister. No.
There. Okay. Sorry about that. So the question was, what
would happen to the recipients without this position? Well, with
the position with. The position. Initially, you would see very
little change. Because this is a growth position.
This starts the ball rolling towards bigger changes. As we
go on, so I'll try and quantify it for you.
Takes about 45. Minutes to get an ambulance turned around.
And we're working on reducing that turnaround time. This would
be the first step in that. So in 2020. Six.
We would just get the ball rolling. We would see.
Maybe a few minutes. At most on. That implementation. Into
the future. We're hoping to get that down. To. Minutes
that the ambulance would be waiting. For being fully ready
and able to roll out the door. Like from through
you, Mr. Mayor, down from 45 minutes to minutes, like
a few minutes for a few minutes, how long would
you say it would take to effectively roll out that
process because you mentioned that this would just be the
starting phase. It would probably be over a year or
two until we get there. My other question, because obviously
this budget item impacts the counties as well. Have they
approved their budget? As of yet. And if we include
this in our budget, how would that impact their process?
Do we know. Mr. Sal. Through. Mr. Mayor, I have
not talked. To the CEO in the counties recently, but
by all accounts, through the media, they passed their budget.
And approved it. Okay. Ms. Bailey had her hand up.
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I did have an
opportunity to speak to the CAO because it did impact
the budget for SDG. What she informed me was that.
They have passed their budget. They've included the amount. They
understand the city's budget. Is draft. As long as the
city is not projecting. Deficits for its 2025 year end.
They do have a tax stabilization reserve that they utilize.
For any budgets that are currently in draft that may
see changes before they're approved by other groups. Okay, perfect.
Can we see what impact it would actually have visually,
to include this in the 2026 budget? So it's a
.5% change, which represents I didn't catch in dollar. Amounts,
how much it represents to the average.
Dollar in a bit. To be honest, from my perspective,
paramedic services. Across all emergency services are ones that we
hope we never have to rely on. But when we
do. It really is life or death. This isn't a
service that is unique to a certain age group, a
certain vulnerability. It is really something that serves all demographics
across our community and I want to ensure that when
we're in a tough budget year like this, where we
know that. The increase is above what we want, that
we are at the same time bringing greater value to
our residents. Now, if I know that it cost me
an extra dollar 50 to potentially reduce, turnaround times for
the paramedics from 45 minutes down to a few minutes.
I see that. As being value that is worthwhile to
our residents. I am willing to support this because of
that specific reason. However, if this doesn't pass, what I
would like to see is a report come back to
us in the next term about how we can ensure
that. We have this strategic. In order to reduce this
turnaround time and become very, very efficient in the way
that. We control the logistics of our paramedics. Thank you.
Thank you. Before we continue, I had a question. On
the amount that was put on the screen, it reads
$43,023. The report indicates $116,752. Okay. My mistake. Okay. Thank
you. Further comments. Councilor McIntosh three Mr. Meredith built. When
we talk about turnaround times, some people might misconstrue that
as time and ambience responds to critical call. You've got
the code system now the color code system. Would this
effect in any way? Those top priorities if you didn't
have this person? Through you, Mr. Mary. Potentially it could.
If an ambulance isn't ready, it can't. Go. It has
to be stocked and ready to go. We currently are
managing it. So the answer is yes. It could, in
effect, do that, but. It hasn't had significant impact to
now. Thanks, Bill. Further comments questions Councilor Ginjo. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. I'm not going to support this motion. For.
The main. Reason that it was asked. Not by the
staff, but by. The consular. I totally understand. The reason
why. My colleague is asking this, but. I think last
year. You had the opportunity. To present us your need.
And Jesus was not in, am I right? It was
in the 2025 budget. We didn't stop the position because.
We had to wait for job descriptions to be completed.
By then we were into this budget preparation time, and
we withdrew. The position because it hadn't been filled yet.
Okay. Thank you. But once again, I see that it's
going to increase the tax at the end of the
budget. What I'm not supporting at all. And the impact
of adding one position, as you said, for sure it's
going to be positive. Through the staff. But. One word
you pronounce. What? It's not going to be significant. And
we have to deal, we have to shows what is
going to be very impacting the life of our citizen
now. So since based on that, even if I understand.
From where this motion is coming. I'm not ready to
support it now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Further questions commentary.
Mr. Co okay. Thank you very much through Mr. Mayor.
I appreciate. The motion coming forward and appreciate also. The
counselor's concerns to ensure we have the resources we need.
For our ambulances, for the community. However. The decision to
fill or not fill a specific, established position. Positional and
we met as a senior team many times. And I
can say it's the delegation of authority under the Municipal
act through the CEO. For staffing. But as a senior
team, we met many times. There was a listing of
many positions. Through the budget that we did not fill,
and we could go around the outside here and talk.
To every senior manager about staffing, and I guarantee you,
They'll all have a significant need. But. We're in a
difficult budget. We've made the decisions. That we have. The
budget to be approved by council. The strong mayor authorizes
a certain level of spending and the complement of positions
that we put forward. And it shouldn't really mandate the
feeling of. A position. That'll become difficult in future budget
years if we start having general manager against general manager.
And department against department. But I can assure you we'll
work closely. With everybody through the next year to identify
positions. And budget accordingly for them. So it's my strong
recommendation. That this goes beyond. What council should be doing
on the operational side through the budget process. I guess
I'd like to end with it comes down to service
delivery as well, and. Whether a service is being delivered.
And that would require full service delivery review. That hasn't
been completed in this municipality for over ten years, and.
We're looking at probably between three and $500,000 to do
a full service. Delivery review. Which we didn't bring forward.
Because of the tough budget year. Thank you. Councilor bear,
would you like to wrap up? Yes, thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Like to respond to some of these comments. I
do think we heard that this would have a significant
impact on our residents. Unlike what was mentioned by one
of our colleagues here, it was mentioned that within a
couple of years, the wait time would drastically be reduced.
And I think. We hear that the impact won't be
immediate, but if we wait until next year or. The
following year. We're just kicking the can down the road
and waiting longer and longer. And longer for impact. I
would disagree. That. This is operational. This is budget. What
happened was. The team at the city. The administration created
a budget. That budget then had to be picked apart.
To get some savings to get us to a lower
tax rate. The department included. This position hadn't been filled
yet. They wanted to fill it. They put it in
the budget, but because it hadn't been filled, it was
the easiest thing to cut because you're not eliminating someone's
existing position. So I'm not coming up here today and
saying, hey, I think we need a mechanic. In paramedic
services, which I think. You do possibly need some support
there. I may have heard, which is not a proposal
I'm not saying that. I'm not making something up. I'm
saying something that was in the budget that was removed
should be re added as we have been. We heard
from the department. It would significantly impact down the road
response times. It will take time. If we don't. Do
this today. Or next year. We're waiting years down the
road to make significant impact. So because it was in
the budget. I do believe that we have authority. I'm
starting to learn that. We probably have less and less
authority. Than previously expected, and our role as counselors are
less and less relevant, which is really unfortunate. Because I
think we should have a say in terms of the
level of service. And that does include. Our say in
whether a position should be added or removed. And so
that is operational. Sure. And I think we should have
some kind of opportunity to give feedback in terms of
the operation and the service level. And so. The few
minutes that this would save is lives. I think in
some cases, maybe not a lot. In the first few
years, but in the long run, It? Absolutely. Would get
to a point where maybe not. It may not save
a ton of lives, but one is enough. This little
budget piece is enough if it saves one life, if
it brings somebody to a hospital. Sooner than. Needed, then
it is worth it for me. The 0.5, the dollar
and some sense that I'm going to pay extra in
taxes is worth it, because when I'm going to need
that one day. I want it there fast. And we
as a council, if we don't. Vote for this today
our saying that we are not interested in reducing wait
times and I think our county counselors are very interested.
In wait times because. They are waiting longer for ambulance
services in the counties, and I think they want to
see something. Like this to improve wait times for them
as well. Thank you. With that, I'm going to call
the vote. All in favor? All opposed? Motion is not
carried. Thank you. Madam clerk. Items or recommendation number two
is proposed by councilor Sarah Good, seconded by councilor Todd.
Bennett. I'm ahead of myself in the agenda. Thank you.
Proposed by councilor Todd Bennett and seconded by councilor Dean
Holingsworth. Now. Therefore, be it resolved. Thank council. I'm in
the mayor's proposed budget as follows that $54,000 be added
to the 2026 budget for the SDC, which is the
Social Development Council. That this increase to the 2026 budget
be funded by general taxation. That the resolution, if approved
by the majority of council, be submitted to the mayor
and clerk in accordance with section 284. 16, four of
the municipal act and that under section 280 416, four
should the mayor veto this amendment adopted by council. That
council may, in accordance with the regulations, override the head
of council's veto under section four. If two thirds of
the members of council vote over ride. The veto at
its January 29, 2026. As permitted under section 284 16,
five of the Municipal Act. Thank you, Councilor Bennett. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, I do thank Councilor Hollingsworth
for seconding the motion for the sake of just having
this conversation. I appreciate it. I'm going to go. Through
a list of things the social development council does for
the city and the region. It's a long list. As
I go through it, I just want you to think
about. Whether you think this important thing that they do
for our community, and if you feel that each one
of these initiatives is a help to our community. So
programs, events, collaborations, initiatives enabled by the Social Development councils.
These are programs such that they support network's ongoing collaborative
tables employment employability network regional coordination of employment and workforce
development agencies volunteer administration. Administrators network supporting volunteer engagement infrastructure
across all sectors regional emergency and strategic response Council community
coordination during emergencies and crisis, vibrant communities where they're working,
particular poverty reduction, which I think is something we're struggling
with employment and economic participation initiatives. Annual Cornwall and area
job fairs one of the region's. Largest employment events, employer
panels, workforce readiness workshops, sector specific employment events. Cross agency
coordination to reduce duplication and improve employment outcomes for youth
seniors. We have the youth engagement fair. We have seniors
focused health, safety and information affairs, community lead youth programming.
Leadership initiatives. Workshops and engagement sessions addressing safety, well being
and social inclusion and Cornwall youth space planning coordination partnerships
and implementation of youth focused infrastructure programming in safe public
spaces. Cultural and community events. The Cornwall Culture Fest. It's
an annual celebration of diversity across Cornwall. And SDNG and
Aquasosti supports the culturally inclusive festivals, events, community celebrations, collaboration
with cultural newcomer and indigenous partners, ensuring accessibility and representation,
community safety and capacity building programs where the administer. Building
Safer Communities Micro grant program on behalf of funding partners,
support for youth serving organizations delivering crime prevention and well
meaning initiatives coordination of community led safety prevention resilience projects
food security your brain on food a youth and young
adult food literacy nutrition education program, community food access and
food security initiatives through. Cross sector partnerships, organizational, administrative support.
For the community in kind support to grassroots groups and
emerging organizations, acting as a backbone organization. When communities, groups
lack staffing, administrative capacity. 30 seconds. Transition Cornwall. Community led
sustainability, resilience. Working group, Tenant association of Cornwall and Area
Housing Advocacy and tenant capacity building an idea community coalition
for quality, diversity, inclusion, anti oppression collaboration. I'll follow up
with my wrap up. Councilor Alingsworth. Thank you, worship. As
my colleague has already said, I offered to second the
motion. Understanding, a reasonable chance. I'd vote against it, but,
God, he'd have an opportunity. To make his pitch. I
will, in fact, not support the motion at the moment
of truth for a couple of reasons. Chief Stevenson and
I were talking before the Christmas break about the highest
budget I've ever sat through and this is it. 5.4%
is the highest. Potential rate that I have ever sat
through in 20 some years of doing budgets. Always been
of the opinion that budget should reflect both the rate
of inflation. This one does not. Now, don't misunderstand. We
started around 20%, I think. Admin has done an excellent
job of trying to rain things in and get some
semblance of control. So it's not a finger pointing thing,
but I think we're kind of at the top level
that we should be. My colleague points out that SDC
has done a lot of great things, and he lists
a whole bunch of things they've done, and I'm sure
they're all valid. And they're all great, but there's other
organizations. Big brothers, Baldwin House Boys and. Girls club beyond
21, who also do really great things for the community,
who also could probably. Use some money, but they have
chosen not to come here and ask us to fund
their operating. Budget. And while sometimes they have come and
say, give us some money for a special project which
we may or may not have supported. We don't fund
their operating budget. They go out and fundraise and look
for revenue through other sources. That's just what they do.
And I kind of think. That's maybe what STC needs
to start thinking about. And finally. Our county brethren. Have
not provided a great deal of financial support historically. Maybe
I've got this wrong, but it's. My understanding is historically,
the last couple of years. The counties have provided a
chunk of funding, and we have provided a chunk of
funding, and from what I've been told this year, the
counties have not provided a big chunk of funding. I
think $1,000 was the number I heard. So the fact
that somehow we're supposed to kind of carry the ball
with this doesn't. Seem to be a fair way of
operating. I think that. SDC maybe needs to take a
page from other organizations that don't come and ask. Us
for money who figure out how to manage it. And
I know that we have given money. To some of
these groups for, like, a one time funding. Go and
build this or fix that. But this seems to be
an operating thing, and I just don't think. I want
to see the city continue to do that because the
argument could be made. You could fund all of these
outside agencies because they all do great work. And finally,
the. Worship that I think is important is that this
budget is an attempt to try to manage costs. And
I believe. My experience has been the community really doesn't
want to spend any more money in terms of taxes
for services. The sense I'm getting is we're kind of
at our limit. Hence, I'm not going to support this
particular motion. Thank you. Thank you for the comments. Councilor.
Good. Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I'm
glad that my colleague brought this forward. And I know
in the last two years, as the SDC has come
to us for funding, as their funding source basically vanished.
We're trying to find a way to. Ensure that we're
not putting the bill for this. And I want to
bring us to that point. I also think it's important
to understand that the SEC is very unique in the
way that they operate. In that they interact with every
nonprofit that you've mentioned in your statement. They've acted as
incubators to allow organizations like diversity to even obtain their
charitable status. They organize these key events in our community
that would cost us tens of thousands of dollars to
organize and operate ourselves. They have direct benefit to our
community. And I know that over the course of the
last year, or two. For the course of the last
year. The process of transitioning to the Eastern Ontario Training
Board has commenced, but that transition is still not fully
underway. Now, if that funding isn't received, it means likely
that we will not. Have another senior spare, which is
usually biannual. We didn't have it last year. But we
should have it this year. We likely won't have the
job fair. The youth engagement fair. And so I think
we really need to consider that this is an impact
to the services that we provide. We have the authority.
To invest strategically. In areas that will impact a vast
majority of our citizens. And I think that with. The
broad breadth of groups that this organization serves and supports,
even just being the banker for events applying for grants
that other organizations might not have the band with their
capacity to do. I'm in favor of supporting them for
this last year. And working with them to potentially establish
some mous to figure out how can we ensure that.
We're still able. To. Solidify. These services that they are
providing in our community because we've recognized the value of
them. I hope that my colleagues agree, and if not,
we'll move on to the next motion. I guess. Councilor
McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I. Found this. This is
a very challenging issue. And I have championed the Social
Development Council all along, and I spoke at length on
their behalf. During the last term. And the counties both
agreed to come up with 60,000 some dollars, I believe.
But there have been some changes since then. But I
think maybe the first part that makes me think that
I'm not going to support this now. This is originally
a social development council, was supported by provincial funding, and
this is one more example. Of downloading that we have
had to absorb. And. I think, given the climate of
the times, I think we have finished absorbing what the
province. Has abandoned, literally. But I don't think those social
development council aims and goals have been abandoned because I
note that. I believe the social services department was going
to absorb some of the functions of the social development.
Council. Am I right about that? If I can ask
Mrs. Morgan. Ms. Morgan. Through you, Mr. Mayor, the human
services department has undertaken the community safety and well being
plan portion. Of part of what SDC was doing. Good.
Thank you for that. And I note that as councilor
good mentioned, Eastern Ontario Training Board. Has spoken. To absorb
some of these responsibilities, whether they're there yet or not.
I don't. Know. But they too are dependent on provincial
coffers, I believe. So I don't think it's up to
us to supply what the province isn't. Willing to do
if it comes to that. And when it comes to
employment, all the employment services. The social development council did.
We're taken away from the social development council a year
ago. Or maybe it was even. A year and a
half ago now. When our social services department, too, lost
the programming it was able to do with provincial funding
and all of that went to the province, I believe.
I guess Ms. Morgan could attest to that. Having happened
or not. I believe the responsibility for basically for employment
services was taken out of the city and transferred to
the province. Successfully or not? I don't know. But somebody
spoke up for it and took the responsibility. I think.
Am I right through, Mr. Mayor. The employment portion of
Ontario Works was uploaded to us, a centralized organization. That
centralized organization works with our employment service organizations within various
cities to offer that service now. They're not the same
as what SDC was offering. Not the same stuff, okay.
Well. As much as I have appreciated with the Social
Development Council has done. And. I think it's up to
them to find. Another funder because obviously the county. 30
seconds to partner with us. And the province isn't when.
It comes to poverty reduction, this is really acute. But
I think the real poverty reduction is going to be
in hard cash. I can't imagine what kind of program
you can do with. People, apart from giving the money,
which is what's desperately needed. Would be really effective poverty
reduction. So I'm not going to support this. And I
do hope that. Other. Means. Processes step in and. That's
time, counselor. Thank you. Thank you. Further comments? Questions? Councilor
savory? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. I for one,
value the work of the Social Development Council as to
all the others, surround the council table, I'm going to
relate to my experience with regards to the senior fair.
We didn't have it this past year. We are in
the process of planning it for 2026. One of the
biggest criterias of it is to try. To look at
ways in which to bring greater revenues so that it
almost becomes cost neutral in delivering that service. It is
a challenge because there's limited resources within the community to
support that quite often. In a number of these projects.
This seed money is needed for them to be able
to move. Forward to have the foundations and to develop
the consistency of these programs. In that respect. I can't
undermine the value. Of the work that is done by
the Social Development Council and why it deserves. The support
that they are asking. I do find it rather odd
that they are getting two kicks at the can, so
to speak. For government support. Or municipal support here, although
you can't control the resolutions that are put there. If
there's unsuccessful in one. They're going to get a second
kick at the can, so be it. So. If the
amount being sought wasn't so high and if it was
kind of combined with regards to the second request for
the 25,000. If it was embedded. Into the one. I
could see. Possibly some greater support around the table for
such a move in that I'm wondering if there's any
consideration in that respect, Mr. Mayor. Okay? Because this motion
has already been tabled. We'll finalize this motion. Then we'll
move to the next one. Councilor. Mr. Merritt. I'm going
to ask the clerk here, but a motion that gets
tabled. Can be amended at any given time. You are
correct, councilor. So I guess I'm asking this be considered
as an amendment that the $25,000 request for support be
rolled into this 54,000 and you would have a motion
for. $54,000, 25,000 of which is to be for the
hiring of a part. Time person. Under the Eastern Ontario
Training Board for the Social Development Council. The rest of
the money to go. Towards. The seed projects that they're
carry on. If I understand. Your request, councilor. Correctly, you
are proposing to increase it an additional $25,000. No. I
am. Asking that the 54,000 bead, the amount that they
receive, but. There will be two components to it. There'll
be a reduction of the money that would basically be
$29,000 for seed projects, it'll be $25,000 for. The creation
of a position. That's how I see it.
Mr. Mayor, if I could advise. And just for clarity's
sake here, if this amendment is accepted by the mover
and seconder. And if it is turned down, that does
not mean that the third resolution that we have on
the agenda is off the table. This does come back
for discussion as well. Yes, the second resolution is still
on the agenda for discussion and debate. Now, if I
understand what you are recommending 1 second time or get
a second kick at this 29 of the $54,000 that
is proposed. For sdc. Counselor wants to identify. A split
on that money telling us DC how to spend it.
So 29,000 in the general operating and 25,000. To hire
an additional person, a part time person, to do the
work. In essence, that is. What I'm proposing, and it
does not stray from what is actually the content of
their resolutions, because when you read it, and as presented
by councilor Bennett, they want money to be able to
carry on a number of the projects that we're doing.
We're saying we're giving you that money. We're also saying
we're giving you the money. To hire an individual, but
it is going to be in just this one resolution,
and the total is going to be 54,000. Dollars. I'm
unsure, councilor, if council is entitled to give directions to
SDC on how to spend the money that. Is being
given to them but am clerk. I think council does
have that wherewithal because in responding. To the resolutions that
are presented. We are basically addressing the premises of what
they're requesting. In the money. $54,000 to go for seed
projects and $25,000 to go for the hiring of an
individual. I am seeing in this resolution that we are
going to give you 29,000 for. Seed funding and 25,000.
For the hiring of an individual. It amounts to the
same thing. It is a cut in the total amount.
That they are seeking, but. It does play the King
Solomon role here of giving you the best of a
very difficult situation. All right. Are you proposing that as
an amendment? An official amendment, councilor. I am, if the
mover and secondary were accepting of it. That would be
an official amendment. Perhaps you may request for someone else
to second the motion. Is there a seconder, Councilor Hollingsworth,
or you're second? Put your hand up. Okay, I'll ask
again. Is there a second or for the amendment? Councilor
McDonald.
We're now debating the amendment specifically. We'll get back to
the main subject after. This, so I'll start with Councilor
Hollingsworth. The answer will be no either way. Can I
just get it read back so I know exactly? What
it is I'm debating because it seems kind of muddied
to me, right? Now. All right, let me find that
section here. That 54,000. That $54,000 be added to the
2026 budget for SDC and that SDC be given the
directive that $29,000 would be for seed project. And $25,000
towards the engagement of a part time employee. Fair enough.
I'll make it succinct. Your worship, I don't want to
support giving money to anybody because I don't want to
raise any more costs to the taxpayers. Thank you. Thank
you, councilor. Good. You're next. And councilor Ginjo. Thank you.
Through Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment.
I don't necessarily think it changes meaningfully the original motion.
And further to that, I don't know that we necessarily
have a mechanism in place to have them report back
to us on how that money was spent, and if
that's the business we want to get. Into. I know.
For instance, with our municipal grants, it's very, very specified.
They need to report their expenses, et cetera. That's an
administrative burden to us, and to them. But I would
imagine that they'd be amenable to discussions about where the
money goes and ensuring that. These particular events. Continue to
be funded through some of this. I'm not going to
support the amendment because I don't think that restricting any
money. Is necessarily productive, but I will support the main
motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ginjo. Mr. Mayor, I'm
not going to support. The amendment because. I'm not prepared.
Even if I recognize that SDC is a very big
player in our community. But we are going through a
very tough. Budget time, so I'm not prepared to give
that much money to SDC. So I'm not supporting the
amendment. Nada. I'm not supporting the motion, too. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor. Thank you, councilor Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Through you. Well, I do appreciate what my colleague is
trying to do here. They currently have two part time
employees. One is on the way with the door within
weeks. Just as a plan to exit, which is going
to leave one part time anyway. A lot of this
money goes towards. Not really seeding these organizations, but keep
keeping these things afloat and sponsoring these events and there's
$54,000 isn't even close to what it cost to put
all these events on, it's not even close. It's a
very small portion. Almost every one of these events requires
somebody to go and get sponsors for. So major corporation
sponsors, individual sponsors. Sometimes other levels of government sponsorships. That
in itself is a full time job because it doesn't
cost $54,000 to do all these things. It costs hundreds
of thousands of dollars. The 54,000 is going to be
spent on a part time employee, and some of these
events, but for the most part, that person's job is
to get sponsorships. So these events can happen. These organizations
get the help they need. Youth spaces. Get support. The
cultural events get support. That's what they do. And what
they do is they go. Out and find all this
money to do it so they are only have a
part time and the money will go towards exactly what
you're proposing. So to give them a percentage. I don't
think is right because maybe it's 26,000 in the other
or maybe it's 31,000 in the other, but I'm not
going to. Try and put handcuffs on how they spend
it for a couple of percents one way or the
other. I think the original motion that I had made.
Will basically do the same thing. It just gives them
more control. Thank you. Further comments on the amendment. Council
savory. Do you want to wrap up? Thank you, Mr.
Mere. I really don't have anything to add by way
of comment to it. I did see this as a
situation where we're trying to give them the best of
both worlds at the same time. As I mentioned in
my earlier comment, Projects that are being undertaken, such as
the senior fair. We're trying to. Be more invigorated with
regards to trying to get community support so that. There
is greater or less impact on dependence of support from
the council or from the city and in that respect.
I think it would apply all across the board to
all of their projects. But I know the challenges that
are out there. I read the room. I understand the
thinking. And we'll have the vote. All right. Thank you.
You're going to call the vote on the amendment. All
in favor? All opposed? The amendment is defeated. We're back
to the main motion. Any further comments on the main
motion? Councilor Bennett, do you want to wrap up? I
do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that big list I
just read, as I mentioned in my comments to the
amendment, we just spoke about. This 54,000 doesn't. Cover almost
any of this. What this does is it facilitates these
things from happening, because the group goes out, finds the
money to make sure these events happen, they get the
sponsorships that needed. To make these events happen. And we
talk about this is a tough budget year. This group
is very much involved in poverty reduction. You're talking about
a tough budget year. How much more is going to
cost our human services when more people are being forced
to other homes. How much more is it going to
cost us when more people are showing up at food?
Banks. To get the support they need because of the
economy we're in, and we have an organization here. Who's
one of their mandates is to make sure that people
are able to stay in their homes, people are able
to get food. Youth are being taught and educated on
the importance of food literacy, so they know how to
what is a good food, how to prepare it. These
sound like simple things that we all take for granted.
But these aren't simple things. These are problems. We have
one of the highest populations for people on social services
in the province. By far. Who's supporting those people? Us.
Because we want to say, $54,000 in a tough budget
year. That $54,000 barely covers the cost of what this
group does for the people that are truly vulnerable. In
our community. The fact that the SD and G didn't
see the value in that doesn't mean we're carrying the
ball for SD and G. It means we're. Caring about
the people that live in our city, and if they
don't want to. Take part, that's fine. They have other
predators. They may have other ways of taking care. Of
it? I don't know. But all I know is the
people in our community are. Struggling, and a lot of
them are suffering, and somebody's got to look. After it.
And we don't have the capacity to do it all.
We just don't. To me, this is the $54,000 is
saving us hundreds of thousands, but that's. Just my opinion.
I'll leave it for the rest of you to consider
when we make our vote. Thank you. Thank you. That
I'm going to call the vote. All in. Favor. All
opposed? Motions defeated. Thank you. We'll move on. Madam clerk.
The third proposition this evening is proposed by Councilor Sarah
Good, seconded by councilor Todd. Bennett. Now therefore, be it
resolved by council am in the mayor's proposed budget as
follows that the city provide SDC with 25,000 in 2026
to support the hiring of a part time staff member
to continue their work through this transitional year. And that
the amount of 30,000 dedicated to your arts council be
reduced to 25,000 to offset the cost and that the
amount of 35,000 dedicated to diversity cornwall be reduced to
25,000 to offset the cost and let the net increase
to the budget any amount of $10,000 be funded by
the tax base. And at this resolution, if approved by
the majority of council, be submitted to the mayor and
clerk. In accordance to section two 8416, four of the
municipal act, and that section two 8416. Four. Should the
mayor veto this amendment, adopted by council by council, may,
in accordance with regulations override the head of council veto
under section four. If two thirds of the members of
council vote to override the veto at its January 29
2026, as permitted under section 284 16 of the Municipal
Act. Councilor. Good. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. We
are in the business of making difficult decisions. That's no
surprise. And. There is no decision that we make that
is any more difficult than our budget decisions. And when
it comes to supporting outside agencies, there's so many considerations.
This is something that's come up year after year after
year as a challenge for us because we recognize the
value that they provide to our community. And as councilor
Bennett mentioned, It would cost us. Several times more the
amount to do all of this stuff ourselves than it
does to invest just a very small amount. This motion
is, in effect, my last ditch effort. And I'll be
very honest. When I had a conversation. In regards to.
Including this in the budget. I said, quite frankly, I
don't know that the rest of council will support adding
54,000 to the budget, even though the impact on the
overall tax is minimal. It has to be something that.
We can justify. And. Have a very minimal impact. Can
we include in there with the addition of $10,000? Would
be. Okay, so we're talking. $0.45. So.
$0.45. To the average taxpayer. Am I right with that
math? No. It's less than that. It's like $0.20. No.
Okay, whatever. It doesn't matter. $0.45. I am not thrilled
about the fact that it takes away from other community
organizations, but the purpose for doing so is to ensure
equity between the organizations, the outside organizations who we are
supporting through. This process. I think this is a reasonable
amount. And through discussions with some of the members at
the SDC. Obviously not my colleague here, but the nice
lady in the crowd over there. This is like the
bare minimum. This is really the bare minimum. That can
allow them to even apply for the other funding that
is necessary in order to continue. This organization and should
this be the province's responsibility? Yes. Would I love for
them to be paying for it. Yes, but we have
a responsibility to our residents in Cornwall to ensure that.
We are supporting. Programs that give them a greater security
in life, that help them with employment opportunities, that help
reduce poverty, ensure that our young people are safe and
well adjusted. And I believe strongly that this organization has
a huge role to play here. I'm not willing to
let them sink. Program. So I implore you to improve.
This very. Very minimal increase of $10,000. To this budget.
Thank you. For the comments. Councilor Bennett. Thank you, Mr.
Through you. I've made all the comments I think I
need to make as to why. We should be supporting
this organization, but. I had a conversation, obviously, with councilor
good about this. It's unfortunate. We need to cut others
to try to make something more palatable for us, but
I can't stress enough. We cannot let an organization like
this just go. After funding them for well over a
dozen years. Whether it was in the province responsibility, sure.
Was that funding helping our citizens? Absolutely. When the province
stopped, do we let our citizens hang? I don't think
that's what we do. I think this is a nice
compromise to what I just tried to have passed. It
gives them some the money that hopefully they can. Stay
hope for this year and keep their good work going.
That they do. They are partnering with the OTB will
be under their umbrella. So some of their administration straight
of costs are coming. Down. So I'm hoping that this
compromise passes. Because we cannot underestimate the value of this
organization has on our more vulnerable citizens. I know, we're
hearing a lot of complaints from the people that are
paying these. Tax increases, and I understand the frustration. I
have a house I'm going to be paying. These increases.
But I do see that this increase. Is a little
easier to swallow if I know that we're doing what
we can to look after our more vulnerable citizens. I
think this is a nice compromise, and I will support
it. Further comments. Excuse me, councilor McDonald. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. So. I found a particular element of this motion
extremely hard to countenance and. That is. I mean, I
think when we come here, we want to add something
to the budget. We're adding it to the taxpayer. There
isn't a single tax paper who stand up and say,
I've got deep. Pockets. But the taxpayers have deeper pockets
than those organizations from whom this motion suggests we take
some of the funding. Because that funding, first of all,
isn't assured. It hasn't been passed yet, and I do
have some problems with that mechanism this year that was
adopted whereby people could apply directly to the mayor's office.
But that's neither here nor there. Some of that money
that we're talking about. Allocating. In this motion comes from
some of. Those bequests, I guess you could call them,
or allocations. And they're not. Certain. But this just shows
how small the pie is when you start stealing pieces
of somebody else's. Piece of pie. This is an absolutely
objectionable motion, and. I just. Reject. Rejected. Thank you. Thank
you. Further comments, questions? On council. Good. Do you want
to wrap up? Thank you so much. It is objectionable
that we are willing to not support an organization that
hands down impacts more other nonprofits within our community than
any other. And I would bet money on that. We
are not taking away from any other organizations. They have
not received that money. We have not approved this budget.
This is a compromise to ensure that we are being
strategic in where we are. Investing our dollars to have
the maximum impact for our residents. I caution all of
you that if we see the vacuum that is caused
by the absence of the SDC and next year and
next term, when we're all running for election, we're hearing
about these events that are no longer taking place, these
tables that are no longer sitting. People who don't have
a voice anymore. Because the place where they went. Was
a table that was organized by the SDC, was an
event that was organized even the Nerf wars where the
kids go and this seems so. Trivial, but it isn't.
This is what keeps our kids from getting in trouble.
This is. What keeps our seniors well connected to our
community and supported. This is what allows people who have
been out of employment for a significant period of time.
To get back to get on their feet. And so
I really believe that this is a fair compromise. It
provides three organizations with an equal amount of funding that
should. Be enough to help them get by this year
in a very hard year for all of us. 10,000
is not going to have a meaningful impact on this
budget, on what people pay. But it will have a
meaningful impact on these organizations. I urge you to vote
in favor. Okay, thank you. With that, we'll call the
vote. All in favor? All opposed. Motion is carried. Thank
you.
Madame clerk. The next item of business is the adjournment.
Mr. May. Before we get there, are there any other
motions that were not submitted in advance that any council
would like to table at this time. Councilor Alingsworth. I
have a question, you, worship, in terms of where we
go now. Because I don't know. So the budget from
an inn was presented. Council has decided to add a
little extra cash. You have this veto provision or whatever
the case may be. So, like, is our budget. When
do we officially have a budget? Ms. Bailey. Thank you.
Through Mr. Mayor. Two things. There hasn't been any amendments
requested by counsel for the mayor's consideration for the water
and wastewater budget. And because there isn't any, that budget
is deemed adopted. At the January twelveth meeting, administration will
put on both the water bylaw and the sewer. Bylaw.
To secure those rates for 2026. And start our billing
process for the taxation or general taxation budget. There is.
One amendment from council that was approved. Therefore, that amendment.
Will be provided to the mayor for his consideration. He
has ten days to provide. His decision. If he approves
it, the budget steamed adopted. If he does not approve
it, it comes back to the January 29 special budget
meeting of council and council can override the mayor's. Veto
with two thirds vote. So, just so I'm clear, worst
case or longest case, I guess, is the better word.
We have a budget by the end of January, assuming.
If you chose to veto. I don't know what your
thinking is. But realistically, at the end of January, we
will have a budget no matter what. Is that making
sense to you? Yes. Shake itself out. Thank you. Councilor
Ginjo. Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. I think this
is the first budget. That we have with the strong
mayor. And I'm going to be honest with you. It's
a new process that I'm going through. And. I have
a lot of questions about Jay's budget. Do we have
as counselor the power to discuss. Funds that were allowed.
By the mayor. If yes, what is the process? Well,
council, we were just doing that today via the motions
that were submitted in advance. Motions? Can be made from
the floor, but now's the time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor,
because here tonight, we're just discussing. Motion. To allow budget
to organization. But let's say I want to discuss how
to withdraw. Budget that is allowed to. The airport. Yeah,
absolutely. Anything in the budget, any motion regarding the budget
can be introduced today. Ideally it was meant to be
submitted in advance to be added to the agenda for
discussion. Similar to the three that we just discussed. But
yes. You can put forward a motion now to discuss
that and see if there's a seconder. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Because honestly, This was the first time. That. I
was going through this. And yes, I have few questions,
at least, that I would like, so. We still have
1000. More than 1000 that we're going to allow. To
the. University. Sorry. To the Cornwall Regional Airport. I remember
that. We opened the discussion, like, two years ago. This
is still on the table. And. Once again this year
we're going to spend more than 1000. For this airport.
I would like to bring this discussion under the table,
and if I have a second. I would like to
withdraw this budget if there is no impact. Into. Our
relationship with. The airport. Thank you, Mr. Mayo. Okay, is
there second or for that motion to withdraw funding from.
The airport. Councilor sabre. Okay, so. Sorry. One time.
Can you provide the number, please, councilor? I need the
council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Page. 233. Cornwall and Regional
Airport. It's 1010 hundred. Okay.
There's a motion on the table. Councilor, do you have
anything further ahead as we entered the debate on it.
Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have a lot of issue. Regarding
this budget and. It's very tough. To allocate budget into
our community. And we are struggling. About. Many. We are
struggling. About. Giving budgeting organization from Cornwall. And once again,
we had long discussion about. The impact of having. Our
funding the Cornwall and Reginald Airport, and I think we
had a couple of discussion here and still. I. Still
don't understand the impact of these airport. Into the Cornwall
life. So since we are going through very tough budget
time, 30 seconds. I will invite my colleague to consider
withdrawing. This budget. To the cornwall regional airport. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cao. So, rolling back to 1984, there's
an agreement between the city of Cornwall. And the township
of South Klinger. We jointly own the airport. That carried
on for a number of years, and then four years
ago, through emotions for the city. Of Cornwall. The city
of Cornwall passed a motion through council. That they wanted
out of the airport agreement. There's no exit clause in
the agreement. Such that we have been in negotiations as
a city to get out of the agreement. And that's
where it stands. Alternative to the treasurer because I wasn't
here last year during budget, but. The deferred revenue paid
for the contributions last year to the airport. That now
does not exist. So we have a responsibility based on
the agreement we currently have. With the township of self
lunger to pay that amount. Until such time, we're no
longer. In the agreement with the airport. So we through?
We presently are in negotiations with the township of South
Glengary. To exit from the agreement. But there is no
agreement yet. We have not agreed. On the exit terms.
So because we can't agree on the exit terms. We
continue to pay our portion of the operational costs. I
don't know if Treasurer Bailey wants to have any further.
Ms. Bailey, do you have. Anything to add? Maybe just
further detail on the deferred revenue. The deferred revenue was
monies. Held by the airport for previous year's surpluses. And
deficits. So the net of the surpluses and deficits it
was held. With the airport as deferred revenue, and that
was how we made our payment. In 2025. So it's
not like the city did not make its payment. It
did. Just a further. I recently met with the CEO
in south klinger. And through the direction of council. We've
been going back and forth. We expect a response. From
them. Soon. But it continues on without an agreement. Thank
you. I have Councilor Macintosh. Next. Paris peace accord took
less time. I've been here twelve years, and we've been
discussing it for twelve years. I don't think it's ever
going to be solved, because if we haven't. Done it
now. I think we had. A law firm from DLG
maybe involved in this at one time. It just never
ends. I'm almost ready to give up on this one.
In your talks to the new Cl who's very familiar
with our position. Any optimism there. So three. Mr. I'm
very familiar with the other side, too. That's, right too.
I forgot. You can know that I'm well versed in
trying my best to get the best. Deal for the
city. So through Mr. Mayor to the councilor's point, we
are to pay the operational costs. For 2026. That being
said, I think we need to bring it back to
council. It's a closed session item in terms of negotiations,
right. Where we don't want to talk about negotiations and
open session. Okay, Councilor Alingsworth. Simply put, your worship, I
will not support the motion. We are contractually obliged to
honor this. Period. And to not honor it, we potentially
put the municipality at risk. Everybody wants to save money.
I get it. But currently we have a contract. I'm
prepared to honor that contract. Thank you, Councilor Salvary. Thank
you, Mr. Meer. I'm supporting the. Motion for debate purposes,
but a lot of curiosity with regards to it. When
you actually look at the budget items, the line items
and that 2025, actual zero. 2025. Budget zero. And then
we hear deferred. I would have loved to have known
that. There was a deferred that, an actual fact that
the money did come from a pot. Somewhere to address
it and. When you see a 100% increase on this.
You're basically asking yourself, well, what did we do last
year? That there is zero payment. Zero payment, and yet
it came from another envelope somewhere else. And that. It's
somewhat confusing, but at the same time, I kind of
wonder as to how a decision was made that it
wouldn't be zero. Because. As much as. My friend, Councilor
Haulingsworth is saying that we have a contractual obligation. There
was pretty solid direction, and we had taken a pretty
hard line in discussions with regards to the future of
our arrangement. And I was somewhat reading this line item
of the opinion, oh, gee. Our hard line. Basically represented
a stop in payments, and now I'm finding out that
there's actually been a process that payments were made and
honored. Ms billy. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. The
decision to utilize the deferred revenue held at the airport
for the city's 2025. Transfer payment was communicated through the
2025 budget and again through the 2026 budget. So we
have language within our executive summary that noted that in
the 2020. Five budget and then in the 2026 budget.
We indicated that in 2025, the payment was made through
deferred revenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess I'm going
to have to do a second read on. That summary?
Because I didn't pick up on it. Thank you. If
you have any questions. Let me know. Thank you. Further
questions? Comments? Counseling. Ginjo, do you want to wrap up?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So once again, yes, we are
in contract. But I don't understand why we're going to
pay. Even. If. We know that. It's not going to
help us. We're just spending money. For nothing. So going
through this stuff budget, I think this is one thing
that we should think about cutting. And we have. To
do our homework to cut it. So I hope that
my colleague will support it and cut. It. At least
it's going to save some money from Conwell resident. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. With that, we'll call the
vote. Is everyone familiar with the motion? Is. Looks like.
Yes. All in favor? All opposed? Motion is defeated. Thank
you. Council, Ginja. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Another question that
I wanted to discuss tonight is about. The Santra sank
that we are going to give $50,000. I went on.
Internet and I checked. It's the first time that we're
going to give five. 50,000 to this organization, and it
looks like. It's a religion organization and. I'm not open
at all to. Give citizen money to an organization that
is based on trust or religion because. We are here
to manage money. Of resident and not to give money.
Based on religion. So I'm not open to give this
money, and I'm begging. My colleague to withdraw this money.
To the funding that we're going to give to this
organization. I hope. I'm going to have a colleague supporting
this motion so we can remove this. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Is there a seconder for the motion? It's page
233. It's center 105, counselor. Is there a second or
for the motion? I'll ask a third time. Is there
a second or for the motion? Can you repeat motion?
Madam Clerk, my understanding of the motion is to remove
total funding to center 105 in the amount of, I
believe, $50,000. I'll ask another time. Is there a second
or. Motion does not carry forward.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the last point. Municipal grant
program. I just want to understand a little bit how
we're going to increase. By 1630. 8%. The money that
is allowed to grant in our community. Is it necessary?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What page are you referencing, counselor?
Sorry. 233. You,
Mr. Mayor. 233 municipal grant and we are increasing. My
understanding we're going to increase. This budget by 1530 8%.
My question is, is it necessary or what is the
explanation of this increased? Mr. Mayor, thank you.
We're on the page. Sorry, councilor. Are you? Yeah, but
where? On the page. Sorry. Municipal just on the bottom.
Oh, I see. Okay. Ms. Bailey.
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. This is actually just
an accounting of how the municipal grants program works. The
Municipal grants program has $170,000 net. And how the accounting
works is that in one year, They may not. Of
course, they never spend over. They always approve applications under
that amount, and then money is going to a reserve,
and so there's a difference between what is pulled from
general taxation year after year, depending on how much money
is actually coming from the reserve, but. The envelope itself
has not changed. And so the municipal grants review committee
has met. They've gone over those applications. They've made their
decisions. That report will be coming. To the second January
of the second meeting in January. But what you're seeing
at the bottom of page 233 isn't an increase in
the envelope itself. It's just the way the envelope is
funded. True, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Good to
hear that. And I hope we're going to have the
opportunity. To discuss about. The grant in our community. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor. That was all. Thank you, councilor. Any
final motions that were not submitted in advance. Then with
that, I will call for adjournment. Councilor Savran. Councilor Hollingsworth.
All in favor? It's carried. Thank you. We are adjourned.