Cornwall City Council members continue to express concerns about what one councillor termed “mind-blowing” business fee increases.
Proposed new fees represent substantial hikes from previous rates, with increases ranging from 59% to as high as 272% in some categories.
When Supervisor of By-Law Services Véronique Brunet presented the findings of a survey at the most recent regular council meeting, Councillor Dean Hollingsworth questioned the dramatic increases, stating, “That’s mind-blowing. Why are we so high?” Brunet explained, “The direction that was provided to administration was to be cost recovery — cost neutral — and that would be why the increase was made that way.”
Councillor Fred Ngoundjo echoed concerns, saying, “I’m wondering if this is going to discourage our people from staying in the community.”
Councillor Sarah Good challenged the assumption of full cost recovery, stating, “At no time did this council approve or provide direction for full cost recovery. Businesses provide tourism; they provide so much to our community that enriches us.”
“I would definitely support a partial subsidy for this. I think that businesses pay a high amount of property taxes to the city. They’re paying absolutely their fair share, and we need to do what we can to encourage a strong and thriving business community in Cornwall,” Good stated.
Councillor Todd Bennett alllowed that although increases appeared steep, the previous fees had not changed since 2005, stating, “We can’t be asking the taxpayer to subsidize this.”
“If I open a business on Pitt Street, in essence, the way we would be working it — if we subsidize it — you’re going to subsidize my business, but then tack on that fee to my home taxes instead. So in reality, I’m just subsidizing myself, right? I mean, there’s no subsidy, you’re just shell gaming where you’re charging,” Hollingsworth declared.
General Manager Mellissa Morgan acknowledged the feedback, emphasizing council’s flexibility on timelines. “It’s the prerogative of council how long they would like us to phase this in,” she answered.
Councillor Carilyne Hébert proposed extending the phase-in period to soften impacts, suggesting options of three, five, and seven years. Council approved the recommendation, requesting administration to return in March with bylaws that include these phased timelines.
Mayor Justin Towndale also questioned the justification behind full cost recovery, noting, “These positions exist; they don’t exist just to do that. This is part of the job description,” suggesting the licensing service is already taxpayer-supported.
“Every time somebody does one thing, that’s time that they’re not doing something else. So there is a cost that we can easily allocate,” Hollingsworth countered.
Councillor Syd Gardiner urged caution. “I don’t want to get to a point where we’re losing businesses over this. I have a little problem with that. It took us 20 years to get to where we are today, and now we’re gonna phase in 5 years? 7 years? I’m okay with a phase-in of 3 years to get to where we have to be to get full cost recovery. 5 years, I’ll vote against. 7 years, I’ll vote against. 3 years is what I think should be done,” Gardiner went on.
Councillor Denis Sabourin, who sat on the bylaw working group with Bennett, reminded council of the need for balance: “We’re trying to gauge the sentiment within the community,” recognizing limited survey participation.
The survey, conducted by the Business Licensing Working Group (BLWG), gathered feedback from 85 respondents — 16 from the general public, 57 business owners, and 12 special event organizers.
Council also directed a separate review of the accommodations licensing process due to its complexity, to be conducted later this year.
Administration will return to council March 24 with draft by-laws reflecting the council’s phased implementation instructions.
