[0:02] All set, Charlie.
All right. Uh being at uh three 302,
[0:10] I'll call the meeting to order. Uh does
any member wish to make an addition to
[0:16] the agenda?
>> Nope.
[0:23] » Peter, you're muted if you are speaking.
Um
[0:29] hearing or seeing none
I'll ask uh
[0:39] wrong moving bill seconding
any discussion on the agenda
[0:48] seeing none uh I'll call for a vote all
in favor
[0:54] that's carried
[1:04] Does any member have the declaration of
interest uh related to the agenda
[1:12] hearing? We're seeing none.
Uh pre previous minutes uh that the
[1:19] minutes of the council renumeration
committee meeting held July 10th, 2025
[1:23] be approved. Uh looking for a mover and
a seconder.
[1:30] Uh Peter moving Ron seconding. Uh any
discussion on uh the previous minutes
[1:40] hearing or seeing none. Uh call for
vote. All in favor approve those
[1:44] minutes.
That's carried.
[1:50] We're down to staff reports. I'll just
read the recommendation of the staff
[1:54] report for now and then ask for a moving
mover and a seconder and then I'll turn
[1:59] it over to staff to briefly comment and
then we can have any discussion
[2:03] thereafter. Um so the the recommendation
at this point is that report COR
[2:09] 20225-029
[2:12] summary of historical council council
renumeration be received for
[2:17] information.
I ask for a mover and a seconder.
[2:23] I got Bill and then Ron
um there'll turn it over to staff to uh
[2:31] provide any discussion. Is that you
Samantha? It is. Yes. Thank you. And
[2:36] through your chair, we provide
>> I don't think
[2:41] » anyone else here
you can.
[2:46] » Yep.
>> Okay. Let me just see if I've got
[2:48] something screwed up here.
>> Okay. I'll just pause for a moment.
[3:03] else in disco.
[3:13] » Try again.
>> Can you hear me now?
[3:19] » Testing.
>> I can hear you fine.
[3:25] » I'm coming through the
>> I can hear you fine, Smith.
[3:29] Oh,
>> okay. Can you hear us hear me now Brad?
[3:34] » Now I can now now I can hear you.
>> Okay. So thank you through you. I'll
[3:39] just quickly summarize this report. So
what we have prepared for the committee
[3:43] today is historical information related
to council renumeration. So we do have
[3:49] their renumeration rates using 2021 as
our base rate. Uh the latest council
[3:56] renumeration policy did cover the 2022
to 2025 rates. Included in that was the
[4:02] recommendation that council renumeration
be increased at the same rate as the
[4:07] non-union township staff. So those
historical rates are provided in that
[4:11] graph for you. I also included the
mileage per kilometer reimbursement rate
[4:17] as we've been following the CRA mileage
rates for those.
[4:23] In addition to council meetings, we've
also summarized the meetings for which
[4:28] predems may be paid that are not
township of Georgia and Bluffs meetings.
[4:33] So we do have our elected officials
appointed to various boards that they do
[4:38] also receive PDM and mileage
reimbursement for their attendance at
[4:42] these. Part of this committee is also
going to be inadvertently setting the
[4:48] PDUM rate for any citizen members that
we may have on our boards. That can
[4:54] include a committee such as this. It can
include a property standards committee,
[4:58] inner township fire department or
committee of adjustment. So, we just
[5:02] wanted to highlight some of those other
committees.
[5:06] By virtue of their elected title, the
mayor and deputy mayor are also on
[5:11] county council. However, they are
renumerated through the county and there
[5:15] is no impact to the township on that.
Some non-reneumerationbased
[5:22] benefits that they do receive is they do
have directors of officers insurance
[5:27] that they are covered under. They are
members of the township's OMR's program.
[5:32] They do receive reimbursement for any
out-ofpocket meals and professional
[5:36] development. Each member does have a
$4,000 professional development
[5:42] allotment how they can use as they see
fit. This may be a combination of
[5:46] seminars. It could be attendance at
conference meetings and could be small
[5:52] other sessions that they find beneficial
for their capacity as elected official.
[5:59] The township also provides them and pays
for a phone and a tablet. And for our
[6:04] counselors, they do also receive a
internet allowance to re uh compensate
[6:11] their home internet costs.
The mayor and deputy mayor historically
[6:15] have not received this.
Um each year under the mistell act, the
[6:21] treasurer is required to summarize the
amounts paid to or on behalf of uh
[6:27] members of council. So, we have included
the 2024, 23, and 2022 amounts, and
[6:34] there are links to those direct reports.
I'm happy to answer any questions if
[6:38] there are any about this.
[6:45] » Any questions from committee members?
[6:50] » Nope.
[6:53] Okay. Thanks, Samantha.
[7:02] So, I guess at this point I'll call for
a vote on the staff report.
[7:08] Uh, all in favor to receive it.
Uh, that's carried.
[7:17] Next reports uh CO2
uh 202530
[7:22] uh municipal comparators for council
remuneration.
[7:26] Again, I'll read the recommendation, ask
for remover,
[7:30] turn it over to staff, and then we can
have any discussion should there need to
[7:33] be. um that the committee direct staff
to seek further information relation to
[7:38] council benefits and remuneration from
the same 10 competitors used for 2025
[7:44] non-UN staff pay equity and compensation
review. I'll ask for a mover.
[7:52] Uh Ron and a seconder, Bill
and uh uh turn it over to who's speaking
[8:02] to this one? Is this you again,
Samantha?
[8:04] » It is. Yes. So, thank you through your
chair. Throughout 2025, uh we are
[8:10] undertaking a non-union staff pay equity
and compensation review. So council has
[8:17] been involved with that process. So they
were involved in selecting our matrix
[8:22] that we took into account different um
considerations such as population size,
[8:28] annual budgets, staff complement,
average home assessment and the living
[8:33] wage catchment.
And so we compared that to 21
[8:38] municipalities that were similar
we felt and then it did result in a top
[8:45] 10 which was also endorsed and approved
by council. We also have included here
[8:51] the municipalities that were used for
the 2022 and 2025
[8:56] uh council renumeration committee. Many
of these municipalities I believe there
[9:00] might have been one was not included in
the matrix that we had used when
[9:06] presenting it for the non-union staff
component. Um the top 10 comparators
[9:12] that we are suggesting this committee
move forwards with is the municipality
[9:17] of Aaron Eldersley, municipality of
Meford, town of South Bruce Peninsula,
[9:21] Municipality of West Gray, Municipality
of Brockton, town of Sagin Shores,
[9:26] Township of Hiron Kimlo, Township of
Southgate, Municipality of Grey
[9:30] Highlands, and the town of Mento.
As the committee, you are welcome to
[9:35] adjust, change these comparators as you
see fit. staff are recommending we can
[9:41] maintain consistency with that that is
used as non-union staff.
[9:49] » Great. Uh thank you Samantha. Any
questions from committee members?
[9:59] See I have a a couple uh about three
questions. Samantha,
[10:04] um,
does it make sense for us to use county
[10:08] to grade or can we maybe just use them
as a reference point just to kind of
[10:13] base it to is one question. Maybe I'll
give you all three my questions. You can
[10:18] answer them collectively if you want.
Um, geographically, I'm wondering
[10:23] whether we should include sogging
shores. uh just to provide uh since
[10:27] we're going all the way out to town of
Blue Mountains, I thought maybe so
[10:30] shores is relatively close and I think
their council size is similar.
[10:37] And then the next question was when we
actually do gather the data, can we make
[10:42] sure we gather
um the number of council members for
[10:46] each of those communities?
Because I think a point I'd made
[10:51] previous the previous meeting was that
there might be that potential for you
[10:56] know the workload to be distributed
differently depending upon how many
[10:59] counselors are. So a council of five
might have more work than a council of
[11:02] seven and say vice versa.
>> Brad did you say we should include the
[11:08] town of Sagen shores?
>> Yeah I don't think it was in the list I
[11:13] saw.
>> I think it is number six in the list.
[11:19] Oh, okay.
>> Well, unless we have a different um
[11:26] different agendas, I don't think so.
[11:31] » So, through your chair, um town of Sing
Shores is one that st of the 10 that
[11:36] staff are recommending. Um Blue
Mountains was used during the 2022 to
[11:41] 25. So, there is kind of two lists in
the report.
[11:45] » Yeah.
Um, I was mixing up the list. That's the
[11:48] thing.
>> No worries.
[11:50] » That's what I was doing. Mixing those
up.
[11:52] » No worries.
>> Then then I would suggest my my my other
[11:55] comment would be then, does it
appropriate for us to be using Town of
[11:58] Mento? It's pretty far and I think Town
of Mento will get a little bit of that
[12:03] influence
uh from from larger urban centers. So
[12:09] maybe that's the question. I'll flip it
around a little bit.
[12:19] So through you town of Mento
received 87 points when we applied the
[12:26] metrics to them. They are number 10. So
if the committee wishes to reduce or
[12:31] swap out any of the 10 comparators,
you're welcome to. Um you had asked
[12:36] about the county,
you're welcome to use the county. Um the
[12:41] services provided at a county level can
differ and workloads can and may differ
[12:45] from a county perspective opposed to a
lower tier, but we can definitely
[12:49] request the information if that is what
the committee would like.
[12:53] » Samantha, what was the 11th um
you said the Mento was 10 with 87. What
[13:00] what's the the one after that
>> through your chair? Just bear with me. I
[13:06] don't remember if own sound was next or
Chhatzsworth was next, but they were the
[13:10] next two.
[13:14] » Samantha, is there any way that you can
pull up the um comparator matrix?
[13:22] » Bear with me. It is large and multiple
pages. So, I will try.
[13:26] » Thank you.
[13:53] Is everyone able to see?
>> Yeah,
[13:57] » we do see your screen.
>> Y
[14:00] » Oh, I'm just going to try to zoom out
bit. It is six pages. So, when the
[14:07] committee would like a page change,
please let me know.
[14:15] You can move pages as far as I can.
[14:36] Okay.
Yep.
[14:54] Okay.
>> Okay.
[14:56] » So,
[15:04] » so Samantha, there there would be the
question. The township of Chadzsworth
[15:08] was 86 and the town of Mento is 87, but
we're going to recommend Mento over
[15:14] Chadzsworth, which is our neighbor.
Uh, I I'm a little bit like you, Brad. I
[15:21] would probably say I would take
Chadzsworth as a competitor over Mento
[15:24] when they're so close.
[15:28] » Can we just add Chazworth to the list to
keep Mento in there just for numbers
[15:32] sake?
[15:48] Okay. Can you can you continue on
Samantha?
[16:01] » Okay. Okay. You can continue.
[16:18] Or is that That's it.
>> That's page six.
[16:20] » Yeah.
[16:32] thoughts by the committee in terms of uh
either removing Mento or adding
[16:38] Chadzsworth.
[16:42] » I I think it would make sense to swap
out Mento for Chadzsworth.
[16:48] um given its proximity to us and the
fact that there's only one point
[16:56] difference in the scoring I think it um
you know maybe Brad to your point it may
[17:02] be more um similar to to our our area
than than Mento
[17:10] that would be my thought.
[17:16] Any other comments or discussion?
>> Yeah, my only
[17:21] » I
>> Sorry, Ron.
[17:24] » Go ahead. Go ahead, Peter. I'll talk
after you.
[17:25] » I I was just going to say uh
adding Chadzsworth makes sense, but um
[17:32] we might as well leave Mento in there
since it's a valid comparison as well.
[17:35] It's little stressed geographically, but
um more information is sometimes better
[17:41] than less. So,
[17:45] » yeah, my only
about adding Chadzsworth is the comp
[17:48] council composition size is different
um when they only have five members
[17:53] versus the council composition in
Georgia Bluffs is significantly
[17:56] different from a workload perspective.
So we may get different comparators from
[18:00] a workload um on a PDM basis at
Chadzsworth versus here. That would be
[18:06] my only hesitation about adding them in.
[18:14] » Sorry, how many
[18:18] Sorry, the only
[18:22] » go ahead.
>> Are we done with the screen so I can see
[18:24] everybody's picture again? Because it's
just hard to see everybody in a smaller
[18:28] screen.
>> There we go. Super. Sorry.
[18:32] Uh, who was trying to speak? I couldn't
quite catch it.
[18:35] » Um, it was me. And I I was just going to
say I I should know this, but how many
[18:40] counselors do we have? I thought we had
five as well, but I'm probably wrong.
[18:50] » Through your chair, we have a mayor,
deputy mayor, and five counselors. So,
[18:54] it is a group of seven.
>> Chadzsworth is a mayor, deputy mayor,
[19:00] and three counselors. So, a total
composition of five.
[19:03] » Okay.
[19:14] on your the information being provided
for the different municipalities. Are
[19:17] you including the the populations in
there as well?
[19:26] » Directed to Samantha, sorry through you.
Population size is something that was
[19:31] looked at when determining their score.
I don't believe the Oh, it does have the
[19:37] actual population size included on the
matrix summary.
[20:09] If you're looking for a recommendation,
Mr. Chair, I would just recommend that
[20:14] we move forward with the 10 that are on
the staff report
[20:25] » or did we want to adjust on?
Did we Did we lose Brad?
[20:35] » We might have lost him.
[20:41] » Could be rural internet issues.
>> Is there any um downside to having 11 or
[20:49] is there any requirement that you must
have 10?
[20:55] My my only concern, Bill, is that the um
pay equity staff ratings that they the
[21:01] township used, these are the 10
comparators that they use. And for
[21:05] consistency sake, if we use the same 10
comparators, then we're comparing apples
[21:10] to apples versus trying to change that.
>> That's fair.
[21:15] » Yeah. Although Jazworth was only one
point difference on the scoring, right?
[21:19] » Yeah. And my only hesitation, Peter,
about them is it's a different size
[21:23] council.
>> Yeah, we can take that into account
[21:26] though.
>> Yeah, the workload is significantly
[21:28] different for five versus seven.
[21:39] [Music]
[21:45] » And Brad's gone deaf.
>> Yeah. Carly, are you there, too? You're
[21:51] on mute.
>> Yes, I am here. Apologies.
[21:56] » Brad, are you back?
>> No, he just says he can't hear anyone in
[22:01] chat.
[22:09] We uh we could have a brief recess to
see if our chair can regain his audio
[22:15] capability if that's okay with the the
committee.
[22:18] » Yes, that'd be fine.
>> Yeah,
[22:20] » you can hear me.
>> We can hear you. Yeah,
[22:28] [Music]
[22:33] » yeah, I can't hear you. for whatever
reason. So, Bill, maybe you should take
[22:37] over the chair, if you don't mind. Or
who was it? No, Peter, who was the who
[22:42] was the vice chair?
>> Wrong.
[22:44] » Yeah,
>> you take over because I can't hear you
[22:46] guys and I'll figure out why my sound's
not working.
[22:51] » Um maybe we'll just pause and and Brad
can um disconnect and reconnect.
[23:01] » Sure.
>> If that's okay with committee members.
[23:08] Okay, that sounds great. So, we'll take
a brief recess to allow um Chair
[23:12] McRoberts to leave the meeting and um
pop back on and then in the meantime um
[23:19] Mr. Vice Chair, I will send you the
meeting script if we cannot resolve
[23:22] those issues.
>> Okay.
[24:00] Brad, you're back. Can you hear us?
[24:19] » Can you hear me? You can hear me, right?
>> Yeah. I can't hear you.
[24:26] All right,
carry on. You stay take over Ron for
[24:32] chair. I'll try to keep figuring this
out.
[24:36] » So,
Carly, can you send me the script?
[24:42] » It should be on its way over to you.
>> Okay, thanks.
[24:59] Okay.
[25:04] So, we are at 52 about the municipal
comparators for council renumeration
[25:09] and we do have a mover and a seconder
for the committee direct seat staff on
[25:14] the 10 comparators that we just listed.
Um,
[25:20] is there any recommendations that we
want to change the 10 comparators?
[25:30] » I I'd still like to see Chadsworth in
there if we can do that. If we can go to
[25:35] 11.
[25:38] » So Samantha or Carly, is there an issue
of us going to 11
[25:44] » through your chair? There is no issue
with us requesting the information from
[25:48] an additional municipality.
>> Okay. So, uh, Bill, are you okay with
[25:55] that?
>> Uh, yes.
[25:58] » Okay. So, then we'll modify the
recommendation to have the renumeration
[26:03] from the 10 comparators used in the 2025
non-UN payroll Canadian compensation
[26:08] review and include the township of
Chadford.
[26:13] Is that all right to do it that way,
Carly? with regards to the motion
[26:18] » uh through you, Mr. Chair. It can be
done formally as an amendment, but I'm
[26:21] also happy for it to be informal if if
the committee consents to that.
[26:26] » Okay, let's do it informally. We'll do
it that way. Uh all those in favor of
[26:31] the the motion put forward with regards
to the staff report of the 10
[26:34] comparators plus chassis
[26:38] motions carried.
Uh item number 5.3, the council
[26:43] renumeration committee council interview
questions.
[26:47] Um the recommendation is that the 2026
2030 council renumeration committee
[26:53] council interview questions as appended
to this report be approved 72 amendments
[26:58] by the committee and that staff be
directed to proceed with arranging
[27:02] interviews with members of council to
inform the committee work. I'll ask for
[27:06] a mover and a seconder.
[27:10] Moved by Bill,
second by Peter.
[27:15] I'll turn this over to staff for their
brief comment.
[27:20] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you. So, I
have put together some questions just
[27:25] based on what's been asked of council
members in in these interviews in the
[27:30] past. Um, so what I've included is just
a jumping off point for the committee
[27:35] and, um, with any additions or deletions
that the committee would like to see,
[27:41] uh, I'm more than happy to make those.
Um, and just for your information as
[27:45] well, I am currently working with
members of council and I have interviews
[27:49] lined up between August 8th and 20th. So
um once these questions are finalized I
[27:55] will formalize those um meetings in
everybody's calendar and um we can go
[28:01] from there but uh completely up to the
committee in terms of what they would
[28:05] like to see with this questionnaire. So
happy to take any any feedback or
[28:10] suggested revisions.
>> Okay. Discussion from the committee
[28:15] members on the questionnaire.
>> Um
[28:19] just one question. These are the same
questions that were used um uh in the 20
[28:25] I think it was 20 whatever um the the
previous um committee or has there been
[28:33] additions or changes
>> through you Mr. Chair? They are the
[28:39] essentially the same questions that were
asked in 2022. I've made some uh some
[28:44] brief language adjustments as well as um
added an opportunity for any general
[28:50] comments about remuneration that weren't
captured in the the beginning of the
[28:54] questionnaire. So I have made slight
changes but no really substantial
[28:59] changes to the questionnaire. So it is
very consistent with what has been asked
[29:03] in previous years in those interviews.
[29:09] » Peter would uh
[29:14] under under the special events. Uh could
we add in an additional question there?
[29:20] Um basically would they have attended
the event if they weren't on council? So
[29:25] if this is something they would have
gone to anyways. And then a final
[29:30] question on the questionnaire I'd like
is uh if they feel the level of
[29:35] compensation they're currently receiving
is fair, high, low. um just ask the
[29:42] people who are getting paid what they
think of what they're getting paid.
[29:45] » Okay, great. And is the committee okay
with that being added sort of under the
[29:49] other topic just kind of as general
feedback?
[29:54] » Yes, I am. I actually had that same
question. So that's uh I think that's a
[29:58] that's a good question to get their
thoughts on on uh their their uh their
[30:05] compensation.
[30:08] and and uh Okay.
[30:21] So, Carly, I'd also like to leave it
open for if Brad has any additional
[30:26] comments on the questionnaire that we
can add them into it.
[30:30] Um he may have some other uh opportunity
observations in the questionnaire. I I
[30:35] think the questionnaire is is uh
comprehensive and we'll certainly get
[30:39] the feedback from council members as we
go through it. Um any other discussion
[30:45] on the questionnaire?
[30:48] Seeing none, all those in favor
including the two additions.
[30:54] Uh that's carried.
Uh item number six, unfinished business.
[30:59] We don't have any. Item number seven,
there's no new business. Item number
[31:04] eight, the date of the next regular
meeting to determine the committee um
[31:08] and allow the board to discuss possible
dates for the next meeting. And you said
[31:12] Carly that we've got a series of
meetings between the 8th and the 20th.
[31:17] So I would
>> go ahead you Mr. Chair. I was just
[31:22] confirming that yes um the individual
interviews will be scheduled um between
[31:26] those dates and of course the we're
welcoming the the committee to schedule
[31:32] their next meeting at at a time that
works best for them. So um just keeping
[31:37] in mind that there may also um need to
be some time for data collection for our
[31:41] treasurer and I to work through and
collect that comparator data.
[31:46] » So I was going to ask you um on a timing
standpoint. So our next committee we'd
[31:53] be looking at the 10 comparators
information would we also have an
[31:57] opportunity to see the summary of
comments um from the council
[32:00] questionnaire
[32:04] » for you Mr. chair, depending on when the
meeting occurs, there is a possibility
[32:09] that we could have all that feedback on
the agenda.
[32:13] » Uh considering we have to have this done
all by and in October,
[32:19] I'm suggesting that the next meeting
probably has to be sometime early
[32:22] September.
Um but would that give you guys enough
[32:26] time to put all that information
together for us?
[32:30] » Sure. You Mr. Chair, I'll allow the
treasurer to also chime in. But from the
[32:34] interview questionnaire response
perspective, um I do believe that that
[32:38] would be sufficient time for us to have
those um responses summarized for the
[32:43] committee's information.
>> Um
[32:50] so I'm looking at, you know, is Tuesday
a good good day for committee members?
[32:57] uh either the 2nd of September or the
9th of September. Which would be better
[33:02] for staff?
>> Second. The holiday, isn't it? Don't
[33:06] know what that first is.
>> First,
[33:08] » first is second would work. Second would
work best for me because I'm away uh the
[33:13] rest of September. So,
>> okay.
[33:17] » If we could do the second, that would be
perfect.
[33:19] » Can you hear us again, Brad?
>> I can hear you now. Yes.
[33:24] » Okay, good.
Um, uh, does the 2nd of September work
[33:28] for everyone, including staff?
>> So, why don't we plan the 2nd of
[33:33] September at 3 p.m.
the next committee meeting?
[33:44] » I have a mover as second
moved by Peter and seconded by Bill.
[33:52] There's no discussion. All those in
favor?
[33:57] And um
and now I'll call for a vote to move for
[34:03] an adjournment.
Moved by Peter, seconded by Bill.
[34:08] All those in favor.