[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.

Council Remuneration Committee - August 5, 2025 @ 3:00 p.m.

Transcript