Councillors debated four options presented by staff at Council last week to try to make remuneration more in keeping with the demands of the job. Currently, the mayor receives $59,290 per year while councillors are paid $29,645. A series of options are on the table.

The first sets Council pay at the market average of a broad 19-organization comparator group, or $68,000 for the mayor, and $32,000 for Councillors. 

The second sets remuneration at the market average of six other single tier municipalities, or $96,500 for the mayor, and $40,422 for councillors.

The third proposes the market average of the  single tier municipalities, or the Ontario Living Wage standard, whichever is higher. This option compensates the mayor at a rate of $96,500 and councillors at a $47,000. 

The fourth maintains the status quo.

The suggested increases came from a supplemental report to Stratford Group’s original Council Remuneration review, presented at Committee of the Whole May 14. That review was sent back for more data on compensation rates and barriers to participation. The update added a half dozen, single-tier comparators to the original 13-municipality matrix.

During the debate over the four options, issues considered included the duties and stresses of serving on council; concerns about possible career politicians; the municipality’s financial situation; and offering compensation so low it poses a barrier to entry for all except those who can afford to serve.

One worry is that the present low pay package is deterring potential candidates from running for Council.

As of Friday morning, just eight people have filed to run for one of 14 council positions in advance of the August 21 nominations deadline.

Councillor Brad Nieman moved Option 4, to keep rates at the status quo, but the motion failed in a 6-6 tie. Councillors Nieman, Prinzen, Pennell, Braney, Harrison, and Engelsdorfer were in favour, while Councillors MacNaughton, St-Jean, Hirsch, Maynard, Grosso and Mayor Ferguson were opposed.

Councillor MacNaughton then moved Option 2. That motion also tied and failed, with the same groups in favour and opposed.

The failed votes could have saddled the incoming council with having to determine its own compensation during  2027 budget deliberations.

To avoid that outcome, Councillors MacNaughton and Hirsch moved to reconsider the entire slate of options at the next meeting of Council, on June 23, when more councillors could be present. 

But heated debate ensued, with accusations flying back and forth across the horseshoe.

Councillors Engelsdorfer, MacNaughton, Maynard, Grosso, Hirsch, St-Jean, and Mayor Ferguson voted to defer, noting that leaving the matter to the incoming Council would put it in a conflict of interest position. 

But Councillors Pennell, Prinzen, Nieman, Braney, and Harrison argued that a tie vote was a lost vote, and worried that those who voted to defer were in fact “restacking the deck” for the next meeting.

Councillor Braney implored his colleagues to abide by the results of the failed votes.

“This is what we do here,” he barked, banging on the table for emphasis. “We’re here already. We should not be setting this aside. We are going to set a huge precedent if we say that any time somebody doesn’t like a decision, we can wait for everybody else to get back. Are we going to do the same for everyone else around this table that’s here tonight, putting their time into this debate?”

But Mayor Ferguson noted that with two deadlocked votes, and recognizing the fact that this council needs to make a decision on the next term’s pay rate, it was best to defer. 

At that, however, opposing councillors erupted again.

“But we have made a decision! A tie is a loss,” Councillor Harrison responded loudly.

“Sorry, I’m going to say it. It’s stacking the goddamn deck,” added Councillor Braney.

“If that’s what we’re doing, we should just get up and walk out, because I’m not comfortable with what’s happening here. If we’re waiting for two people to show up at the next meeting, that’s not right,” Councillor Nieman yelled across the chamber. Councillors Branderhorst and Roberts were absent for the debate.

Ultimately, Councillor Engelsdorfer broke the deadlock to allow debate to continue at another meeting.

“Two of the remuneration options failed in a tie vote, meaning they couldn’t be voted on again by this council or a future council unless there is reconsideration motion,” Councillor Engelsdorfer told the Gazette after the meeting. 

“I supported bringing it back to the June 23 meeting because I assumed motions were going to keep failing in a tie. 

“A reconsideration seemed to be the only way forward at that time to allow another look at the file.”