Council votes to approve a big pay raise, effective Jan. 1

By Sharon Harrison
Council approved a pay increase that will see a councillor’s pay rise by 27 per cent to $40,422 per year (from $29,645), with the mayor’s salary increasing by 39 per cent to $96,500 (from $59,290), effective Jan. 1, 2027.

For the third time in six weeks, council was back at the table revisiting what members should be paid, or rather, should they receive a pay increase at all, and if so, how much should it be. The conversation also included how an increase in pay should be attractive enough to attract candidates for the upcoming October election.

Tuesday’s council meeting was essentially a re-hash of the June 9 meeting, where after great discussion, and decision-making, for all the effort made, council was unable to make a decision, or at least any decision that seemed acceptable as they only reached a stalemate, and so the matter was deferred for a few weeks.

Mayor Steve Ferguson reminded that should the vote of Options 1-3 fail again, the default decision will be Option 4 (to keep the status quo). This, confusingly was not the case at the last meeting.

While the slate was deemed wiped clean from the last meeting, where council could pretend that meeting didn’t really happen, they got to start again from scratch, with, once again, the same four salary options up for decision:

Option 1
Mayor: $68,000 (13% increase); councillor: $32,000 (7.5% increase)

Option 2
Mayor: $96,500 (39% increase); councillor: $40,422 (27% increase)

Option 3
Mayor: $96,500 (39% increase); councillor: $47,000 (37% increase)

Option 4: Maintain current council salary framework
mayor: $59,290; councillor: $29,645.

With all 14 council members present this time, and a somewhat smoother (but still slightly confusing) voting process, council voted 8-6 in favour of Option 2.

The recorded vote saw mayor Steve Ferguson and councillors John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Bill Roberts, Sam Grosso, Sam Branderhorst, Janice Maynard and Phil St-Jean vote in favour. Opposed were councillors Roy Pennell, Brad Nieman, Phil Prinzen, David Harrison, Corey Engelsdorfer and Chris Braney.

“This seems more reasonable to me,” shared MacNaughton, “I don’t think waiting four more years is prudent, and I don’t think council pay should be an election issue: I do think council size is a great election issue.”

Councillor Phil St-Jean said his position has not changed on the equity of access issue.

“We are not living up to our own policy if we do not adhere to that particular component. We do not have diversity of demographics at this table, at least that is not representative of the wider community.”

Ferguson reminded that the outcome tonight can always be reconsidered by the next council, if members so desire.

A vote for Option 3 earlier in the evening resulted in a 14-0 vote against. Options 1 and 4 were not voted on this time.

At the June 9 meeting, council voted on Options 2 and 4. which both lost in a 6-6 tied vote, with no consideration given to Options 1 and 3. Just 12 of 14 councillors were present for that vote, which sparked some debate about having a full complement of council around the horseshoe when an important decision has to be made.

Hirsch said the reason why it’s important council do something now is because there is an election coming up. “We need to send out a message to what this job is really worth now.”

Niemen had enquired why the item was being discussed again, noting that if it fails the decision goes back to the status quo, where he said that should have been the case last time when everything failed.

“Why wasn’t it two weeks ago the same rules? asked Nieman. “What I heard was, if it fails, we go back to status quo. Two weeks ago, it failed, why didn’t it go back to status quo. If we vote on it and everything fails, we are in the same spot.”

Harrison said what he finds confusing about this whole process is, when one thing is voted on, it trumps something else.

“Why do we have to go by this report? Why are we confusing it with all this? Let’s just be logical. Last time this trumped that, that trumped this, and by the end of it, I didn’t know where we were,” said Harrison. “I don’t like having to rely on that confusing report with those options, and I don’t see why we can’t tailor make our own decision.”

Braney said he finds it premature to be deciding on council pay at this time, and how it should be a decision for the next council, and that they should wait for the outcome of the ballot question.

“The way I see it is, we are going to have to go through this at that point in time regarding the outcome of that question,” expressed Braney. “If we do this now, we could be in a scenario where we are doing it again in a year-and-a-half. It doesn’t make sense to me… I think we should hold off and wait.”

The staff report and related documentation on the council remuneration review discussed at the June 23 council meeting can be found on the corresponding agenda item on the County’s website, along the with meeting recording.

Heat continues as council defers horseshoe pay cheque decision

Heated discussion over pay; council rejects review report