Councillor pay decision and water allocation policy

All right, good morning, everybody. And welcome to our February 24th, 2026. 9 a. m. start for our City Council meeting for February. Right off the top, we're looking to move into a closed session. For, I believe it's only one, yeah, one item. Before we do that, I do have regrets officially from Council Richardson. For at least a closed portion. She might be coming later. And so with that, it is Neve Street parking lot development opportunity. It's the title as per section 2392C and F of the Municipal Act. Regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications, necessary for that purpose. Before I look to my colleagues to consider this, is there anyone that has any disclosure pecuniary interest, any general nature thereof for that item. Hearing none, seeing none. Could someone move to going closed. Thank you so much. A Hauser and Gibson, our seconding, thank you.

And I'll call the vote. Does anyone against that? Nobody, okay. That's unanimous. And so we will go into closed session on that one item. And when we were done, we'll come back out, and I will give a high level summary as I do. And then move into our open session. Thank you so much.

All right, I'll just call the meeting to order right here in open session then, please. Thank you. Just before we kick right off into the open session from the in - camera discussion that we had, I'm just gonna give a very quick update because we're actually not done. So we've received information so far, but we're still receiving information on the item. So we decided not to continue that, and we're gonna go in just after the open session just to respect that we didn't want to be longer with people waiting. So we apologize. For that. So we'll go back into closed session. After the open session is done on that item. And then as usual, we'll still do a rise to come back Owen to open, and then I'll do a summary at that point. With whatever happens there, okay? So with that out of the way, we will again just have everyone please rise if you can, if you're able. As we recognize our national anthem, please.

Great. Thank you. Just a moment of Silent Reflection. As we continue.

Great. Thank you. And. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work here in Gulf, a city that is built over rich Indigenous histories. As guests here, we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land. And the people who live here today and the generations to come. For actions today can move us towards reconciliation. We should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Gulf as service traditional lands and a place of refuge for many people's over time. But more specifically, the Anahuanarock, and the whole Ninoshoni. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. And Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track. And as part of a long - established traditional hunting ground, for the Six Nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations, Inuit, and Meteach peoples who have come from across Turtle Island. Called Gualth Gualth Home today. Thank you. And with that, any disclosure of pecuniary interest, any general nature thereof. For the items in front of us in the open session. No one, and I think we still have regrets just officially for the open meeting from Richard Sin at this time, okay? And I

have the minutes of open session. For January 13th, 20th. And 27, 2026. And February 3rd, 2026, the Committee of the Whole Minutes as amended, be confirmed as recorded, and without being read. Would someone be willing to move that for me. Uh, we'll do Councillor 2, and Cossen. Thank you. Anything on the minutes, anybody? No? Okay, I'll call the votes. Anyone against the minutes. No one? Yep, okay. So that passes, that's unanimous, thank you. And now we have, uh, the consent report coming from the committee, uh, the whole. The first one is the City Wide Parking Strategy terms of reference. And that's the only one on consent. Uh, does anyone need it pulled at this time, or am I okay to move, have someone move that one for consent. All right. How's there, would you be willing to move that consent item? And, Coran, you could? Yep. All right, anything else on that one. No, I'll call the vote as anyone against that parking strategy, terms

of reference. Nobody? Okay, so that's unanimous, thank you. Um, we have one delegation now into items for discussion about the internal audit work plan. We have a Timothy Martin, is Timothy here. No. Again, as Timothy Martin here. Nope. Okay. Um, it looks like we don't have a delegation then, so we can go right to the vote on that. Um, or a discussion based on what you want to do. Can we at least have the recommendations? There's two of them. And remember that there was a little bit of an extra memo that was attached in regards to the operational audit considerations or operational review, I guess you could call it. So you're the chair, caller, you're willing to move the two recommendations. And okay, and Clauson as well. Okay. Now, um, now that it's on the floor, is there any questions at all in regards to that. Okay. Oh, downer, please. So I just want to be clear that there's no timeline attached to, um, number

two. And the memo talks about, you know, when, when, when this could be feasibly done. Do we need to add a timeline about that about the timeline that it could be done? I think it was. Q4 2027. This would come back. Was that it? Sir, I'm just sort of. I'll go to Colleen on that just to answer. And just, just recall too, that the memo did indicate a pause of work plan issues to accomplish. Graffiti and scooter, I think it was the two. So just, just to be aware of that, um, as outlined in the memo, Colleen. So through the mayor to Councillor Downer, I don't think we feel that we need a revision to the wording of the motion, um, we provided you with the memo to let you know what our timeline would be, assuming the motion passes as is. Um, and yes, to your point, this is work. Um, we want to give the opportunity for the value for money audit to be completed. And those results to be reported to Council in September, and also because of work planning, we wouldn't be able to get to it any sooner anyways.

And so then we would be providing by information report at some point in September the framework for what this operational review will look like. We'll do that work throughout the fall. And then we will make sure that we're delivering those results, um, early enough in 2027. So ideally January, 2027, that it can inform the next term of council's both strap planning, as well as multi - year budget. Okay, that's, I just want to make sure we didn't need to add anything to that motion, but I appreciated the memos sort of outlining the work. And also, you know, the details of that you provided the operational details that were provided are very helpful too, as we respond to constituents around issues. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. Is there anything further on that. Okay, so I just have one question to clarity on the memo too, since it was originally my motion that I was brought forward on this. I'll just be, I'll just get a cut right through this. My intent is for the next term of council's budget to be informed in some way for options. So I understand that the operational review might not be completely done. But does X amount of dollars of a new piece of

equipment. Help do A, B, and C a bit faster? Can we at least have, can the next term of council at least have some of those options for debate for implementation in the beginning of next year when that budget is there? Um, I just, I just really feel this has to be. You understand my question. I'll stop there. Yep. So through you, absolutely, that is the intention because the next term of Council won't be considering budget until February. That is the reason why we're going to deliver the results of this to you in January or to this council, to whoever's here. Um, so that the next term of Council will have that information in January along with the options so that choices can then be made about inclusion in the budget. The only slight flag that we included in the memo is that winter does start in 2027, typically in November, December. So the next term of Council would need to be making a decision about what to adjust for November, December potentially, but then really what to include in the 28 to, I'm going to get my years wrong. Um, the multi - year budget from 28 on. Okay. Um, thank you very much for that clarity. Uh, and then the only other thing, sorry, I don't have it in front of me, but I'm just trying to go by memory when I read

it. Um, or maybe it came out in the parking one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was about winter on street parking. Allowances. That has been a debate that has come up, not a debate, but since Galler brought a motion forward, like, I don't know, six years ago or something, I don't know, seven years ago, about the idea. Um, where that option is something that. How would the next term of council be willing to look into that then, knowing that the budget is delayed until February. I guess it's like, it just can't happen. To you, I'll see if Mr. Gaiman wants to reply because I think Mr. Gibson from that team provided an email to Council yesterday, but I'll see if Mr. Gaiman wants to jump in. Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. I think the Simple answer is you're right. And that, um, that, um, with respect to the Citywide parking study in the terms of reference that you just proved that body of work is part of that analysis. And so certainly as staff kind of do that work and hear community engaged feedback and things like that, we'll be formulating those recommendations. And looking for timeline alignment wherever possible in the future,

uh, but that will be a future moment. Okay. All right. So I think that's important to get that out in the open too, just from a timing perspective, because there is, I've gone by memory, Colleen, but 300 to 400, 000 dollars sort of revenue hit if we were to eliminate the on - street parking during the winter. I see you wanting to jump in. Am I right around? 350, 000 dollars, I believe is the last estimate we've provided. So you're right on, but there's also the operational impact because as you're looking at how we might improve winter control, having more cars parking on street can be detrimental to that. So it's the revenue loss, but it is also the operational impact that we'll need to factor in. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, my only comment before I call the vote then is. Thank you to Council for and staff, by the way. Staff, I mean embedded the value for money audit themselves as their own recommendation. So thank you. Thank you to Council and staff and coming together on the operational side. I think we as a council are united in listening to the feedback of our residents. And we are, I think the takeaway here is that we're on it. There's, there's, there's sequencing of processes and the reviews that we'll have

to happen sequencing of a new budget, a new term of council. All of those details will come. We're taking it seriously. And, uh, and we will make sure that the engagement happens. And that's actually my only question. I forgot about that. Will engagement still happen through an operational review like we talked about at Committee of the whole. Like, will there be a have your say opportunity for, um, residents to use online to give feedback about, about winter control. Through you, Mr. Marius, in that memo that we provided there is a section there about engagement and what staff are suggesting would be the appropriate timing and methods for that, uh, for that engagement process. So, um, that information can be found either in the memo. But what we want to make sure, um, and as the memo says is that we need to, um, we need to have the, we need to be informed by the, uh, the audit that Mr. Julassics team is doing. We also need to look at that operational review because going out to community engagement without having something tangible for people to comment on won't necessarily be a productive exercise. So yes, there will be community engagement, but we need to make sure that we're going out and making sure we're being clear about what questions we're asking. Um, we do

also have the Citizen Satisfaction survey data that also will, um, inform these conversations. Okay. As long as, as long as what I'm hearing is there will be community engagement on this issue. Yes. Short answer is yes. Thank you. I'm going to ready to call the vote now. I took longer than to plow my street. Sorry. Roderick got me started Councillor Color. Sir your worship, just on that, in reading the report, my understanding was that there were actually not be public engagement as part of the internal audit. The public engagement would be done afterwards as part. So what we're looking at the report that was submitted by staff, the public as part of this internal audit. Sorry through the mirror. I was talking about the operational review. The internal audit, which is the agenda item before you does not include public engagement. That is not our standard process. What you are directing us to do through the second motion is not part of the internal audit process. That is an operational review that will be led through the operations team. That is where we will do the community engagement. But as the memo says that will be as part of, um, say once the value for money audit is completed. We'll do that as part of

the operational review and also incorporate the City satisfaction survey results. Thank you. And just for my clarity, through your worship, what is the timeline for that operational review after? So when can the public expect to give feedback on this. Through the Mayor to Councillor, as staff of laid out in the memo, we would be looking to be launching that work in sort of in September. We'll provide an information report to Council at that time. That's once we have the results of the value for money audit. And then that work will take place throughout the balance of Q3 and Q4 2026 so that we're delivering results to council for consideration in Q1 2027. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against. That is nobody. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Council renumeration review. We have one delegation. Morgan Dandy. I see you here. Feel free to come on up, Morgan. And as you know, but I have to say it out loud anyways. No more than five minutes. You'll hear the chime at the four minute 30 second mark. And that gives you the warning of the 30 seconds

left. Okay. Um, stick around just in case there's a follow up question from myself or my colleagues. And thank you for joining us. I'll turn it over to you whenever you're ready. Okay. Good morning, Mayor Council staff and fellow gulfites. Today, this iteration of Council will make the decision about the compensation for the next iteration of Council. At Committee of the Hall, the chair opened this item by framing it as a difficult conversation. I ask, why is fair recompense a difficult conversation to have. If we want quality people representing our city, why is it a difficult conversation to ensure that quality people representing us as city councillors are appropriately compensated. If we want more diversity around the horseshoe, how can we continue to represent the role of council. Councillor, as a privilege, requiring some sort of sacrifice to carry the responsibility of governing the city.

The current remuneration is only 1, 530 dollars and 50 cents per month. More than the recommended base from four years ago. Well, the new me - based cost of living has increased remuneration by 5, 411 dollars over four years. Using a 35 - hour work week, that's less than a 20 cent per hour increase per year. Given the complexity of the files dealt with by this iteration of Council, a 20 cent per hour increase per year seems farcical. After following the majority of meetings of Council since 2020, I foresee the complexity continuing to increase through the next iteration of Council. If, as Chair Galler posited, quote, we are intentionally working to make this position more accessible to members of all economic classes in our community." How is maintaining the compensation at only 1, 500 dollars more than the citizen committee recommendation from four years ago going to attract individuals who are not of the privileged

class. Using a yearly three percent cost of living increase will be less than 60, 000 dollars. Per year. If a zero percent remuneration is decided today. When averaged over eight year period, that amounts to a less than 15 cent per hour increase from the recommendation not taken four years ago. In my opinion, if this iteration of council decides to have a zero percent remuneration increase for the next iteration of Council. Oh, sorry, I lost my by-laws, it's a further erosion of the value placed on the role by those in the role. This is the third consecutive iteration of cancel that's chosen to not follow what the previous iteration decided. Not to follow the recommendations made by first a Citizen Committee and now a staff review. If the City members of Council don't value the role enough to adequately compensate for the volume and complexity of the work they do, how can there be any discussion about making the role accessible to all economic classes and have more diverse voices around the horseshoe. I agree that

a 33 percent increase sounds excessive, yet a zero percent increase seems regressive. If Council were to have a modest three percent increase to base compensation, bringing it to 54, 443 dollars to begin November 15th, 2026, with the new Mi cost of living assumed at three percent four years, 61, 276 dollars will be the biggest compensation when the next iteration of Council is deliberating this question at the end of their term. Still, almost 9, 000 dollars less than the recommendation Council was given at the beginning of the month. I wonder, will the vote today be based upon the perceived optics of giving yourselves a raise. That being of service is a role reserve for the privilege. That austerity is preferred over quality of representation. Or will the vote today be based upon the needed optic. Of placing value. On the depth and complexity of the role

while working to attract quality individuals from all economic classes in our community. Great. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Morgan. Is your follow - up at this time. There is, oh, yes, a Councillor Quran, please. I do have a question. Excellent delegation. And it's more about how we set compensation. And you made reference in your delegation about, um, having a community committee and council, uh, taking staff recommendation. Is there another alternative that you've seen in your, you know, your research or looking around Canada or Ontario that is a better model for determining appropriate compensation. I agree with what Councillor Phil Alt said at Comity of the Whole. This is a governance issue. And constantly framing it with around the horseshoe as a difficult conversation. And giving yourselves a raise. The messaging that that sends out to the general public is you don't value your role enough.

To compensate it adequately for those coming next. And if that is such a difficult conversation, then you need to take yourselves out of it as much as possible. And in my opinion, the only way to take yourselves out of it as much as possible is strike the citizens committee. And listen to what they say. Hours upon hours of time. Is put in by this committee. To review everything. And then its citizens saying, this is the value we place upon what our council does. Please, counsel, accept what the citizens feel your worth. Great. Thank you. And with that, uh, thank you for your delegation. So back to us, uh, Council, we have two. Motions from committee of the whole. Would anyone be willing to move those.

Um, for us, please? Uh, Gibson and Galler. Okay. Um. Anything further on this. I would like to have a discussion about something, but I'll go to Councillor Allt first. Thank you Mayor Guthrie. If we could have the emotions split, it would be appreciated. Yep. No problem. And Caden, I think I saw your hand too. I was going to ask for the same thing. Okay, perfect. Yeah. Um, I have not talked to anyone at all. Since Committee of the Whole. And that's really bad of me. So I'm sorry I've been busy. But I would be happy to take a moment here. And, uh, I hope that I come across genuine. I hope I do. In that, I do actually think. That we are doing. Somewhat of a disservice to the next term of counselors. And it might be difficult maybe for my colleagues on council to feel like they need to say that about, I pay. That's why O Canada of taking it on me a

little bit here. And so I, I would be willing to support, and I don't know if there's anybody here that'd be willing to consider a different amendment. But I would be willing to support. Not 830, I think it was. Trying to remember what it was. Um, not a 32 point he percent bump, I think maybe the. But they're zero to me after, even though we can have the debate about the, um, the citizens committee and the value that they bring, which by the way, I think that's a, uh, great debate and discussion we should have. I don't disregard that at all. But there's also a lot of value that our own professional HR staff did as well in the process that we have in front of us too. Like we can't outright dismiss this. And I don't think we can outright dismiss that too. Like I think that that isn't, that isn't appropriate. So, um, taking the mayor thing out of it completely, um, you know, I just, I don't know if there's somebody here

that would be willing to, to look at, um. To look at, uh, different type of option, but I remember, I remember before Committee of the whole, um, I was talking to some, some counselors about the issue. And that there was a few issues, like a few options. They'll just throw it on the table. I think it's worthwhile a discussion with, with all of you, um, one would be, um. That. And sorry, I just want to say one more thing before I give the options. Councillor Downer mentioned this at Committee the Whole, I believe. That by continually every four years refusing this, like it's just, it's just making it worse and worse and worse. Um, as we go, like O Canada O Canada in my view, O Canada dismiss that. So. Um, one of the options then is that, you know, someone just says, Oh, well, let's do a five percent. Not 32. Um, and the other one could be that. To bring us up to the correct. To whoever the counselors are to the correct

rate. By the end of the next term. That the 30 percent actually be divided out over four years. So it's actually implemented as a sequence over several years so that by the end of the term, it is to the rate. That is being established. Now, I'm just giving options here. I'm not saying I even like one or the other. But, um, I just, I just want to make sure that I think that there is optics involved here. Um, and I'm trying to, I'm trying to actually. Come forward with, with all of you to say, we do need to actually look at this or the continuation of this is going to cause more and more problems down the road. I'll leave it at that. Maybe the discussion that we could have here other than just nothing. I mean, that is the alternative and that that's the will of council. So be it. I view what council does. Especially moving into what this term has done on what the load or the work that's on them, uh,

that I've seen. Moving into the next load is probably willing to, to see something other than zero. So I'll just be quiet and see if there's anyone that wants to have a discussion about it before, before I call the vote. And, uh. I'm happy to have the discussion with you. So does he a hand come up here? No. Uh, okay. I'll go, uh, I'll go alt and then I'll go Clauson. Okay. Thank you Mayor Guthrie. Um, I appreciate your sentiment. I think it's the appropriate sentiment. However, I am reluctant to support anything that comes to this council today because I think we risk pulling a number out of the air and it could be anything from zero to 300 percent. I think that gets us into a more challenging predicament than what we had during the Committee of the whole. Rather, I would suggest that this be referred somewhere. And I don't even know where, but it should probably come back to Council, if at all appropriate. Uh, at the next month, uh, next meeting. I think there's real danger in us picking a number in this group as you suggested. Although I think your

sentiment is spot on. All right. Thank you. And we, I guess we could kind of take care of the mayor part and then the second motion. Just refer. Um, the Council one to next month with maybe some parameters around some information that people are looking for if you wanted to. Or we could just settle it now. So thank you for your opinions. Claussen and then gar. Yes. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question of clarity. If that's okay. So the delegate brought up the last two opportunities. The Citizen Committee and the previous, um, review of the boundaries. And that was an opportunity for the previous Council to change the composition of Council as well as the pay. So that's from my understanding two terms of council. Could you please explain, um. How do I phrase this? Like we've kicked it, like Council has kind of kicked it down the road. So what is the differential between what the citizen committee said? If

first could you clarify the timeline? And second, what did the Citizen Committee suggest at that time versus what did the report suggest from the previous term of council. Through you, uh, Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Collins'question question. In terms of timing, so there was a Citizen committee that was in place in advance of the previous term of Council. And that citizen committee. Without discrediting the work of the committee, you know, carried out similar work to what staff carried out. You know, an evaluation of benchmark municipalities, some comparison work and certainly some engagement with members of Council in terms of workload and requirements of the role. Uh, there was a recommendation at that time for an increase in compensation. Uh, it was not. I don't have the exact number with me, but I don't recall it being as, uh, significant a move as the 32. 8 percent that was outlined in the staff report at the beginning of this month. At the last juncture of council's discussion at this moment, that's when, when, uh, council recommended or directed staff to take that work in - house. Um, it is, it is a difficult position for a Citizen committee. I mean, they're going to carry out that work.

They're going to, they're going to form their recommendations based on evidence and data. Um, and it was felt, it was, it's a challenge as well to recruit individuals for that type of committee. You're looking for folks that have human resources, background, perhaps accounting background, folks that understand the role of elected officials understand the operating environment through which you work. And so there was difficulty in challenging recruiting for that committee, which was part, I think, of the calculus for council to move and direct staff to carry out that work. Hence what we did. The other, uh, decision point that you referenced Councillor Closton was the Council Composition and Ward Boundary view. That is docketed for work that would come in advance of the next term of Council, the 2030 term of Council. And of course, pending the recommendation direction today from Council, we would include in that review of full - time, part - time status, much similar to what the city saw in the lead up to this term of Council. So that gives you the sense of timing. The delta, the amount was not quite as significant, but that's probably a product of, uh, as time progresses and adjustments aren't made, it creates a bit of a wider delta in terms of the compensation

and remuneration for council. Okay. Thanks for that explanation. Um, I had another question with regard to, um, the comparator data. So. A Google search landed me on City of Waterloo, who this year approved an increase to 58, 000 dollars per counselor, which was an increase from 44, 000, which was an increase of 33 percent that I'm not sure if I don't believe that one was included. So I was just wondering if, if you were aware of that, um. That decision that came recently and what might be different with their comparator negative versus ours. Through you, Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Class. And I'm not aware if it has come out within the window from the beginning of this month until now. Um, what I would say is that the comparator list is, is a, um, is a best case scenario in terms of, of evaluating who we would ultimately compare with in terms of compensation, remuneration. The challenge with it is that there really is no simple apples to apples comparison for all municipalities. Some are,

and we sort of outlined that to a certain degree in the report. Some are upper tier, um, and lower tier structures where members of council at the lower tier will also sit at the upper tier. And they will be compensated as part of that. Uh, in some municipalities, the whole of the lower tier council sits at the upper tier, you know, Brampton's in there. And that's, that's an example of that arrangement for Brampton. Whereas that's not always the case in other comparators in, for example, Halton region or Guadalupe region. And so, uh, the, the chart is our best attempt to sort of peg a set of comparators, but it is not as clean and simple as a straight apples to apples comparison. The other comparisons we have would be single tiers, but those single tiers, for example, like a Kingston, uh, like a berry like other, uh, municipalities. They may be quite larger. So you think about the Hamiltons, the Londons of the world. And the, you know, others might not have the same division of services that they have with neighboring county level governments in that regard. And so again, complicates a simple, a simplistic apples to apples comparison. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the, um, the response. It does, it does

help quite a bit. So, um, I appreciate my Council colleague, uh, Councillor Allt talking about the governance and the history as well of how this came to be and the recommendation as it lies on the floor is based on, um, what, what the previous council asked you to do. And so as I'm sitting here making a decision and I think a number, I think Mayor, Guther, you alluded to, uh, we're making this decision for, um, the future council. And in the article as well with City of Waterloo, they're also grounded in this. We're making a decision for the future, uh, Councillor, not for ourselves, but for the future, Council. And so when I ground myself in that information as well as the report, um, and, and the, the governance structure that brought us here, I think that it is, it is. In our best interest to approve the increase as it's outlined in the report. So I can't support number one. A negotiation seems out of turn. I do appreciate the sentiment so much. I

think that, you know, I see where you're coming from, Mr. Mayor, of trying to meet halfway. But I think that in this case, you know, I've got to kind of, you know, look at the past, look at the future and where we're going. And so for me, I won't be supporting number one. I would suggest that if it fails, if there's some minds that are getting changed, um, that we, that we go back to the staff recommendation. And we think about the future council. I think that Councillor Caeton and myself have, have both in the previous meeting talked about, um, what kind of, uh, folks that we would like to see around the horseshoe, whether we want diversity, we want people who are different from ourselves, who voices that might not be here around the table that we're not necessarily hearing from. And so I think that, um, following the staff recommendation at this time, which is again, is, is from previous Council decisions to get here is, is the best advice, um, and I will, um, not be supporting number one. But at the same time, I will be supporting number two because I actually think that is a full governance review of, uh, the Council position and the discussion of what the role

is. It isn't from, from my perspective, it is not the same as a full - time or part - time job. Being a City Councillor is a role. And I think that looking at it holistically as a role in a few years and the boundaries of which that one person or two people serve is really the, is really the right way to, um, make that next step. And in that case, you know, it might change again. Um, so at this time, I won't be supporting number one or unfortunately sort of, you know, halfway measure. All right. Thank you. Uh, I think I had, uh, Gibson. And I forget, Galler, did you have your hand up to. Yep. Okay. Either one. Thank your worship. And thank you to my Council colleagues and to the discussion. I wanted to just as part of the conversation, raise the rational of why first brought the different motion, not to accept that increase. I think that the previous term of Council made a mistake when we said that we should look at the comparator municipalities to set the, um, the wages for Counselors. I think it makes total sense for

our non - unised employees that were competing with GTA municipalities for the salaries. Our managers, general managers. I think that makes sense. But when we look at those, um, the report adds up the single tier, the lower tier in the upper tier salaries and combines them. Uh, and I think that makes, uh, does not give us a good reference point. You know, if I look at the single term municipalities like London windsur, Barry Kingston, um, we are actually, you know, if we look at those few that are in that range of population closer to us, we are at about the 50, 50th percentile, if not a little bit higher. But the problem with that is that I'm pulling, you know, picking a cherry pick. And as they say, those municipalities. So I don't feel good about, about that process. That's why I supported the second motion that directs us to go back and do a review. Um, I do understand the points ranges by Councillor Classen and Councillor Caten about wanting to have a more, um, diverse counselor with people from different economic situations. Um,

but I mean, as Councillor Allt said, we should do that in, in, in a thoughtful manner where we give direction to have that as the stated intention of the policy that we want to have that, I think unfortunately the current policy doesn't look at those issues of, um, of equality or of wanting to have a more diverse council makeup at the next term. I think it just picks a number based on the compared terminal that is not appropriate. So I will be supporting the motions on the floor. Um, but I do look forward to having a review at the next term of Council, you know, whoever's sitting on Council at that time. Um, yeah, just thank you. Thank you. And Gibson and then, uh, I'll go to Caden after that, uh, I'm sorry if I've started something here. Well, thank you, Mr. And then, uh, Coran. Uh, so many thoughts through you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to try and go from piece to piece as I've picked up the different arguments. The salary increase is not zero. It's connected to the new me renumeration every year. So our salary is not frozen. That's the way to make that very clear. The council salaries are not frozen. They're linked to the new remuneration every single

year. So our salaries are increasing every single year. Um, that's one. The second one, um, the idea of, uh, more money equals more diversity. Um, I just don't understand that the last municipal election that I have. I looked at the slate of candidates across the city. And it was an incredibly diverse sleight of candidates. And it was all for the same money. So the idea of just offering more money equals more diversity of, of where people are coming from, lived experience, like all their different backgrounds and diversity that doesn't compute to me. If you look at the race that we had in Ward 1, it was probably the most diverse slate of candidates across the city. So I don't, I don't really buy that argument either. The third one, um, going back to, I have four points. So I'm on my third, I'm going to get to my fourth. Um, going back to the citizens committee that was struck last term, um, I think we only tell half the story. Like we say we turn down the rays that they insisted that Councillor should be getting. We turned on the race. The citizens committee also said reduce the number of counselors to eight and double their pay. So make them paid them paid 80, 000 dollars and reduce them to eight. And this council said, we don't want to reduce the council. We don't want to reduce the council. We listen to the public. They say don't reduce the council. And so obviously we shouldn't

be increasing our pay by a hundred percent. So logically we're not going to listen to the citizens committee on the number of counselors. So we can't listen to them on the remuneration. So Council settled on something in the middle, which is fair. So then we turned it into staff and said staff, you look into it. And I think Councillor makes good points. I don't think Council as a whole is underpaid. I don't think we're overpaid. I don't think we're underpaid. I think we're paid probably the right amount for what a public servant. First should be considered. My fourth point, and I just donned on me after the, I should have raised it at Community of the Whole. We also sit around the horseshoe council respectfully. We all sit around the horseshoe at the beginning of our tournament. We delegate roles. We delegate outside board roles. We delegate, um, chairs and vice chair rolls. And I sat here at the beginning of this term and I wasn't offered to chair roll. I'm not pitying myself. Okay. I went home that night though and my comment to my wife was. I hope Council understands that they just loaded each other up really big. On some of these roles. Like some people were given three roles. Right. Others were given none. To say now that some counselors do it all and others don't. That's a council problem. That's

not an individual problem. So to say, Oh, I'm working too hard for the money. Well, go back to the first month of our council when we are giving out chair, vice chair outside board rolls. That's the opportunity for council to share the load. That's a comment, right? My last comment. We used to reward. We used to pay chairs of committees more. Back in 16. We had a night where we all gave each other roles. We gave chair rolls, vice chair roles outside board rolls. And it was a big move. And a few months later, count maybe some counselors who are still here. Came forward and said, we used to pay chairs. I think 800 dollars might be a thousand dollars in today's money more for sharing a committee. That was the reward for work doing that extra work. And the police board was 5, 000 dollars more to sit on the police board. Those were rewards for doing the extra work and counsel at the time introduced a motion to take it all away. So these are kind of self - inflicted wounds here. I'm happy to revisit. Again, I'm happy to do a vote on revisiting what a chair should earn doing the extra

work next term. Than what a person who's not a chair. So if it's a thousand dollars more a year because they're doing the chair roll, I think that's all within their realm of fair. But to act like we are, not listening or listening, we make independent decisions all the time. That don't align with what the citizens committee have said. We are paid increasing our salaries as we are increasing newmies. So I just, I struggle with the whole conversation. There's so many different men, like ramifications and impacts and feed and points that have led us to now. We've made a decision as a council. Today we ratified that decision. And that's what I'm going to stand by. If Council wants to introduce ideas about rewarding chairs for the extra work they do, I'm happy to do that. But that was Council's decision to take it away. So, um, that's where I'm at with this discussion. I'm happy. The decision of committee and I'm happy to ratify today. Thank you. Uh, Caden. And then, um, my last is Busatil. Okay. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so diversity is more than just as ethnicity. Diversity, um,

includes people who are not partnered, people who are single parents, people with disabilities. There's economic background. There's a lot more than just. What someone looks like in terms of diversity. And I participated in the AMO project where we talked about how to get more people into council. Um, Council is a certain amount of hours in meetings. A lot more during the daytime than we had before. But it's also every time you step out of your house, you're a counselor. Every time you go anywhere, you're a counselor. I've had constant conversations every time I've been outside of a meeting. It is a nonstop job if you do the job. If we want people to be able to attend all the meetings, we have to be able to pay them so that they can afford to have. Either only a part - time job or use this as their full - time job. I don't think given our current economy that, so especially not with the benefits packages that we have at Council, if you rely on

that and those are your sole sources, that it is not equitable. It is not something that is doable by people who do not have economic privilege, a partner to support them. That's what I mean. By diversity. And I think that the second motion that I moved at the beginning of the meeting in COW. Accounts for looking into that. And this term of council did not vote against this being a full - time position. That was the last term of council. None of that ever came to us. And that's fine. What is on the table is what I think is a well - considered review of the comparator municipalities put forward by staff. And I personally am not going to be supporting the first motion. I will be supporting the second one. And I really look forward to seeing what staff come up with. If the second motion passes next term to see. What would actually

be a good composition of counsel and a good remuneration. Because I think that currently we are in a position where it's just not feasible. Economically unless you have financial privilege. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Um. Lucito.

Thank you. And through the mayor, um, two things. I would agree with Councillor Caten about equity of access and equity of opportunity to participate. And I would hope that in the second motion that as the staffer reviewing this, they also have that corporate equity lens to this process. And just to comment and thanks to Councillor Gibson, because I know I did raise with HR about the roles and compensation for police or GRCA and some of those other things. And so I know in other organizations, they do that. And then you can choose to say, I want to take that on. I love GRCA. Or I volunteer to do that. So I appreciate that. I wasn't aware about 2016. But, um, thank you. Okay. That was it. Um, Councillor Coron, I think, uh, I think over to you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm absorbing all of the comments that I'm hearing from both our delegation, Councillor Galler, Councillor Gibson, have made excellent points. Councillor Cait and the reality of attracting, um, new counselors.

You know, part of that reflection is we, we would not be struggling with this if we were determining the compensation of say an IT analyst or an administrative position or a snow operator. We would be compensating based on the job description. The hours, the skills, um, we have a best practices in HR. And I'm not an HR specialist is that the, you know, matrix and templates and systems that evaluate a job and appropriate a compensation for that job. And, and we're very reluctant. So yes, it is a difficult conversation for appropriate reasons because affordability in our community and austerity is something that we talk about here at Council every single Council meeting. We talk about efficiencies and reigning in costs and affordability for a taxpayer. So how do we balance that? So I think that I think the first thing we need to do based on all the conversations that I'm hearing, um, and conversations in the community, because I've heard both sides, I've heard, yeah, Council is not adequately compensated. You guys should be approving the recommendation. And I'm hearing a whole lot of our city, just can't afford it, um, I didn't get a raise like that last year. Why should, why should council? And we're all hearing those conversations. So in terms

of motions on the floor, I think the first step is if we're all comfortable with the mayor salary, recommendation number one, I do have an amendment. And the amendment is just to remove, um, well, to, to, to make it singular that the salary for the position of mayor be maintained and strikeout city councillor. That would be the first amendment. And that way we don't have to fail that in order to table another recommendation just for the mayor position. So is that okay? Yeah. Could we go one at a time then? It's already been asked to have it separated anyways. So can I just go one at a time here and we'll do the amendment vote right now. Yeah. Because if we fail the whole thing, we still have to put something back in about the mayor. So if we just strike City Council, we'll just do clause one. So moved by Councillor Corinne for the amendment on number one, as described. Just to make it only the mayor we're talking about. Can I have a second year for that? Hauser. Okay. I'll call the vote on that one. Is anyone against that. Okay. I'm going to yell at the names billings. And Richardson and Galler

and Gibson. And chew. Okay. So that passes. Okay. Okay. So number one's been amended. Continue. You have the number two. I don't have any problem with that. I do think it's, it's timely for a review. Um, it is my opinion that the complexity of the job has changed, not just in the last three years. The last, the last two terms, three terms, the job needs a full review and that the committee that did it one full term ago. So that would have been about five years ago. Things have changed since then. And I do think it's timely for another review. So I would support Clause number two. Number two, I could just call the vote as is then unless there's other members of council who want to talk about number two. Okay. Is it okay if I go one at a time then? Sure. Yep. Okay. So just questions or comments on number two. Yep. Thank you through Mr. Bayer. I'll vote against this one. I feel like we're doing that review right now. Uh, quite frankly, with the, with the salary revisiting, um, and, uh, but the rate of growth that our city is seen in the last two years. I don't really see a need to revisit a costly study on whether or not we need to change the ward boundaries again in

2030. So I know the cause in there that says we'll revisit in 28, but I'm just happy to vote against it now. Okay. Fair enough. And thank you for raising that it is subject to. So on number two only, go ahead. Yeah. On number two, and I appreciate that. I don't think we're negotiating that here because, um, one of the things Councillor Galler raised is that, um, we have a policy gap somewhere. Um, our apples to apples comparators. We're not comfortable because some are regional. Some are two tier summer single tier. And so the policy review in my mind also looks at establishing some apples to apples comparators. And the other thing that we haven't done is we haven't been using that 55th percentile. So we have a policy that says once we've determined what the number is, it's a mathematical formula and our DCA O'Brien could maybe comment here. But stop just applied the math on this report. And they took the comparators that were available and they did the math at the 55th percentile. So if we're saying that we're not comfortable with the comparators and we're not comfortable with the 55th percentile, maybe it's the 50th percentile. Maybe it's a different group of comparators. But this review in my mind is going to get us the policy work that needs to be

done so that when we do have to make this decision, we can just follow policy. We don't have to get into political discussions. We can just follow policy. So thank you. So I'll call the vote on number. Go ahead, Clark. Through you, Mr. Mayor. And I just think to make sure, um, before this vote is called it, it may be simpler to vote on number one as amended just so we don't have that amended motion floating out there. Yeah. I'm with you. Thank you. So before we go to number two, it's already moved already originally. We'll just vote on number one as amended, which means it's just the mayor. Sorry. Okay. Yep. Go ahead, Council Scription. Um. Where would that leave us on if clause three fails. To clerk? Because then we'd have no direction for anything. So don't we have to pass clause three. Before we pass clause one simply because right now it would leave no instruction. People, I can see there's emotional flashed on this. The spirit that's coming up. Yeah. Like clerks. We know what's coming. Through, through you, Mr. Meredith Councillor Gibson. Yeah. So if, if number one is voted on and that amendment is confirmed, Councillor is removed. Regardless of what happens with number two, there has been no

salary set for City Council and that would need to be determined. Whether it's the motion three as proposed that was on the screen or something else. Council would need to fill that space. Pardon if you don't mind Mr. Mayor. I just kind of feel like I'm being backed into a corner here on, on a vote. Like what's going to say nothing. On what council is going to be paid. So we're going to have to make splashed on the screen. But that might not pass. And then some of the good table of motion to revert right back to the same. It just means that you have a separate motion that talks about the Councillor part respectfully based on the amendment vote. O Canada of know where this is going. Well, we, we don't know until the vote's called. So it's okay. Let's just wait. I'm going to call the vote on number one as amended. And you want against, please raise your hand. Okay. So we have Gibson. And cho. And Richardson and Billings. Okay. So number one, mayor is set. Whoever that is, all the best to you. Okay. No. You are. Okay. I can understand if you were confused there. So clerks. Did you

also grab Galler as a guest? It still passes, but Color has been tabled or minuted. Okay. That's been captured Councillor Color. Okay. We're on number two. Which is as is. Okay. I'm going to call the vote on that. Does anyone against that. Just Gibson. Okay. So that passes. Now we have a new motion. That will be table Councillor Coron. Go ahead. Was I on the speakers list for that. I still had the floor. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. So I've really struggled with this. I actually went into today thinking I would just vote for all the, all the motions from Committee of the whole. Uh, I've been listening to my colleagues to the delegate to the public since then. And I do believe that the rule has changed and that the status quo is not the appropriate level. And I do, um, I do take some exception to Councillor Gibson's comment that, um, this is being backed into a corner. Cause we could retable clause one.

With the word City Councillor. And past that, that's, that's an appropriate motion if this one fails. But I do think the complexity, the time, the number of meetings in the last three years has, um, changed and that some changed a compensation for that role. Would be appropriate best practice decoupling it with this council. This is for the next counsel and we continually have to remind ourselves of that. So I'm going to suggest, I think it works out to about 4. 8 percent for the 2026 to 2030. That is a modest increase that accounts for the change in complexity over the last few years of this job. Um, and is well below it is 20 percent of what the recommendation from, if we remember 33 percent was the recommendation. I believe 55K is 4. 8 percent increase. I think is appropriate. So I have one second that. I have a motion that I've sent to clerks to that effect. We'll see if the second or once it comes up on the screen. And if there isn't, I would, um, I would encourage my fellow counselors to

table something else. Okay. Downer said that she would second that. Okay. So speaking only to the amendment, Gibson. Thank you. It's a staff. The base salary for City Councillor at the beginning of this term. Was 50, 000 dollars. Maybe I'll. Through Mr. Mayor. I'd have to go back and check. I don't have that number exactly, but that sounds like it's in the. So with the Numi increases that this Council has also received since that time, what is the current Council salary remuneration that we are all receiving at the moment? Is it the current three Mr. Mayor, the current compensation from members of Council as of January this year when the most recent economic increase was implied is 52, 856 dollars. Councillor Gall has just shown that to me. So for all of this, and I'm assuming that there will be another remuneration next year. So Council will be comfortable in the 53, 500 range. This

is about 1500 dollars. Councillor Crown. This is about 1500 dollars. That's about it. And actually just recalculated it's about four percent. It's been moved in second. So yeah. Okay. So a lot of time. Okay. Okay. It's been moved in seconded. We don't have to spend any more time on this after I call the vote. So. Right. Yes to the clerks. Three Mr. Mayor. I just want to clarify what we were looking at right now is not an amendment. Number one and two were moved. One was amended. This is a net new resolution. I've just heard the word amendment used a couple of times in one declare. No, this is a standalone. Yep. And, uh, speaking to this, uh, alt, please. Thank you very much Mayor Guthrie with the utmost of respect to both you and to the move of this motion. Uh, O Canada support the motion. Despite the fact that I believe that the arguments made for an appropriate remuneration for counselors has been well made. This motion I think is, is made in the, with poor governance considered. I understand where it's coming from. I have no issue with that. But it is

in my mind, it is just a number that has been pulled out of thin air. And consequently it has been given very little consideration about a half an hour actually. This is something that probably should go away to a, uh, perhaps a governance committee to determine and then come back to Council for us to determine whether it's the appropriate number or whether some other number, uh, the only thing I can support as a referral. Okay. Would you like to move a referral then on that? I'm just trying to understand what you wanted. So moved referral to governance to report back to the next meeting of Council. Okay. Hold on a second. Um, this, this topic usually comes back through corporate services. Okay. Under chair Coron. So would you, um, be okay if you're referrals said to go back through the corporate services channel. And I'd be quite happy with that. I only said governance because that committee of the chairs. That's all. Okay. And then are you willing to second that Councillor Coron. I would.

Have. Mentioned. Can you amend her? You can amend a referral, but I need a second or first. I second. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Coron will second the referral. Fine. And then now speaking, uh, only to the referral you want to ask a question or amend. Yeah. It's a comment and an amendment. Um, I absolutely agree with Councillor Raul. This was on the fly and it was, it's, it's not coming from staff advice. It's coming out of nowhere because what we had on the floor today was zero. And I wasn't comfortable with zero. And I'm not comfortable with the staff recommendation at 33 percent trying to come up with, with, uh, compromise here, uh, but there's no, uh, basis and data behind it. So a referral. I absolutely agree. And we'll vote in favor of the furl. My amendment is that it come back to a committee, the whole. And here's why, um, nominations open. And again, I'm looking to, um, our DCAO, uh, and former City clerk. Nominations Open May 1st. Um, I don't believe that corporate services coming back until April. And all of the information about the role is being put out there now. I think we're cutting it too close if we come back in April. So the next committee of the whole. So I'm looking at the DCA O to see if

this could come back to the next, um, Committee, the hole in March? Or is that too quick a turnaround. Through you, Mayor got three. Uh, March, the Committee Hole Cycle in March is quite frankly tight. Uh, it really is Council's prerogative, which body you refer this work to. We could report back perhaps to the March Council meeting, uh, it could, uh, alternatively go to an April cycle. Although the April cycle and I'd have to reference back may or may not be a corporate service cycle for you, Chair Quran. We could still land that item at the April cycle. Again, then it would be. Decided upon at the end of April. So I would suggest it's either the April cycle acknowledge that that means a decision is then occurring at the end of April. Or you refer it directly to Council in March, uh, which would then allow a degree of, of, uh, public awareness for the City clerk's office to be able to include this kind of material in the nomination information. Great. Thank you for that. And I do think if it comes back at the end of April, that gives you about a week to turn around all the nomination information on websites and packages. Um, Mr. Chair, you are officially the chair. So if it could come to March Council, I'll leave that to you. But I would support the referral to

Council. Yeah. So, uh, you can either make an amendment now to that referral or I could just ask the mover of the referral and yourself to remove it. If you don't mind, uh, Councillor can retable the referral to the March Council meeting. And then that way it's just a little bit cleaner. I'll leave that in the hands of Councillor Allt Are you okay with that? I'm quite fine with it. This is how we design a camel. Thank you very much. Okay. And then I have to do this whole regular role. Are you okay with removing your seconder? So everyone okay with that. Yes. Council's okay with that. Going back to Councillor Allt now. Councillor Allt tabling referral. On this matter. To the Council meeting of, uh, March. Okay. Your second in that Councillor Coron. You okay clerks. No, no, you're not. Go ahead. You Mr. Murray. Sorry for the multiple interruptions. I want to make sure, um, I'm understanding the intention of the referral. Motions one and two have been voted on. Those are decisions of council. So those would not be coming back. What would be being referred as the new motion number three that's on the floor. No additional reporting. You've got that motion three some time to consider it between now when

it comes back in March. Yeah. I think if you don't mind, I was going to, I think your brain and my brain were aligned there. I was going to ask on behalf of those that are referring it. Can we just have an acknowledgement or a correction, uh, from our senior staff that would be involved in at least the discussion between now and council meeting of, of March where there can at least be, um. Like is there more conversations that we could have with you or a secondary memo update that could be attached to the Council meeting in March? Because as it stands right now, it means that no staff work could be done on this at all. No memo would be included. It would just be flying the existing referral. Or sorry, uh, motion that's on the floor. And it just gets plopped on the March agenda. That's it. It means nothing to validate or not validate anything that's there. It just means we're making the decision at a different time. That's all we're doing. So I just wanted to see if there's an opportunity for our senior staff to work with, let's say, the

chair of corporate services as an example. To be able to, um, have something come on the agenda for March Council meeting based on this referral. If the more information that could come, um, at that time. So I'm not trying to pressure you. But if the more to add to this, then all we're doing is just pushing a decision from today to the end of March with no new information. And to you, Mr. Mayor, you've, you've, uh, you've nailed it on the head in terms of like the procedural process of a referral. So it would, it would be just lifting what is there now and putting it at the end of the month in March. If, if you'd like to direct staff at this moment, I would, I would just caution about the level of work or the level of information you might want. We would want to have that a degree of a direction in that. Because then that would allow us to then land this referral. That would simply land on the march agenda as is. But we could tag to that with your direction with Councillor's direction. Uh, some additional information. Again, I think in the time considered, it's going to need to be light touch work. We may, for example, apply a different percentage line to the benchmark, um, municipalities that we have. Um, we could perhaps even simply compare the amount

that's expressed, the 60, 000 dollars and offer a bit of analysis about where that would land you in terms of the comparators as well. So, uh, it can't be a deep dive given the time we have. Um, but direction, if you're looking for more details, direction would be needed. Otherwise, it will simply land as a simple referral.

Councillor Corinne, would you be okay maybe making an amendment to the referral. So the referral stands as it is, but status sentence at the end that says and that staff, uh, work with the chair of corporate services to determine an updated memo of considerations for this meeting. Something like that. And then that way there's something of a memo, a one pager that could come with other options and other clarity. Because if we don't do that, then we're just, we're just kicking the can of this decision today to end of March with nothing, known in information. I appreciate that. It is Councillor Allt motion. So I don't know if that's a. Mask for a namement. Yep. Okay. Well, O Canada of just wordsmithed it there. Just one. Yep. For sure. I see you guys. So I need a seconder for that. Okay. Councillor Allt will do that. So I'm going to, I'm sorry. I don't mean to do the wording on the fly, but it was an additional sort of sentence on the referral that says. And that stopped be directed to work. Um, in concert with the chair of Corporate Services for an updated memo

of options to be considered. Is that okay? Mr. Mayor, that's captured as an amendment to the referral. Correct. So I need to call the vote on just the amendment to the referral right now. And I'm going to do that if you don't mind everybody. Okay. Thank you. Is anyone against just the amendment of that one added sentence. Sure. Through you, Mr. Mayor, because these have been given verbally. We'll just need two or three minutes so we can get this written down. And despite on screen for you.

So it's just a bolded part in that city staff work with the chair of corporate services to provide additional information through a council memo. That's all, that's all it is. And call her on the amendment. Yep. To worship. I feel that. Really uncomfortable asking staff to justify a rational for a number that council is pulling from the air. I think if there is a desire to increase or not increase, I think we should just vote on it today. I'm really uncomfortable wasting staff time when we can do the math ourselves. So we can look at the list of comparators. Unless we're ready to give stuff a different set of comparators or a different set of parameters, we're just going to ask them to do work, to justify the number that we're choosing today. So I hope that we do not approve this referral. I don't want to waste tough time. Um, unless we actually say, you know, what actually look at the single tier municipalities with populations between 100 and 30, 000 and 500, 000. And then it was the fifth of the percentile of those single term municipalities. Because I think that would then make some policy sense. I think just asking them to tell us what is the, you know, how does this

fit within the parameters of, I think it's a waste of time. Okay. Thank you, Alt and then Gibson. Uh, actually I'll let Councillor Gibson go and I'll do closing remarks that you wouldn't mind, Mr. Mayor. Are you okay with that Gibson? I'm okay with that. All right. Go ahead. Thanks. Um. I don't, I'm not going to make any comments that I believe are. I'm just going to speak frankly and that this is not personal. I've never liked to go personal. I believe we've done the math on the Council Renumeration for next year. We'll already be 53, 000 something. Okay. So we're talking about a potential increase of 1500 dollars for the next council. That's pre - tax. Post tax. Some of us, that will mean 700 dollars a year. Some of us, that'll mean a thousand dollars a year. But we're talking about, we're spending all this time now talking about, about a hundred dollars a month more. For the role of council. Can I present something as an alternative. As a council, can we move a motion today? That asks staff to revisit the

policy for our chairs. Of our committees. And the additional and the additionality of that work. Back when I first came onto Council, it was the 800 dollars a year was additional for the role of the chair. I would, as a counselor, I would much rather revisit a policy reward. That remunerates the members of Council who are chairing committees, slightly more than the wows who aren't. Because that is represented additional work. I'm going to vote against this referral because I do not believe 1500 dollars is worth spending all this time on. When we could simply just move a motion that says that staff revisit for the next term of Council that revisit the policy or reinstitute a similar policy. That looks at supporting those who are functioning as chairs. Or even as outside board members, um, an additional bit of salary because it represents more work. That's where I'm at. So I'm going to revote against the referral. If it's left alone in this referral, um, fails. I am happy to start wordsmithing some language around emotion that looks to reward the members of Council who are chairing committees. With an additional salary. Present more work.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And then Alt and then I'll call the vote. Thank you very much Mayor Guthrie. I want you to wait until the end primarily because I try to encapsulate everything we've been discussing. Uh, as I said, most fundamentally, this is an issue of governance for me. And I don't believe that what we are doing is going to be perfect. What I do think it does is it gives staff the latitude to consider what counselor Coron has brought forward and determine whether that's an appropriate number. Or they could go back to the initial recommendation and could, could put that forward or could put forward that what council past that Committee. The whole was appropriate or anything in between. It's, it's, uh, it's still a simple report. It doesn't require tremendous research because the research has already been done with regards to committee chairs. I would be happy to entertain that afterward. But that is a singular separate motion that should be considered. But this is most fundamentally about what is the appropriate salary to encourage people from all walks of life, whether they're single parents, retirees, whether they're working in Toronto, uh,

for the, for the government of Ontario, whatever, uh, we need to look at what is appropriate for the community.

Okay. I'm going to call. The vote on this amendment. I'd like to really try to wrap this up, Council. Okay. So, um, I just am going to ask before I call the vote through to Stephen. Based on what Councillor Allt said there in working with the chair of corporate services. Would you have that flexibility to be looking at the memo at the end of March that could be, um, not exactly scoped to what the referral is. Like do you have the leeway of being able to have a memo that talks on what the referral is, but also anything else that you wish to add from a staff perspective in that memo. To you, Mr. Mayor, do your question. Yes. It's, I mean, we'll have to be very narrow in the application of, of, I mean, I don't want to begin to hypothesize what some members of Council are looking for versus others. Uh, but we'll certainly have a discussion with, uh, with Chair Coron and work through, uh, obviously what we've heard around the horseshoe today will inform some of that and we'll look to have something back that will at least provide counsel with a degree of additional information. Okay. Thank you. So with that clarity, I know that I can support the referral

then. So I'll call the vote then on, on the amendment, which is the bolded sentence that was added to the referral. Okay. So. Councillor County. The amendment motion says 4. 8 and it's 4. 0. That was a typo in my, I sent a correction to clerk. But we're only talking about the amendment, which is the boldest part. Not your, not what you just brought up. The bull the part is just the sentence to have the memo and have stop work with you. That's it. That was the chair. Okay. I'm going to call on only on the amendment. Is anyone against? Okay, Richardson, Galler Gibson. Billings. Okay. Choo. You can kick me under the table too if you want. All right. It still passes. Okay. Now we're back to the referral as amended. Did you want to speak to the four percent versus 4. 8? Yeah. That was the typo correction. It should be 4. Or just 4. It's actually like 3. 95. It should be accurate. Is that an administrative percentage that could be changed or do you literally need an amendment. It's through you,

Mr. Mayor. I have delegated authority to correct minor amendments. I just need to know the number. Is it approximately four percent? Is that close enough? What is the number we want? 3. 95, I think. Give or take a few dollars. 3. 95 it is. Okay. Thank you. Anything further on the referral before I call the vote Gibson, uh, just a comment and a commitment if this fails. I'll introduce a motion that looks to reward the chairs and outside board members. I'll wait for the referral. Thanks. Okay. I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the referral. Richardson, Galler, Gibson. Chew Billings. Okay. Thank you. That passes. Councillor Gibson. Would you like to table a motion that has included in. As included in the Council compensation review. Including a review of pay and benefits for elected officials. That that staff also be directed to look at compensation for chairs? Or maybe if I could just get a, maybe I could just ask staff. If the wording, this is the wording in number two already give permission for

staff to consider what you've heard today about the, uh, the chair role and the compensation. I would almost argue it does. But I need staff to validate it publicly or not to, Mr. Mayor. We can certainly include that. There's also other opportunities. We've got a governance review that's landing in the beginning and early part of the term is sort of an omnibus kind of package of various governments related policies. Uh, if I recall correctly, the removal of the compensation for chair's work, both count Committee, the whole chairs and outside board, uh, appointments was a governance related decision. So it could also come to that. Now that's going to land not to perfectly align with the start of the new term. That report would land in the early part of the new term of council. But it could inform a retroactive compensation piece. So again, just another food for thought. There are different ventures or different avenues in which in which this, this. But to land this plane, because I really want to land it now. All I need to know is does number two that was already passed. Or does the governance review that you just described. Is that good enough for you today to know that this topic needs to be discussed in the next term of council? Or do you require a motion from Councillor Gibson giving you that direction right now? To

you, Mr. Mayor, yes. It's satisfies the motion that you have before you right now will satisfy us. Okay. I'm going to go back over to Councillor Gibson. Cause you got to take that. Thank you. As an answer or Councillor Gips can still move a motion. It's up to you. So oftentimes so focused on making sure we get the right direction to counts to staff. And then we hear something like, but we can figure that out. We don't need direction. We've, we've just referred a motion to staff about an actual number for recompense for compensation for council. We're going to revisit this conversation next month or shortly thereafter. I don't feel the pressure to draft emotion right now to have this in wording. I'd like to see how that conversation goes. I've started drafting it quickly. Um, I can work with staff between now and then to, you know, let all of Council know that this is what I'm thinking. But I don't really like personally, I don't feel like we should be talking about both. Like that's just how I feel. I'd rather not fight or talk about a 1500 dollar raise for all of Council. I'd rather talk about, you know, individual efforts and individual workloads require more than others. So what we can do that. But, and you know what, don't mind me interrupting so we can speed this along. That you are right in everything that you've just said. I agree with

you. And that conversation can happen now at the Council meeting in March. That's what nothing's actually been set in stone with anything. So I'll just wait. Yeah. So you can, you can work on that motion and maybe broaden it or shorten it, whatever you want. Plus you can make the same arguments that you just made right now, which are great at the end of March on a personal level. I think it is a more merited conversation than the one we're having right now about this 1500 dollars But I will save that conversation for the end of the month when we have that conversation again and depending on where the conversation goes, I'm happy to introduce it. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I'm going to wrap this up now. Galler. You have last word. Okay. And then I, and then we got to finish this. I still feel uncomfortable about sending stuff back to do work without direction. So I would like to move a further motion. I just sent everyone just to give some parameters. And it is for staff to consider the remuneration of single term municipality, sanitary, between 130 and 500, 000 as part of the review. So there's something for them to look at that might give them some guidance. Uh, I feel that those are municipalities that have similar size to wealth and similar workloads being single tier. Okay. Let me, let me interrupt so we can focus and move us closer. Number one, you say the mayor pay, but we have

the mayor pay has been settled. Then let's strike that. Okay. Number two is this for the, is are you trying to scope this for the member that's coming out at the end of the month of March? Or is this a new scoping for the next term? No, it's for March. So that staff have something to go on. I feel uncomfortable sending them to March with no actual direction. Okay. So to the clerks, could you please just delete? You already did. The word mayor. Thank you. Okay. Now I need to find out if the seconder. Okay. Billings is seconding this. Guys, I want to call the vote. Our media missed the picture. Could you put, I'm trying to help you. I'm trying to help you. Could you put that back up on the screen. You're welcome. Okay. I'd like to call the vote on this, please. Okay. All those against please raise your hand. Guthrie Downer. Busatil. Kate. Okay. That passes. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we're

done. We're going to take a five minute break. And then we're going to come back and talk about water. And then we're done. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, we got to go back and closed, but I meant here. Five minute break. So you had 1150.

Okay, I'll call the meeting back to order. Thank you for that little break. We have our water and wastewater servicing allocation policy and bylaw with one delegation, Susan Watson, who's going to join us. By telephone, I believe.

Hi Susan, the clerks have said that you are in the meeting, but you might have to unmute for us. Star six. Can you hear me now. Yeah, you're coming through really clear. Thank you for joining us. And you know the drill, so I'll turn it over to you. You can start whenever you're ready. Okay, and then just sprinting back to my computer. Mary and members of council. I would like to speak in support of the proposed user lose at water and wastewater allocation policy. It's been profoundly disturbing as a citizen to have seen the Ford government roll out the red carpet for developers. Forward has reduced development fees. Eliminated heritage protection, weakened environmental laws opened up, protected land. Reduce parkline dedication and eliminated parking minimum. And if I'm not mistaken, the timeline for staff to respond to applications before a developer can drag the city to the OLT for supposed in action has been shortened. And why did we receive in return.

In the midst of a housing crisis, Ontario's experiencing the lowest housing starts in a decade. The city provides water and wastewater servicing to support development. This should not be exploited. For speculation. If a given developer is not willing to move ahead with developments or whatever reason, that servicing allocation should be liberated and allocated elsewhere. It was astounding to read and wealth today that some of the approvals and draft approvals have been languishing since 1987, almost 40 years. This is not quote development. This is speculation, pure and simple. unceded of a user or lose it by LUD as policy could also be nicknamed a dog in the manger policy. If developers can drag us to the Ontario land tribunal and bypass democratic planning processes for what they deem to be lack of timely action from staff, then I think it is only fair to reclaim water and wastewater servicing capacity. If a given developer failed to act in a time we weigh. I understand that the policy will involve yearly reporting on our water and wastewater capacity. In the interest of transparency, I would also like

to see annual reporting vote to council, the public and stakeholders of the numbered extensions thought by whom and how many are declined or granted. It makes sense to delegate this authority to a deputy CAO, but authority should go hand in hand with accountability. And there needs to be transparency for everyone in this matter. I appreciate that this policy report is clear about the finite nature of our water and wastewater capacity. The requirement to raise a slag if we are within 10 percent of using up that capacity is important. Going forward, I think we need to have a community conversation about what we want this city to look like when we reach the limits of our water budget. Water and wastewater infrastructure is tremendously expensive and taxes and water and waves water seeds. Do we really want to be sprawling onto green teals while intensification of sites within the built - up area have not yet been slowly realized. Its first come first served really the way we want to run things? Or is there another process which will be more economical and better serve the

needs of future citizens? I'd really like to see a high - level consideration and discussion of this situation in the next couple of years. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. We appreciate you and thanks for waiting around for your opportunity to delegate any follow - up at all. Councillor Claussen has one Susan to stay on the line, okay? Yes. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor, to Susan. I just had a question and have you repeat the part about the reporting transparency. So my understanding is that we will be getting annual reports, but could you go to the piece around the expectation around the negotiation with the DCAO? I just didn't, I just wanted to hear what those items were again. Yeah. So my understanding from reading the report if I was correct is that staff will be reporting yearly. On what the water and wastewater capacity will be currently is to counsel. So they'll be reviewing it and reporting on that. But in terms of the specific policy, I would like to see annual reporting to

council. So who asked for an extension. Did they get it? You know, how many extensions have been given in a particular year? How many extensions have been declined. And who is asking for them? So, you know, are we going to see people who are getting extensions. You know, every, every three years over and over again are people applying for extensions? Are they being declined? Are they being granted? I would just like to see that set out in annual reporting to the council can see it so that members of public can see it. So the CAO is making the decision, but the transparency around what decisions were made and who it impacts. Perfect. Thank you. And I'll be asking that to staff as well. Thank you. Great. Thanks so much. And that's it. Thank you again, Susa. Thanks. Okay. It's back to us, staff, before any questions. I'll start back to us, counsel. Uh, is can I have a mover of the motions from committee of the whole, please? Yeah. Hauser and Gibson, thank you. Um,

and just be, just before we go to questions or comments, um. I'm just, well. I thought we already had an annual report that comes forward for delegated authority. But I maybe not with that level of detail. But Councillor Cossen, I'm going to move the question over to you. You go ahead. You take the floor. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. My understanding is that there will be an annual report. I just wanted to clarify the delegates request with regard to who asked extensions given and who was declined. Well, that level of detail be provided within the annual reporting. Through the mayor to council Klassen. So, so right now the annual reporting is through the, is planned to be through the seas growth management and affordable housing monitoring report. And so that's how we intend to report back. And the initial thinking from city staff is around analysis of the capacity in the system. Over the course of time as this policy, um, becomes an effect. You get to sort of years four and five and beyond. That's one things like exemptions, um, may kick in. And so we certainly do view those future reports

as having sections that outline sort of wear certain files may be. Is anyone exempted? Has there been an extension in those kinds of things? And so I do expect that to be in future reports, but you may not see that in, um, initial reports. Thank you for that clarification. So if I'm interested in doing correctly when capacity becomes more of an issue, we'll be looking at this level of detail, um, in the future. Good, Mayor. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And can I make a quick comment. Um, I just wanted to, um, sort of just reiterate what was said at the committee of the whole. Thank you to staff for this body of work and for bringing forward this very timely allocate water allocation policy. I think that it's essential that we're looking at our, our resources and within the report itself, it really talks about how water is a finite resource. And it is a very precious resource that we, we must hold on to, um, and, and protect as strongly as we can. Anecdotally was at the West End Rec Center on Sunday taking my son swimming. And there were children's drawings on the wall. Illustrating how important water is. So, you know,

talking about what would happen if, if you didn't have water for a day, what would that look like for you? And I felt like it was so important to look at those kids drawings and already see that they're valuing such an important system that we have here in Guelph because we know that a day without water is extremely challenging to even imagine. So having an allocation policy like this is, well, we might not need it exactly in this moment when we, when we get to it in 10, 20 years, I think it's going to be absolutely essential. Um, because we are in the, in the business of protecting and supplying water to our populations, we are not in the business of land speculation. So, um, thank you for this work. And thank you to staff. And I'll be happy to support the policy. Great. Thanks, Councillor Klausman. With that, I think I can call the vote. Oh, no. Sorry. Councillor Cayton, did you want to jump in quickly? Go ahead. Sorry through you, Mr. Mayor. Real fast. Um, I just also wanted to thank staff. I know that we had, um, a water issued on Victoria recently. And just as counselor, Klauson said, you know, when you have a day without water, we've got all this infrastructure, so many needs that are surrounding this. I think that this is really important. And I really appreciate

all the work that you've done. Thanks. Great. Lots of heads nodding in agreement. I will say the word ditto. And I will look to call the vote. Does anybody against. Nobody. So yeah, this is great work. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Uh, counselor, would you mind reading off the, uh, bylaws for us that come up on. The doll Guthrie, do we not need to, uh, resume close session before? Yeah. I was going to go. Yes. You're, you're correct. I was going to do closed after the bylaws, but, um, that you are correct to call me out on that. So we will have you do that once we are done the, uh, the closed session. So, uh, as I said earlier in the meeting, we do not finish the closed session. So we're going to jump back in for that. And we will come back out though to close the meeting off any high level summary at that point. Okay. With that. Do you think a motion to go back into close? I think so right. Yep. Good. So it is, um, Neve Street parking lot, development opportunity as per section 239 to see an F, the municipal act regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

And advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications, necessary for that purpose. I saw a whole bunch of hands go up here. Uh, Richardson and Gibson. Sounds good. All right. Is anyone against moving back into close to finish that topic off. Nobody, that's unanimous. Thank you so much. We'll do that now.

Okay. I'll call the meaning to order back here in open session. Thank you for waiting everybody. We did move into a closed session earlier. And then again on the item that was, uh, written in the. Agenda titled Neve Street parking lot, development opportunity. And from a high level summary on that, uh, issue. We did give direction to staff on that item. And that is all I'm able to say at this point. So thank you. And with that, I'm going to move over to counselor alt, please, uh, to move the bylaws force. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie moved by Alt. And I will ask Councillor Richardson if she would second that bylaws 2026 2113 21203 and two on two and five be approved subject to section 284. 11 bracket floor of the municipal act. Great. And Richardson does second. May I call the vote, everybody. Yep. Okay. Is anyone against the bylaws. Seeing none that's

unanimous? Thank you. I don't have any mayors announcements, but you know what? Does Galler and Claussen have. A town hall coming up that I saw online. I will turn the mic over to you. Make it fast. Yes. Uh, Councillor Galler and I have award to town hall coming up this Thursday in the Mark McKinnon room from 6 p. m. until 8 p. m. There is a team's link. If you're interested, you can reach out to one of us. Um, it is also available on both of our Instagrams. We will be discussing affordable housing. What's currently, we'll have staff talking about what projects we're currently working on and what's coming up. Um, and then we'll also be talking about, um, we'll be doing a listening session to hear about challenges with childcare in the city. So looking forward to seeing you there. All right. Perfect. God, I remembered that. With that, Councillor Clausen and counselor, uh, billing. So we'll probably move adjournment. And second did my counselor billings. And I'm going to call the vote. Does anyone against? Nobody at unanimous too. Thank you very much.

Have a great rest of the day everybody.