council remuneration policy

Report № COM2021-24 of 3

COM2021-24 – Council Remuneration Policy

Date:

From:

Monday, November 15, 2021

Matt Smith, Clerk / Director of Community

Services

Roll № N/a

Recommendation

That Committee of the Whole recommend Council of the Municipality of Meaford enact a by-law to adopt a revised Council Remuneration Policy.

Executive Summary

The Council Remuneration Committee convened between May and October with the mandate to provide an independent review of the level of total compensation for Council of the Municipality of Meaford. This report is a culmination of their review and presentation of their findings, including updated recommendations on salaries for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor roles.

Background

Council Remuneration is established through the adoption of a Council Remuneration Policy. As required by Section 283 (7) of the Municipal Act, Council must review the Council Remuneration Policy at least once during each term of Council.

A staff review took place in early 2019 and was presented to Council through report LPS2019-03 on February 11, 2019. Following the report, By-law 2019-18, adopting a new Council Remuneration Policy, was passed on March 11, 2019.

Municipalities must report annually on the amount of remuneration received by members of Council. The most recent report was for the 2020 financial

https://meaford.civicweb.net/document/68477



Report № COM2021-24 Page 1 of 3

year, included as part of the Committee of the Whole agenda on February 22, 2021.

At the same meeting on March 11, 2019, Council passed the following resolution:

Moved by: Councillor Kentner Seconded by: Councillor Greenfield

Whereas as a requirement of the Municipal Act, Council remuneration levels must be established by by-law and approved by Council, and that Council remuneration is reviewed once per term of Council; and

Whereas an option to comply with these requirements in harmony with transparency and accountability, is to require that Council remuneration levels be reviewed once within the term of office by an independent committee which would base their recommendations upon the responsibility to govern and comparison with similar sized small rural municipalities.

Now therefore be it resolved that staff is directed to bring forward a by-law to establish an Council Remuneration Committee; and

That the committee shall be comprised of 3-5 qualified and impartial citizens to be appointed by Council; and

That the Committee’s mandate shall be to:

• To review and make recommendations on Council’s remuneration levels

• To submit these recommendations through the CAO/Clerk to Council, to be implemented effective January 1, 2022.

Carried Resolution #2019-06-09

Council received report COM2021-04 in February 2021, and subsequently adopted terms of reference for a Council Remuneration Committee, and appointed members. The terms of reference for the committee are included as Schedule A to By-law 2021-19.




Council appointed three citizens of the Municipality to join the Council Remuneration Committee (“Committee”). Ms. Miranda Lahtinen, CPA, CMA, is an experienced forensic accountant with an extensive background in the payroll industry and is currently retained by Grey County for the Grey County Audit Compliance Committee. Mr. Ted Mallett is a past Vice-President & Chief Economist with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and currently the Director of Forecasting with the Conference Board of Canada. Mr. J.P.D. (“Phil”) Cant is a retired CIBC District Manager with vast Human Resource experience, with an ability to attract clients or new business and to exceed set financial goals, is a Rotarian (past President four times, past Assistant Governor, and presently Club Treasurer, Meaford Rotary) and Chair, Godfrey Apartments.

Since that time, the members of the Council Remuneration Committee, supported by Legislative Services staff, have undertaken significant research and analysis in order to make a suitable recommendation. This report is presented on behalf of the Committee and lays out their research, data analysis and final conclusions.

Analysis

Previous Council Remuneration

The Committee was provided with report number LPS2019-03, Council Remuneration Policy, which set out the most recent review and revision of Council remuneration. Based on the background section of the Report, the original remuneration was established in 2005 and reviewed in 2013 and 2015. This Report relied on 2017 remuneration information for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors for 14 comparator municipalities which were established in a 2015 market check review.

Report LPS2019-03 determined that Meaford’s Mayor remuneration was only 82% of the comparator average remuneration for Mayors, that the Deputy Mayor’s remuneration was 98.5% of the comparator average remuneration for Deputy Mayors, and that the Councillor’s remuneration was 110.5% of the comparator average for Councillors. This report also considered that in 2017, the Federal government passed legislation to remove the possibility for elected official salaries to include an element of expenses (non-taxable element) which the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced would take effect as of January 1, 2019. This Report discussed the impact to net take-home pay of Council members and whether the remuneration should be adjusted to remove the impact to the existing net take-home pay.



The Report recommended that Council remuneration be adjusted to reflect the same net salary following the removal of the one-third non-taxable element effective January 1, 2019 and adjust Council remuneration annually by the same Consumer Price Index applied to Municipality employees commencing January 1, 2020. The Committee notes that as of January 1, 2019, all municipalities would have adjusted Council remuneration in some way to address the change made by CRA. In addition, the Committee notes that the increases provided in this Report do not appear to be linked to the variance in Meaford’s Council remuneration to the comparator average Council remunerations.

Guiding Principles

In achieving this mandate, the members of the Committee were requested to ensure that the compensation provided:

1. Is fair and reasonable and will attract a diverse and representative pool of candidates from the Municipality of Meaford residents wishing to seek election to Council and seen as fair by taxpayers;

2. Recognizes the work of the Mayor and Council is demanding and important and as such they should be appropriately compensated;

3. Recognizes the complexity, responsibilities, time commitments and accountabilities associated with the role of Mayor and Council;

4. Is closely aligned to the 50th percentile (similar to the Municipality’s employees) of the comparator group;

5. Applies an appropriate ratio between the roles of Councillor and that of Mayor and Deputy Mayor; and

6. Demonstrates fiscal responsibility.

Comparator Group

The Committee established a comparator group, loosely based on the comparators used by the Municipality in the last market review, with additional communities such as the Town of Essex and Town of Gravenhurst added. Based on feedback from members of Council during research interviews, the Township of Clearview was added to the list at a later stage. The full list of comparators was as follows:


• Town of The Blue Mountains

• Township of Chatsworth

• Town of Collingwood

• Town of Goderich

• Township of Georgian Bluffs

• Municipality of Grey Highlands

• Town of Midland

• City of Owen Sound

• Town of Penetanguishene

• Town of Saugeen Shores

• Township of Tay

• Township of Tiny

• Town of Wasaga Beach

• Municipality of West Grey

• Centre Wellington

• Town of Essex

• Town of Gravenhurst

• Municipality of Lambton Shores

• Township of Clearview

Interviews with Current Members of Council

After the initial meeting to define terms of reference, scope and timing of the assignment, the Committee determined there was value in speaking with each current member of Council. The Committee prepared survey questions (Appendix 1) to guide the conversation and determined that each member of Council would be invited to participate in two separate interviews with a Committee member, which took place in July 2021.

During the interviews, the Council members were asked their perspective on a number of topics including:

• Do they feel the role is full-time or part-time

• Do they feel they have enough support to perform their job efficiently and effectively

• Do they feel the compensation was commensurate for the role they are asked to perform

• Do they feel there was anything the Municipality could do to improve their job

• What is their opinion of the public’s perception of current Council remuneration


• Municipalities that might have similar complexity to Meaford that they feel the Committee should consider

• What factors should be considered when selection comparator municipalities

• The impact of anticipated growth and development of Meaford over the next term.

As a result of this process, the following conclusions were reached by the Committee:

1. That the complexity of each role of Council has grown significantly as a result of changes in the structure of Council meetings (casual to formal), additional committee involvement (all members of Council are on 4 to 5 additional committees not including Grey County committees), and increased documentation to review in preparation for Council meetings.

2. That the time commitment has also increased as access to Council has become easier. The use of social media and email has made reaching out to a Council member, at any time that is convenient to the individual, easier. In addition, Council members are approached on the street by the community of Meaford to discuss pressing matters. The Council members felt they needed to provide responses in a timely manner and could be taking calls into the evening or on the weekends. The Council members also felt that the time commitment may be difficult for a younger candidate to take on as they would have family responsibilities and full-time employment commitments to consider.

3. All Council members felt that the compensation for the Deputy Mayor and Mayor was “low” and “not representative of the work performed”. The Councillors felt that their compensation was “sufficient” for the work performed and that “they were not in the role for the compensation”. The Council members did feel that it would be difficult to attract younger candidates for Council due to the level of compensation.

4. When asked about comparator municipalities and factors to consider when selecting comparators, Council members felt that Meaford was unlike other municipalities due to the urban/rural mix, commercial/residential mix, and the tourism component. A few Council members suggested additional municipalities to consider which the Committee has included.


Research

The Committee researched work undertaken by other municipalities (compensation review reports) and reviewed articles regarding best practices in municipal remuneration including reports by the Association of Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) and the Census Release IV: Income from Statistics Canada.

Report Review #1: “Municipal Council Compensation in Ontario”

The Committee reviewed report “Municipal Council Compensation in Ontario”, prepared by AMCTO, The Municipal Experts, March 2018 and provides the following commentary:

This report was written to “gain a better understanding of how municipalities compensate their councils, create a resource for municipalities who are reviewing their council remuneration packages, and to add to the body of research about how local politicians are paid.” AMCTO conducted a survey of 257 municipalities across Ontario to establish a dataset to be used when conducting a review of municipal council remuneration.

One of the objectives of the committee was to understand the role of council members and the time commitment. As stated in this report “the role of the local Councillor is undeniably expanding. Councillors now sit on more working groups and task forces than ever before. They are also more accessible and expected to be more responsive than in the past. The growth of technology and the expansion of social media allows members of the public to contact their representatives through a variety of channels at whatever time is more convenient to them. For many Councillors the job has become 24/7, even if they are only compensated as a part-time employee.” These sentiments were echoed in the interviews conducted by the Committee with the current members of Council. Many indicated that they are continually responding to inquiries from residents and feel obligated to respond at all times of the day either by phone, email, text, or in person (when available). They indicated that although the position is classed as part-time, they are working a minimum of 30 hours a week or 75% of a full-time work week (40 hours). They have indicated that some Council members may work more, and some may work less, but the average across all members would be estimated at about 30 hours a week.

https://www.amcto.com/getattachment/a9e4b504-21c2-4378-bfab-ef4e1eb001c2/.aspx

https://www.amcto.com/getattachment/a9e4b504-21c2-4378-bfab-ef4e1eb001c2/.aspx


A second objective of the committee was to attempt to determine factors that would attract more diverse and younger candidates to Council. As stated in this report “the barriers to running for local office include toxic work culture, lack of self-confidence, time pressures, incumbency advantage” and “limited remuneration and level of commitment required to serve on council are barriers to attracting younger and more diverse candidates”. This report also states, “serving representatives and prospective candidates said that balancing personal responsibilities and professional commitments is a challenge.” These sentiments were also echoed by the existing members of Council. They feel challenged by the limited ability to communicate with other members of Council or staff members, that training for new Council members is limited even though the learning curve can be extensive, and the volume of material to be reviewed prior to Council meetings may exceed the time made available to them in order to provide prepared and informed responses to decisions that need to be made. They echoed that the time commitment might be larger than a younger candidate could handle if they have family responsibilities, as they work on average about 30 hours a week even though the position is part time. In addition, Council members indicated that the wages maybe lower than a younger candidate could live on as they would have to leave a full-time full salary position to be paid a part time salary but still have a similar workweek. The Council members echoed what this report stated, “Ontario municipal councillors are on average older, more predominantly male [except in Meaford where the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are both female], less racially diverse, more likely to be retired, with higher incomes and more education than the communities that they represent.” Unfortunately, the Council members interviewed do not see this changing much in the coming term as the wages, role, and time commitment may be disadvantageous to a younger candidate.

Based on the findings presented in this report, the Municipality of Meaford is part of the Southwestern group of respondents which made up 30% of the 257 municipality respondents and provide the following observations:

a) Part-time heads of council and members of council predominantly make up the positions and Meaford’s council members are all part-time;

b) Municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 24,999 predominantly have part-time heads of council and members of council just as Meaford does;


c) Municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 24,999 predominantly pay a salary to heads of council and members of council just as Meaford does;

d) Specifically, municipalities in Southwestern Ontario with a population between 10,000 and 24,999 pay their council members by salary just as Meaford does;

e) Municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 24,999 pay heads of council an average salary of $31,721 and pay members of council $17,703 (in 2017 dollars), converted to 2020 dollars at 1.051 increase in inflation pay to heads of council an average salary of $33,339 and pay members of council $18,606, while in 2020 Meaford pays $32,200 to the Mayor, $26,200 to the Deputy Mayor and $23,800 to councillors: and

f) Specifically, municipalities in Southwestern Ontario with a population between 10,000 and 24,999 pay heads of council an average salary of $29,245 and pay members of council $15,945 (in 2017 dollars), converted to 2020 dollars at 1.051 increase in inflation to heads of council an average salary of $30,736 and pay members of council $16,758, while in 2020 Meaford pays the wages reflected above.

Finally, based on the report, the municipalities surveyed indicated that they used four factors in their compensation reports:

1. Comparison to staff levels of pay;

2. Determined by the fiscal capacity of the municipality;

3. Ensuring that councillor pay is competitive; and

4. Review of neighbouring municipalities compensation levels.

The main two factors used for municipalities with a population between 10,000 and 24,999 are reviewing neighbouring municipalities compensation levels at 75% and ensuring councillor pay is competitive at 43%. In the past, Meaford staff have prepared the remuneration review and based the compensation on neighbouring municipalities compensation level. The Committee also considered how the remuneration is compared to employment income of an individual in Meaford and the peer communities to see if the remuneration is competitive.


This report also refers to the following article, which was also reviewed by the Committee.

Article Review #1 “How Much is Enough? A Study of Municipal Councillor Remuneration”

The Committee reviewed the article “How Much is Enough? A Study of Municipal Councillor Remuneration”, written by Mr. Kurt Schobel, provided by Canadian Public Administration, Volume 57, No. 1 (March 2014) PP. 138-153, and provides the following commentary:

This article attempted to provide a model for valuing council remuneration. A multiple case analysis study of 22 municipal remuneration and compensation reports was conducted to establish common themes in the reports and to establish a four-stage process for conducting remuneration reviews. The Committee itemized common themes identified amongst remuneration and compensation reports including:

1. Team Representation – each municipality used one of the following compositions – citizens of the community, citizens and former council members, a consultant, or used the existing by-laws. Just as Meaford has determined, citizen committees help to demonstrate a more transparent process, help to build trust in the Council members, and most importantly help to avoid the conflict of interest that arises when council members or staff members are involved in the process. The concern identified in the article is that municipal councils should not disregard the recommendations made by the citizen committees as this could destroy the benefits of citizen participation.

2. Municipal Methodology – most municipalities used a peer-group assessment to determine the appropriate level of remuneration or their own municipality. The use of population size and a comparison to the single-person income data from the most recent census is a good measure of whether council remuneration is in line with the income levels an individual person in the community (considered working part-time as council positions are part-time). As previously mentioned, the last remuneration review prepared by the staff of Meaford, established the peer-group, and the salary levels were compared however the increase considered by the staff of Meaford focused on the removal of the non-taxable element of Council

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12054

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12054


remuneration and did not directly consider how the remuneration compared to the average of the comparator municipalities.

3. Review Criteria – three important criteria are considered by most municipalities which include accountability, fairness, and transparency.

In order to measure accountability, the creation of specific statements of duty and related performance measures would be required. At present the Municipality of Meaford does not have specific statements of duty or related performance measures for its council positions and has relied on the provincial statutes to identify the general duties of council. Therefore, at this time accountability can only be measured by the election results of each candidate and is not considered in the existing process of remuneration review. The Committee recommends that if Council feels this is an important measure, steps should be taken to consider creating specific statements of duty and develop related performance measures to ensure a process is in place prior to the next remuneration review is conducted.

In order to measure fairness, the remuneration should meet the following conditions as identified in the article:

a) It is impartial;

b) The process for gathering information is clear and unbound;

c) Decision rules for comparison are defined at the outset;

d) Review standards are setup;

e) Public participation is used; and

f) Differential pay systems (where Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors are remunerated differently) should be avoided to limit sabotage within municipal councils.

Based on above, it’s notable that the Committee is made up of impartial citizens, the information gathering process has been defined and assistance has been provided by municipal staff, the decision rules have been defined, and the agenda and monthly meetings have been made available to the public. The only condition the Committee identified is not being met is offering a differential pay system. As previously mentioned, during the interview process, all Council members felt the role of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor has expanded more than the Councillors and since they are required to be public facing, their compensation should be


higher than the Councillors. As a result of this, the Committee feels that this condition is not material to the remuneration of Council. The actual rating of each position will be discussed later in this report.

In order to measure transparency, the information being provided by Council should be easily understood by the intended audience, meaning that council remuneration would be considered transparent if the policy is easy to understand and if the policy is made available to all voters to read and understand. The Municipality has conducted public meetings throughout the whole compensation review process. Attached to the agendas are the policies being reviewed, the decision-making process occurs during meetings open to the public and the final policy will be made available for review as part of the public agenda package when it is presented to Council.

Remuneration Review Process Identified in Article:

The article also overviewed a remuneration review process. Once the case study analysis was completed, a four-stage remuneration review process was established that reflects the key criteria that could be measured which were fairness and transparency.

Step 1 – Establishment of the Committee – The Municipality posted the opportunity online and Council appointed 3 citizens to participate in the Committee as defined by the Council approved Terms of Reference.

Step 2 – Remuneration Review – The Committee reviewed the existing peer communities used by staff in the previous remuneration review and expanded the group to include additional communities that the Committee felt were a better representation and cross-section.

Step 3 – Recommendation to Council – The Committed, in collaboration with staff, has prepared this report to be reviewed and considered by Council.

Step 4 – The Results – Council of the Municipality of Meaford will consider the recommendations of the Committee in public format, will deliberate and can provide valid rationale for either accepting or rejecting the Committee’s recommendations in order to ensure transparency to its constituents.


Data Analysis

The Committee was asked to develop compensation recommendations that reflect the 50th percentiles of comparative jurisdictions. As previously noted in the section entitled ‘Comparator Group’, to validate that was a suitable target, the Committee identified comparator municipalities and with staff’s help, collected a range of comparative statistics on taxation, municipal staffing costs, capital assets, construction activity and population income characteristics.

The comparative data were sourced from the Ontario Government’s annually published Financial Information Returns (FIRs) for 2019—the latest available—as well as Statistics Canada. The results show the Municipality of Meaford falls largely in the middle of the group in every category. Table 1 contains the Municipality of Meaford’s deviation from medians and the rankings relative to the other municipalities (for full graphical detail please refer to Appendix 2).

Average assessments in Meaford are near the midpoint compared to other reference municipalities, but lower-tier taxation per household is somewhat on the high side (see Table 1). This perhaps reflects that Meaford does not have as large a commercial tax base compared to other municipalities. Note that the FIR statistics do not disaggregate commercial and residential taxation, so all data reflect the blended property classes. Looking at FIR taxation data over a longer time period, it shows that taxes had been rising at a modest annual average rate of 2.0% between 2012 and 2019, compared to a much steeper 13.2% annual average increases between 2009 and 2012.


Table 1: Municipality of Meaford financial comparisons with other municipalities

Comparison % difference from median

Rank (lowest to highest)

Total weighted assessment per household

-7.1% 9 of 20

Average taxes per household +22.5% 15 of 20

Municipal compensation costs per household

+11.2% 13 of 20

Tangible capital assets managed per household

-26.7% 8 of 20

Value of construction activity per household

+78.1% 15 of 20

Average family income (2019) +3.9% 11 of 19

Sources: 2019 Financial Information Returns, Government of Ontario, Statistics Canada Centre for Income and Socioeconomic Well-being Statistics

Municipal staffing costs represent one measure of the value/cost of ongoing services. Meaford is close to the middle of the reference group of municipalities, about 11% above the median. Tangible capital assets are one of many measures that reflect the value of infrastructure and maintenance at the municipal level. Meaford is at the low end of the scale. Meaford is 27% below the median. Construction activity is a highly variable measure from year to year. For 2019, Meaford is 78% above the median of reference municipalities. Averaging at about $83,500, income per family in Meaford represented roughly middle of the pack compared to other municipalities—about 4% above the median. Income represents all sources including employment, investment, pension and social security.


There is variation from statistic to statistic about Meaford’s relative place among comparators, but looking at it holistically, the Committee concludes that a 50th percentile target is a fair basis on which to base compensation recommendations the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors.

Staff provided the committee with current salary statistics for 18 of the 20 municipalities listed above. The results show the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in Meaford are paid less than the median of the other 17, while Councillors are paid somewhat above (see Table 2, additional graphical detail is in Appendix 3).

Table 2: Mayor, Deputy and Councillor salaries

Meaford (2019)

Median of other 17

municipalities (2020 Data)

% difference

Mayor $32,200 $43,730 -25.7%

Deputy Mayor $26,200 $29,279 -10.7%

Councillor $23,800 $22,373 +6.4%

The Committee therefore recommends that the salaries of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be adjusted towards their respected medians by adopting a formula based on councillor salaries. This will allow for calculating future salaries until which time the Municipality decides to recheck against other jurisdictions.

Updated Council Remuneration Policy

As a result of the analysis by the committee, an updated Council Remuneration Policy, attached as Appendix 4, is proposed. The key recommendations of the Committee are summarized below.

Salary Ratios

Through discussion, the committee decided that establishing firm ratios between a Councillor’s salary, and those of Deputy Mayor and Mayor would


be the most effective method to distinguish the varying levels of responsibility and workload. The policy proposes that the salary ratios be set at:

• Councillor: 100% (base rate)

• Deputy Mayor: 125% of Councillor salary

• Mayor: 185% of Councillor salary.

Annual cost of living adjustments will, over time, move salaries away from these ratios. To counter that, the policy states that salaries for the Deputy Mayor and Mayor shall be amended in the January immediately following an election to ensure that the ratios are maintained.

Salary Amount

The Committee felt strongly that the current annual salary paid to members of Council, particularly the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, was insufficient. Comparator data confirmed that existing salaries were at approximately the 25th percentile for Mayor and 40th percentile for Deputy Mayor, based on 2019 data.

The draft policy recommends that the Councillor salary should be determined at $24,500, which remains unchanged from previous compensation rates. The draft policy outlines that the Deputy Mayor’s salary would be 125% of the Councillor rate of pay, at $30,700, with compensation provided with a one third premium of the Mayor’s salary to reflect the additional work required when the Deputy Mayor is required to fulfill Mayoral duties in their absence. The Mayor’s salary would be 185% of the Councillor’s salary at $45,400, providing a premium for expanded workload and complexity, and the requirement of being publically facing. The draft policy sets a new base rate salary for Deputy Mayor and Mayor based on salary ratios.

Under the proposed policy, salaries will continue to increase annually, based on the Cost of Living Adjustment established through the annual budget process, including in the 2022 budget.

Benefits & Expenses

No changes to the existing structure for benefits and expenses are proposed.


Other Observations Outside of the Scope

During the interview process, the Committee was provided with a number of additional observations from Council members that were outside the scope of the Terms of Reference for the Council Remuneration Committee. The intention of including them in the report is so that they may be recorded for future review where relevant. Observations provided by members of Council included:

• Candidate training opportunities to improve knowledge – conventions, online courses, colleges courses;

• Access to updates in legislation in a more timely manner;

• How to clarify the expectation and improve the process of contact with constituents;

• Reports received in the agenda should be more concise and not contain the implied bias of any senior staff, Council should be allowed to make decisions independently; and

• Inexperienced Councillors can be misled to make decisions and approve projects that could be reversed when the next term of Council is in place.

Financial Impact

The proposed policy would have resulted in an increase to the tax supported operating budget of approximately $16,000 in 2021. This breaks down as follows:

• Mayor: increase of approximately $12,260

• Deputy Mayor: increase of approximately $3,740

The impact on the 2022 tax supported operating budget will depend on the Cost of Living Adjustment decided upon by Council.

Strategic Priorities

This report supports the mission, vision and values of the Municipality of Meaford, as well as the goals and objectives set out in Council’s Strategic Priorities, particularly with respect to:

• Leading Municipal Government


Community Well-Being

This report reflects a transparent process undertaken to review Council compensation in an effort to ensure the Municipality of Meaford remains competitive in attracting candidates for future terms of Council.

Consultation and Communications

As part of the process, members of the Council Remuneration Committee conducted research interview with members of Council.

All meetings of the Council Remuneration Committee were held in open session.

Supporting Documentation

Appendix 1 – Survey Questions for Current Council Interviews Appendix 2 – Full Graphical Detail (Table 1) Appendix 3 – Full Graphical Detail (Table 2) Appendix 4 – Draft Proposed Council Remuneration Policy

Respectfully Submitted:

_________________________________ Matt Smith Clerk / Director of Community Services

_________________________________ Prepared with: Margaret Wilton-Siegel, Deputy Clerk / Manager of Legislative Services

_________________________________ Prepared with: Miranda Lahtinen, Chair, Council Remuneration Committee


_________________________________ Prepared with: Ted Mallett, Member, Council Remuneration Committee

_________________________________ Prepared with: Phil Cant, Member, Council Remuneration Committee

_________________________________ Reviewed by: Rob Armstrong, Chief Administrative Officer

Survey of Councilor Tasks:

Strictly personal and confidential (will not be shared with Staff, other Council Members, or anyone outside the Meaford Council Remuneration Committee).

General Questions

1. We note that the Municipal Act provides the following description for the Role of a Council member:

a. to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality; b. to develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality; c. to determine which services the municipality provides; d. to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership

policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council; e. to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality,

including the activities of the senior management of the municipality; f. to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality; and g. to carry out the duties of council under this or any other Act.

We would like to validate that this description describes the work you as a member of Council perform.

2. We would like your perspective of the full-time and part-time aspects of your role with Council. Please indicate how many hours a week you work in your role with Council and whether you have enough support to perform your job efficiently and effectively.

3. We would like your perspective on whether you consider your current level of total compensation (base pay and benefits) to be commensurate with the role you are being asked to fulfill, and why.

4. We would like your perspective on whether there is anything that the Town/Municipality could do to make your job easier and your role more effective (especially if you have seen it in another Municipality).

5. What factors/features would help ensure a robust election process that would attract a large selection of diverse candidates (i.e. age, socio-economic, etc.).

6. We would like your perspective on the public’s perception is of current Council remuneration and whether they believe they are getting the best value for tax dollars.

7. When you are comparing our Municipality to others, which of the following most resonate with you (following is a selection of topics used by other Municipalities):

a. Number of households in the Municipality; b. Median/average earnings of residents of the Municipality; c. Total weighted assessment per household; d. Taxes per household; e. Number of full-time positions employed by the Municipality; f. Salary per full-time equivalent (“FTE”); g. Total tangible capital assets managed by the Municipality;

mwiltonsiegel

Text Box

COM2021-24 Appendix 1

h. Total financial assets; i. Total annual Municipal costs; j. Total operating budget; k. Total capital budget; l. Insured value of physical assets; m. Annual funds of Municipal procurement; n. Total tax assessment levied; o. Total tax assessment; p. Total number of voters registered; q. Total number of elected officials – Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors (or equivalents); r. Total annual number of building permits requested (not necessarily processed); s. Total annual dollar value of building permits/development projects brought forward; and t. Total funds for annual Water/Sewage fees billed.

8. We would like your perspective on which of the following Towns/Municipalities you feel are most comparable to the Municipality of Meaford, and why, and provide any additional Towns/ Municipalities you feel are comparable that are not included in this listing:

a. Town of Blue Mountains; b. Township of Chatsworth; c. Town of Collingwood; d. Town of Goderich; e. Township of Georgian Bluffs; f. Municipality of Grey Highlands; g. Town of Midland; h. City of Owen Sound; i. Town of Penetanguishene; j. Town of Saugeen Shores; k. Township of Tay; l. Township of Tiny; m. Town of Wasaga Beach; n. Municipality of West Grey; o. Centre Wellington; p. Town of Essex; and q. Town of Gravenhurst.

9. Please provide your perspective on the likely growth and development of the Municipality of Meaford over the next four years (term of Council).

10. We are interested in any additional factors that have not been covered in our previous questions. Please have your suggestions available for discussion during the interview.

Full Graphical Detail (Table 1)

The comparative data were sourced from the Ontario Government’s annually published Financial Information Returns (FIRs) for 2019—the latest available—as well as Statistics Canada for each of the comparator municipalities as identified in report COM2021-XX where possible.

Figure 1

Average assessments in Meaford are near the midpoint compared to other reference municipalities, but lower-tier taxation per household is somewhat on the high side. This perhaps reflects that Meaford does not have as large a commercial tax base compared to other municipalities. This Data is reflected in the above bar chart.

$-

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

$3,000.00

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

Household Taxation and AssessmentTaxation/Hhld

Assessment/Hhld

Meaford

mwiltonsiegel

Text Box


Figure 2

Note that the FIR statistics do not disaggregate commercial and residential taxation, so all data reflect the blended property classes. Looking at FIR taxation data over a longer time period, it shows that taxes had been rising at a modest annual average rate of 2.0% between 2012 and 2019, compared to a much steeper 13.2% annual average increases between 2009 and 2012. This data is reflected in the bar chart above.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Total Lower-tier Property Taxes per Household

Figure 3

The Municipality of Meaford is 11.2% above the median and out of the 20 comparators is 13 out of 20.This data is reflected in the above bar chart.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Compensation costs per Household

Figure 4

Tangible capital assets are one of many measures that reflect the value of infrastructure and maintenance at the municipal level. Meaford is at the low end of the scale. Meaford is 27% below the median. The above bar chart reflects these findings.

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

Tangible Capital Assets Managed per Household

Figure 5

Construction activity is a highly variable measure from year to year. For 2019, Meaford is 78% above the median of reference municipalities. The above bar chart reflects these findings.

.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Value of Construction Activity per Household, 2019

Figure 6

Averaging at about $83,500, income per family in Meaford represented roughly middle of the pack compared to other municipalities—about 4% above the median. Income represents all sources including employment, investment, pension and social security. This information is reflected in the above bar chart.

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

Average family income 2019

Full Graphical Detail (Table 2)

Figure 1

The above bar chart shows that the Mayors salary is $32,200. The median salary of the seventeen comparator municipalities (2020 data) is $43,730. This puts the Mayor of the Municipality of Meaford 25.7 percent below the median.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Mayor Remuneration

-25.7%

mwiltonsiegel

Text Box


Figure 2

The above bar chart shows that the Deputy Mayors salary is $26,200. The median salary of the seventeen comparator municipalities (2020 data) is $29,279. This puts the Mayor of the Municipality of Meaford 10.7 percent below the median.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Deputy Mayor Remuneration

-10.5%

Figure 3

The above bar chart shows the Councillors salary is $23,800. The median salary of the seventeen comparator municipalities (2020 data) is $22,373. This puts the Councillors of the Municipality of Meaford 6.4 percent above the median.

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

Councillor Remuneration

+6.4%

Municipality of Meaford Corporate Policy

Council Remuneration| 1


Policy: Council Remuneration

Division: Legislative Services

Last Revision: November 2021

Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Scope

Policy Requirements

Implications

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement

The Municipality of Meaford Council Remuneration Policy governs the remuneration of Council and payment of additional expenses incurred by members of Council during activities related to municipal business.

Purpose

This policy provides clear and consistent rules with respect to Council salaries and expenses.

mwiltonsiegel

Text Box




Definitions

“Council” means the elected body responsible for managing the affairs of the Municipality.

“Meeting” means any regular, special or other meeting of Council, local boards, and committees, including conferences and seminars.

“Municipality” means the Municipality of Meaford.

“Salary” means the remuneration paid to members of Council by the Municipality, in fixed, regular payments.

Scope

This policy applies to all members of the Council of the Municipality of Meaford.

Policy Requirements

Council Remuneration 1. The remuneration for members of Council shall be by salary.

2. The salary ratios shall be as follows:

Councillor:100% (base rate)

Deputy Mayor: 125% of Councillor salary

Mayor: 185& of Councillor salary

1.3. The 2019 base salary for members of Council at the time of adoption shall be as follows:

Mayor: $32,200 $45,400

Deputy Mayor: $26,200 $30,700

Councillor: $23,800 $24,500

4. The salary shall be adjusted annually, with effect from January 1, on adoption of the Municipality’s annual operating budget.



5. Council salary shall increase annually by the same percentage awarded to staff members of the Municipality, including for the 2022 budget year.

6. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor salary shall be further adjusted on January 1 of the year immediately following a municipal election to ensure that the salary ratio described in clause 2 is maintained.

Council Benefits 1. Salary payments are subject to applicable Federal and Provincial

mandatory deductions.

2. Council members shall receive Group Life Insurance, paid for by the Municipality, where the member is 70 years of age or under.

Expenses 1. Members of Council shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred

while undertaking activities on behalf of the Municipality, and while acting in their role as an elected official.

2. All expenses submitted for reimbursement must be accompanied by supporting documentation and itemized receipts, except for mileage.

3. Expenses shall only be paid for members of Council. Expenses of spouses or companions are not eligible for reimbursement.

Travel

1. Payments for travel by automobile shall be at the Canada Revenue Agency allowance rate.

2. Mileage shall only be paid for any kilometre travelled over and above 10km one way.

3. Members of Council should use a municipal vehicle for travel whenever possible/practical.



4. Members shall be reimbursed for travel via alternate modes of transportation where reasonable, and at the discretion of the Mayor.

Meals

1. The maximum amount that may be claimed for meals for one day is $75.00.

2. Reimbursement shall not include any amount for alcoholic beverages.

Conferences

1. Funding for members of Council to attend conferences and workshops is included in each annual budget.

2. Each member of Council will receive an annual conference budget.

3. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor may attend additional conferences or workshops subject to and reimbursed by the County of Grey conference policy.

4. Conference arrangements and reimbursement are coordinated through the Clerk’s Office.

5. The following expenses are eligible for reimbursement:

a. Conference Registration

b. Travel, including parking

c. Accommodation

d. Meals

6. Attendance at an out-of-Province conference must be approved through a resolution of Council, in advance of registration.

Review

This policy shall be reviewed once per term of Council by an independent Council Remuneration Committee. Following review, the Committee shall make policy update recommendations to Council.



Monitoring

The Clerk shall be responsible for receiving complaints and/or concerns related to this policy.

This policy shall be reviewed at least once per term of Council, in conjunction with the mandatory review of Council Remuneration.

Authority

This policy is established pursuant to Section 11 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 which provides for the adoption of policies pertaining to the accountability and transparency of the Municipality and its operations.

Contact

Matt Smith Clerk / Director of Community Services Telephone: 519-538-1060, extension 1115 Email: [email protected]

Change History

Policy Name Effective Date

Significant Changes By-law No.

Council Remuneration Policy

February 2019

2019-18

Council Remuneration Policy

October 2021

Updated salaries following recommendations from Council Remuneration Committee

mailto:[email protected]

council remuneration policy

Documents