Time stamps included in this post refer to the corresponding moments in the linked meeting recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st9IMk1VVZc

The Township of Tiny Committee of the Whole met on January 7, 2026, to confront the sensitive issue of how much local elected officials should be paid. The session, which served as one of the first major governance discussions of the new year, centered on a comprehensive report from a citizen-led committee tasked with overhauling the current pay structure.

While the meeting resulted in a significant $44,000 savings on election technology for taxpayers, it left the long-term question of council pay unresolved. A divided council ultimately voted to defer the proposed remuneration framework until the second quarter of 2026, citing concerns over its complexity and a controversial recommendation to strip away the municipal pension plan for elected members.

A subtle, observational moment illustrated the divide between the governing body and the residents they represent at 1:44:50. Resident Jesse Garland, speaking from the podium, noted that while a council pension might only provide enough for a "bag of groceries" in retirement, it remains a "bag of groceries that a lot of Canadians don’t have at this point." This moment captured the friction between the professionalization of local government and the economic realities of a taxpayer base facing sustained inflation.

The meeting began with a report on the selection of an internet and telephone voting system provider for the 2026 municipal election. This item served as a rare example of a government procurement process coming in significantly under budget. The township had originally allocated $100,000 for this service under older voting methods, but the winning bid for the electronic system was approximately $56,753.

Mayor Evans noted that the system would provide greater accessibility for the township’s growing voter base. With a projected 10 per cent growth rate, Tiny Township is expected to have nearly 21,000 potential voters in 2026.

Evans emphasized that "Tiny is not so tiny anymore," noting that it is becoming one of the larger municipalities in Simcoe County in terms of voter volume. The new system will allow for remote participation while still offering in-person "pad" voting for those who prefer the traditional experience.

The central debate of the afternoon was CAO Report CAO-1-26, which introduced a new remuneration framework for the 2026-2030 council term. The report was presented by the Ad Hoc Citizens Committee on Council Remuneration, chaired by former Mayor Ray Miller. The committee’s goal was to move away from "peer group comparators"—where the township simply matches what neighbouring towns pay—and instead anchor council salaries to a "living wage" model.

The framework proposed using the living wage as a baseline and then applying "multipliers" based on the specific demands of each role.

For example, the Mayor’s role was evaluated at a higher multiplier than a councillor to account for the increased workload and public scrutiny. However, the proposal also included "reductions" to these multipliers for items like cell phone and internet expenses, arguing these are already covered in the baseline living wage calculation.

While the committee framed the new model as more "defensible" and transparent, members of the council were quick to criticize it as over-engineered and abstract. Mayor Evans led the opposition, stating that the framework departed too far from established municipal practices in Ontario.

Evans argued that the complexity makes it harder, not easier, for residents to understand how their representatives are paid. He also took issue with the committee's assertion that the role of a councillor involves no "labour market competition" or "performance management." Evans stated that these descriptions undervalued the professional skills required to manage a municipal corporation and balance billion-dollar regional budgets.

The most contentious part of the pay framework was the recommendation to eliminate the OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) pension plan for elected officials. The committee argued that councillors are not employees and that the defined-benefit plan creates long-term liability and negative public perception.

Miller explained that the cost of the pension—roughly $16,000 across the entire council—would not be "saved" in the traditional sense. Instead, the committee recommended moving that money into a per diem fund. This would ensure that councillors only get the money if they "show up and participate," rather than having it automatically accrued.

Councillor Walma, who is not seeking re-election, strongly disagreed with the removal. He argued that the pension is a vital recruitment tool for younger, professional candidates.

Walma emphasized that for professionals taking four years away from their careers to serve, the ability to transfer pensionable time into other municipal or public-service roles is a significant factor in the "juice being worth the squeeze."

Ray Miller defended the shift from pensions to per diems by citing what he called a "perverse incentive." He argued that all-inclusive salaries can encourage "outrage candidates" or members who sit quietly through meetings without doing the necessary background work.

Miller used a historical example from India where a bounty on vipers led to people breeding vipers to collect the reward, illustrating how poorly structured incentives can lead to unintended outcomes. By requiring attendance to collect per diems, the committee hoped to ensure a baseline of participation from the next council.

During the public comment period, resident Jesse Garland offered a reality check to the council’s discussion on benefits. Garland noted the disconnect between the "defined benefit" pensions discussed in the chamber and the retirement realities of the general public.

Garland acknowledged that for a councillor, the pension might only equate to a small monthly payment, but she reminded the council that even a small, guaranteed, inflation-indexed payment is a "perk" that many taxpayers do not have.

This comment underscored a key "red flag" for taxpayer advocates: the perception of local government as an elite class with benefits that outpace the private sector.

The fiscal impact of the proposed pay changes is essentially a "net wash" for the 2026 budget but poses risks for future years. If the pension is eliminated and converted to per diems, the township avoids the 9 per cent employer contribution to OMERS but pays out that same $16,000 in meeting fees.

However, the council noted a specific disadvantage for the individual: per diem payments are fully taxed, whereas pension contributions are not. This means that to provide the same "take-home" value to a councillor, the township might eventually have to increase the gross pay, shifting more cost onto the property tax levy.

The council also discussed the "mental health stress" and public scrutiny of the role, which Councillor Hoka noted "no amount of money could overcome." This highlights a structural risk: if pay is kept too low to satisfy public perception, the municipality may struggle to attract the specialized skills (engineering, legal, accounting) required to oversee complex infrastructure projects, potentially leading to more expensive errors in the long run.

In a separate matter, the council reviewed a planning report regarding an Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) appeal for 389 Concession 11 East. The case serves as a documented example of the tension between local committees and regional planning policy. The township’s planning staff and the County of Simcoe both recommended against a land severance due to "natural heritage constraints" and policies designed to protect rural character.

The County of Simcoe has since appealed the decision to the OLT. The council voted to stay neutral in the appeal to avoid additional legal costs, though the township’s planning director may still be subpoenaed to testify based on her original professional report.

This case highlights a "red flag" regarding the independence of local committees of adjustment when they override professional planning staff, potentially exposing the municipality to legal costs and tribunal battles.

The meeting was marked by several areas of friction:

The remuneration framework has been referred to a second-quarter council meeting for further discussion.

This delay ensures that the current council has more time to "digest" the comprehensive report and gather additional public feedback.

The Ad Hoc Citizens Committee has been officially dissolved, though Chair Ray Miller has been invited back to participate in future deliberations as a resource.

The township will also proceed with the $56,753 contract for the 2026 election voting system, officially locking in the $44,000 in savings.

The Township of Tiny’s struggle to define council pay reflects a broader trend across Ontario municipalities.

As towns grow in size and complexity, the "part-time" volunteer model of the past is being replaced by professional roles that demand full-time hours and specialized expertise. However, as the 2026 election approaches, taxpayers remain sensitive to any increases in political compensation that outpace their own household budgets.

The council’s decision to defer the pay framework highlights the political difficulty of balancing competitive compensation with fiscal restraint in an era of heightened public scrutiny.

Quarter 2, 2026: Council to resume discussions on the remuneration framework and pension eligibility.

January 28, 2026: Regular meeting of council to approve the renewal agreement for Heronia Animal Control.

January 28, 2026: Council to consider a final vote on the zoning bylaw amendment for 520 Concession 5 West.

This analysis is based on the January 7, 2026 Township of Tiny Committee of the Whole meeting and supporting documents. All quotes, timestamps, and figures are drawn directly from official meeting transcripts.