In discussions concerning the 2025 Budget, council learned that the Art Gallery was asking to hire another employee. This request appears to be the impact of moving the Tourism Department under the Art Gallery Director. This allows for 40% of the Directors salary to be allocated to Tourism, which along with the canceling of the Art Gallery annual $50,000 debt payment gives the illusion that the cost of the Gallery was reduced. However now the Director is asking for a new hire to do marketing and fund raising which were activities that she performed in the past but no longer has time given her new Tourism responsibilities. This discussion opened the question of why we spend $500,000 annually on a service that few residents appreciate. Councillor Middlebro made the point that we cancelled the Airport for that very reason - a service only a few residents used.  The airport was costing $235,000 annually when it was cancelled. As you will read in Part 4 the Art Gallery cost taxpayers $282,000 in 2017 and by 2024 was costing $518,600. The 2025 budget has it at $432,000 which reflects offloading part of the Director's salary to Tourism and the canceling of the  $50,000 annual debt payment. As you can see in this video Councillor Middlebro is only suggesting to roll back the budget to 2017 as opposed to canceling the Art Gallery.

The Tom Thomson Art Gallery budget changes between 2018 and 2922 are shown below in figure 18. As you can see the Art Gallery 's budget grew by 77.3% in only four years, while inflation grew by only 3.47%.

Art Galley Budget Growth                                         Source Owen Sound Budgets

As someone who was a member of this short-lived Remuneration Review Task Force, I 've been outspoken on the need for the composition of our city council to reflect all residents in our community. As I 've posted on my website and on Facebook many times half of Owen Sound households take home less than $57,600 per year. This is a distinct group of residents representing 50% of our community and yet there is not one member on the current council from this group.

Note to Taxpayers
An increase in council compensation would minimal impact on taxes. In 2024 we will spend $342,138 for council salaries and expenses. The city 's total expenses in 2024 are projected to be, $63,319,260. Given this the cost of council is 0.54% of our total expenses. In comparison we will spend $661,547 to run the City Manager 's Office in 2024 which is 1.04% of total expenses and $546,023 to run the Art Gallery which is 0.86% of the total expenses.

It 's important to keep council expenses in perspective. We could almost double council compensation and still not spend as much on our nine (9) members of council as we do on the City Manager 's Office. Given the responsibilities involved in being on council and the magnitude of the decisions being made, I suggest that our council is much more important to the financial health of the city than the City Manager 's Office, so doubling this expense is not as outrageous as you would think.

The total expenses shown above, are different from the expenses of $46,734,216 shown in the 2024 budget brief. The reason for this is that not all of the Corporation 's Revenues and Expenses are briefed at budget time. Water and Wastewater Revenues and Expenses are not included nor are Revenues from Grants or all Fees or Amortization expenses. When you include everything you get the total expenses to be $63,319,260.
For those interested in verifying this download the city 's audited financial statements. The latest available is for the year 2022; which show total revenues of $62,740,887 and total expenses of $55,292,327 leaving a surplus of $7,448,560 for 2022. I wonder if anyone of our representatives on council can tell us what they did with that $7.4 million surplus?

Alternatively we could keep council expense at 0.54% of total expenses by reducing the number on council to five (5) from the current nine (9) and increase the compensation by 80%. However I don 't think that we have to go quite that far to remove the economic barrier to participation but it 's important for everyone to realize just how little we compensate members of council for their work relative to our other expenses.

Staff Previous Work and Recommendations
Barriers to participation were identified by the 2017 Remuneration Committee which stated that compensation must be sufficiently high enough to:

“Create an environment which attracts talented candidates with sound leadership skills and a willingness to contribute to the community; and be at a level that does not have a negative impact on family income or be a barrier to running for Council”

In July 2020, the city clerk wrote:

“There were several years where Council did not receive a wage increase and it left them being unfairly compensated for their responsibilities. It is important that Council not defer increases to ensure that this type of lag does not occur which could put future Council 's at risk. The compensation needs to be sufficient to attract talented and committed individuals to serve.”

In September 2023 the Deputy Clerk wrote:

“Establishing a Council Remuneration Review Task Force removes politics from discussions by having an objective public group review remuneration, expenses, and benefits. In addition, it is important that a task force be established because:”…. “the task force requires citizen voices and/or external stakeholder expertise to develop the subject matter.”

These quotes from city staff above suggest that there has been ample knowledge for some time that council compensation may be a barrier to some in the community to run for council and the Remuneration Review Task Force requires citizen voices and expertise. I suspect that the surprise nature of Councillor Hamley 's motion resulted in many on council focusing only on the public perception of council giving itself a pay raise and caused most to completely forget about previous staff recommendations and the work of the previous Remuneration Committee.

We clearly do not have a Diverse Council, nor can we have an Inclusive Council when those in lower income groups which represent 50% of our population are presented with systemic barriers to their participation. There are two distinct barriers preventing representation from this large group on Council. They are Financial Barriers and Time barriers.

The Time Barriers

In regard to the time barriers Council last year move the start time for the regular council meetings from 7:30 pm to 5:30 pm to make it more convenient for staff. If you 've ever held a regular hourly-waged job you know that this new start time would definitely pose a problem for you if your working day ended at 5:00 pm and you had to rush home, get cleaned up and get to a council meeting by 5:30 pm – without any time for supper or a snack.

Then there are the frequent special council meetings that are scheduled during the day with a 9:30 am start time. Once again, these day-time meetings are very convenient for city staff, but impossible to attend if you 're an hourly-waged employee of a minimally staffed business. My recollection is that there have been five (5) such meetings in the past few months. As well, members of council are required to prepare for and attend at least two(2) committee or council meetings per week. Preparation time for these meetings can be significant due to the complexities of some issues.

Removing the Time Barriers

1. Revert to the 7:30 pm start period for meetings,

2. We have a part-time council with most members and potential future members having full time jobs. Therefore do not schedule any meetings of Council or Committee during normal working hours, and

3. Reduce the time commitment by reducing the number of required Committee meetings to one (1) per member of council with no more than one meeting per week.

 
The Economic Barriers
As mentioned above there is a distinct group of residents representing 50% of our community whose households take home less than $57,600. The current council compensation presents an insurmountable barrier for anyone in this low income group.

If you have a six figure household income, which I believe to be the case for all members of the current council, remuneration for your service on council is not likely to be even a consideration. However if you have to reduce the number of hours you work in order to attend council meetings or if you have to give up that part-time job that was helping you make ends meet, then remuneration for your service on council is a really BIG deal. Without reasonable compensation for your time some simply can 't afford to be a member of city council.

For most people in this group the cost of childcare and transportation to attend meetings adds to the magnitude of this barrier. These associated expenses should be eligible for reimbursement.

I suspect that the seven (7) members of council who voted to disband the Remuneration Review Task Force before it even had its inaugural meeting were only thinking of the perception that some members of the public may have if they voted to increase council compensation. I am sure that they did not have the time to consider the implications of their decision, largely due to the fact that this was a surprise motion. They didn 't recognize that by doing so they were perpetuating this barrier for anyone from this low-income group to run for council.

Each of the seven (7) members of council who voted to disband Remuneration Review Task Force are financially secure and don 't rely on the relatively small compensation they receive as a member of council so, from their narrow perspective, there was simply no need to expose themselves to unwanted criticism since they don 't rely on their council compensation anyway.

In spite of not having any time to prepare Councillor Farmer gave an excellent synopsis of the systemic barriers facing anyone without a six-figure household income and/or the need to rely on council compensation. He spoke of the real loss of family time due to council commitments and the childcare challenges presented by the time commitment. Although they all heard his impromptu appeal I doubt his words had the time to really sink in since the debate was short and the vote was quickly called. I encourage each of the seven (7) who supported Councillor Hamley 's motion to go back and really listen to Councillor Farmer 's words with an opened mind. After doing so, if you feel that you made a mistake, find a way to undo the damage to the community that you did by supporting this motion.

Removing the Economic Barriers

1. I trust that many of the members on council were surprised by the motion to disband the Remuneration Review Task Force. In the spirit of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity, I encourage those who voted for the motion to disband the Task Force to find a way to revisit this surprise motion. If necessary include provisions that would prevent members of the current council from benefiting from any pay raise that was approved this term, and

2. As well in the interest of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity, reestablish the Remuneration Review Task Force and let them do their research and bring you their recommendations. You know where I stand on this issue, so if you disagree with my position then don 't include me on the reestablished task force.
   
   However, don 't exclude half of Owen Sound 's population just because you don 't rely on your council compensation and want to avoid public scrutiny. Think of the others in the community who are not as financial secure. It 's time to remove all systemic barriers that served to exclude half of Owen Sound 's population from running for Council for many years.
   
   Remuneration Review Task Force as were most of the public. However now that they have had time to think about the impact that their vote has on the largest unrepresented group on council I trust that there will be the required two-thirds majority on council who will want to revisit this in the interest of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and remove the systemic barriers that have been blocking the participation of those in this lower income group.
   

The Value of this Non-Represented Group
For those who have read any of my papers on taxes or visited my website you know that I have been advocating a reduction city expenses for some time. You might now find it odd that I 'm in favour of increasing council salaries. However, I believe that by doing so we will be able to reduce city Expenses and hence Taxes in the future.

Anyone who has managed to run their household, feed and clothe their children on minimal income from more than one low paying job is exactly the type of person we need on our city council. People who have struggled to make ends meet during tough economic times know how to stretch a dollar and can easily recognize waste and inefficiencies when they see them. These are exactly the people we need on council. We just need to make it economically possible for them to apply their cost-saving skills as members of our council.