Council has back in session this week after taking their own Reading Week off. You can click here for the amended agenda from City Hall, and you can click here for the Politico preview. For the complete blow-by-blow of today’s council meeting, you can follow along with the thread below, or you can watch the whole meeting for yourself by watching it on the City’s website here.

BEGINNING OF THREAD:

At 9 am, Mayor Guthrie calls the meeting to order.

Regrets from Cllr Richardson, at least for the closed portion.

Council goes in-camera for: Neeve Street Parking Lot – Development Opportunity

As per section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act, regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

One hour and 14 minutes later, council returns.

Mayor Guthrie notes that council did not finish receiving the presentation in closed, but they didn’t want to delay the start of the meeting any further. Once the open agenda is complete, they will go back in-camera.

Minutes of the open Council Meetings held January 13, 20 and 27, 2026, and the February 3, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting are confirmed.

One item left on consent:

City-Wide Parking Strategy Terms of Reference.

Recommendation: That the scope of work of City-Wide Parking Strategy Terms of Reference, included in the Infrastructure, Development and Environment Report 2026-03, dated February 3, 2026, be approved.

Hauser/Caron move it and it’s approved.

First item, Internal Audit Work Plan 2026-2028. There’s no new information, but there is one delegate, Tim Martin, who doesn’t appear to be in the council chambers.

Recommendations moved by Goller/Klassen

1. That the Internal Audit Work Plan 2026-2028, as outlined in the report titled “Internal Audit Work Plan 2026 – 2028” dated Tuesday February 3, 2026, be approved.
2. That Operations Services staff be directed to investigate and report back on winter control and winter maintenance service levels, including potential additional services, and that the report back include financial and resourcing analyses, along with incorporation of community engagement components.

Cllr Downer asks about the timeline for the winter maintenance review because there’s none attached, do they need to add one. Guthrie notes that a memo attached to the agenda noted that the work would require a pause on the graffiti and scooter reviews. DCAO Clack-Bush says they will bring a framework to council in an information report in September with results coming back as soon as January 2027 to inform the next council’s strategic plan and multi-year budget.

Guthrie says his intent was that the next term of council’s budget was to be informed by options. He understands that the operating review might take a bit longer, but can there be options for debate? Clack-Bush says that’s the intention because the 2027 budget will come back for confirmation in February, although she acknowledges that will be after the start of next winter.

Guthrie asks how council can look at on-street parking options. DCAO Gayman says that the city-wide parking study will be part of that analysis and they will be looking for timeline alignment whenever possible.

Guthrie says that the takeaway to the community is that they are on this issue of winter maintenance, there’s some proper sequencing that needs to happen, but they are looking at these issues. Clack-Bush reminds that there will also be some kind of public engagement too as outlined in the memo.

Cllr Goller says that he thought there would be no public engagement, that was his reading of the memo. Clack-Bush says that’s the internal audit, the engagement concerns the second motion about winter service levels, which is not part of the internal audit review.

Motions approved unanimously.

Next, Council Remuneration Review. There’s no new information, but there is a delegate and this time they’re here!

Morgan Dandie, who’s previously ran for council, asks why fair compensation is a “difficult conversation” as mentioned by the chair at committee. If we want quality people in the council chambers, then they deserve quality compensation. A 20 cent per hour increase per year seems a bit light. She notes that this is the third time in a row that council didn’t follow the advice given on remuneration. We need to put value on the depth and complexity of the role.

Cllr Caron asks about alternatives to deciding on compensation. Dandie says that she agrees with Cllr Allt, this is a governance issue and talking about the difficulty and then not approving a raise says that council doesn’t take its own role and responsibility seriously. If council finds it so difficult, take yourselves out of the equation and leave it in the hands of citizens’ committee.

Gibson/Goller move recommendations:

1. That the salaries for the positions of Mayor and City Councillor be maintained at the 2026 current rate for the 2026- 2030 term of office, subject to annual inflationary increases equal to the Non-Union Municipal Employee (NUME) economic increase approved as part of future Council budget deliberations.
2. That the City Clerk be directed, in advance of the 2030 municipal election, to conduct a Ward Boundary and Council Composition review, including a review of pay and benefits for elected officials, subject to the provision of funding in the 2028 budget.

Guthrie says he hasn’t talked to anyone since committee, but wants to take a moment – and he hopes it comes across as genuine – and say that they might be doing the next term of council a disservice. He says he would be willing to support – not a 32.8 per cent increase – but something more than zero. Also, he wants to talk about having a citizens’ committee again.

Guthrie agrees with Downer’s comments from committee that dismissing this every four years makes matters worse, and worse. Suggests maybe phasing the increase over the next four years…

Allt says that’s the right sentiment but worries about “pulling something out of the air.” He suggests a referral though he doesn’t know where.

Cllr Klassen asks about the previous council’s decision on the ward boundary and council compensation, and the suggest of the citizens’ committee last term.

DCAO (and former Clerk) O’Brien, says the committee carried out similar work that staff did this year, and there was a recommendation to increase the compensation though it wasn’t as significant. He says it’s a challenge to recruit people for that committee with the need for people with HR or accounting backgrounds, which is why they moved to staff. As for the boundary review, they’ve been directed to do a new review next term at committee.

Klassen asks about competitor data and noted an increase in Waterloo to $50k+, so what’s the difference with their comparator data? O’Brien says the issue with the list is that there’s no “apples to apples” kind of list for municipal councils, it’s not clean and simple but a best guess.

Klassen says she can’t get behind that first recommendation, and if it fails they should go back to the staff recommendation and think about the current council. Notes that she and Cllr Caton both believe in increasing council diversity and representation. We need to look at the councillor role holistically and not just frame it as a part-time or full-time gig.

Cllr Richardson is here now by the way.

Goller says that the previous term of council made a mistake with direction to staff. Agrees with the point about increase council diversity, but also agrees with Allt about not picking a number out of the air today.

Cllr Gibson says the salary increase is not zero, it’s attached to NUME compensation. Also, he doesn’t agree that the diversity of candidates is impacted by the salary, there was a wide variety of candidates who came out to run in Ward 1 last time. He also notes that the recommendation last term was to not reduce the number of councillors, which would have increased the pay. He also adds that committee chairs were compensated, and council voted to take that away.

Gibson says he’s happy to revisit some of these decisions, but he struggles with the whole conversation being had here.

Cllr Caton says diversity is about more than ethnicity, it’s about people with no partners, or families, or economic conditions, or single parents. They talk about an AMO panel about generating diversity and it’s about more daytime meetings and how every time you step out of your house, you’re a councillor. Given the current economy, if you rely on your council salary, it’s not doable. That’s their meaning of diversity, financial privilege.

Cllr Busuttil says ditto to Caton, but hopes that in the second motion staff bring a corporate equity lens. On Gibson’s comments, she did raise the additional compensation for the additional roles on outside boards.

Caron notes that if this were any other position in city hall they would not be having this struggle, and affordability in the community is a constant discussion in the room. How do they balance that? She has an amendment: Remove city councillor from recommendation #1 and add a new clause #3.

Caron/Hauser move the amendment to recommendation #1. It passes 8-5 with Billings, Richardson, Goller, Gibson, and Chew voting against.

Caron wants to let #2 stands and it’s important to recognize how much the role has changed in the last few years and that maybe it’s time for a review.

Gibson says he doesn’t see a need to revisit this with the current rate of city growth. Caron says the review will get us a policy framework that council can follow in the future since they’ve expressed concern with both the comparator list and the formulations.

Clerk McMahon interjects to say council has merely amended recommendation #1, and they need to approve the amendment (if they’re voting on each clause one at a time like the mayor suggested).

Gibson asks about where this leaves council pay because if they approve the amended #1 that puts all the chips on clause #3. McMahon says that’s essentially correct. Gibson says that he feels like he’s being backed into a corner. Guthrie says we don’t know till the vote’s called.

Amended #1 passes 8-5 with Gibson, Chew, Richardson, Goller and Billings against.

#2 passes 12-1 with Gibson against.

On #3, Caron says she’s struggled with this, figured she just endorse CoW measure, but came to the conclusion that given changes in the role and the added complexity, there needs to be some change. Caron puts new #3 on the floor now at $55k. Downer seconds.

Gibson asks about current compensation. O’Brien says as of January it’s a little over $52k. Gibson says that this is a lot of effort for about $1,500.

Allt says he won’t support this because this is poor governance. They’ve pulled a number out of the air, and there needs to be more government feedback. He can only support a referral motion. Guthrie asks him if he wants to do that, and Allt says yes. Caron seconds a referral to the next Corporate Services agenda.

Caron agrees that this is on the fly, but the CoW recommendation was zero, and she was uncomfortable with that. Caron would like to see this come back to the next CoW because nominations open May 1, and Corporate Services does not come back now till April.

DCAO O’Brien says March CoW is already tight, but they can still do it in April acknowledging that this is happening at the end of April for a final decision. Caron notes that it would only give staff a week to turn that info around before May 1, so maybe the March regular meeting. Allt says that he’s fine with that, “This is how you design a camel,” he says.

McMahon asks for clarity, the referral is the new motion #3 coming back till the end of March? Guthrie asks staff if there are more conversations that can be had or another memo, otherwise this is just “getting plopped” on the agenda.

O’Brien says that getting direction about the level of information that council is looking for would be helpful, but it has to be “light touch” work. Maybe its a new percentage, maybe a new comparator, maybe analysis on the amount recommended. Not a deep dive, but they need that direction.

Caron/Allt add an amendment, worded by Guthrie, for staff to work with the chair of Corporate Services to come up with options. That’s an amendment to the referral. It’s requested that the clerks write this down before voting.

Goller says he feels really uncomfortable asking staff to comment on a random number, and unless they’re giving staff a new set of parameters. It’s a waste of time.

Gibson says he’ll speak frankly, and the remuneration for next year is already $53k so we’re spending all this time talking about $100 more per month. Maybe we can move a motion to ask staff to look at the compensation for chairs and whether that should be brought back. That seems better to answer the increased workload.

Allt says again this is an issue of governance, and while this isn’t perfect, it gives staff the latitude to say whether this is appropriate or perhaps to go back to the original recommendation.

Guthrie asks O’Brien if he has enough to work with here. He says yes, but they will have to be narrow in their scope, but they will provide council with some degree of additional information.

Vote on the amendment passes Richardson, Goller, Gibson, Billings and Chew vote against, passes 8-5.

Caron asks to fix the type, it’s not 4.8 per cent, but 3.95 per cent.

Referral passes 8-5 with Richardson, Goller, Gibson, Billings and Chew against.

Guthrie asks if recommendation #2 gives staff permission to include chair compensation in the 2028 review. O’Brien says it does, but they can also tackle that in the regular governance review at the early part of the next term.

Gibson says we just referred a number to staff, so doesn’t feel the need to draft a motion today, but personally doesn’t want to talk about both these things at the same time. Guthrie says he agrees, and that conversation can happen at the end of March.

Goller says he still wants to give staff some explicit guidance with this motion. Guthrie asks if this is more the report in March and Goller says March. Billings seconds.

Guthrie, Downer, Busuttil, and Caton vote against, but it passes 9-4.

Guthrie calls for a five minute break.

Council returns after an eight minute break.

Next, Water and Wastewater Servicing Allocation Policy and Bylaw. Like the other topics, no new report or presentation, but there is a delegate.

Susan Watson supports the “use it or lose it” provision even as the provincial government has been running roughshod over planning matters. Asks for additional annual reporting to council about the number of extensions sought and how many are declined or granted. We also need to have a community conversation about what it looks like when we reach the limits of our wter budget.

Hauser/Gibson move the recommendations:

1. That Guelph City Council approve the Water and Wastewater Servicing Allocation Policy attached as Attachment-1 to this report.
2. That Guelph City Council delegate authority for the administration of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Allocation Policy to the Deputy CAO of Infrastructure Development and Environment.
3. That Guelph City Council approve the Water and Wastewater Servicing Allocation Bylaw provided as Attachment-2 to this report and give effect to the delegation of authority.

Klassen asks about the level of detail in the annual reporting about the provision. Gayman says that right now they plan on doing the report through the City’s annual Growth Management and Affordable Housing monitoring report, and the thought is to focus on analysis initially. Exemption questions will kick in after the fourth year, so he expects that to be in future reports.

Caton notes that there was an issue on Victoria Road recently with a watermain break so residents there saw what it looks like on a day without water, and this notes the important work.

Council votes to return to closed session…

And we’re back 75 minutes later. On Neeve Street Parking Lot – Development Opportunity Guthrie says that direction was given to staff. “And that’s all I’m able to say on that item,” he adds.

BYLAWS OF THE WEEK (listed below) approved.

9.1 Bylaw Number (2026) – 21193

A By-law to adopt a Water and Wastewater Servicing Allocation Policy.

9.2 By-law Number (2026) – 21207

A By-law to amend By-law number (2024) – 20994, being a by-law to delegate certain administration powers and duties to City staff, to govern execution of documents.

9.3 By-law Number (2026) – 21215

A by-law to confirm the proceedings of a meeting of Guelph City Council held February 24, 2026.

Goller and Klassen have a town hall on Thursday at 6 pm at city hall, and you can attend in-person and via Teams if you like. Topics include affordable housing and finding childcare in the city.

That’s a wrap!

END OF THREAD!