Pensions for Council members over 71 became an issue: Councillor Nisan Pushed it past acceptable boundaries

By Jim Portside

March 4th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

There have to be more important issues facing the city.

During the March 3, 2026, council meeting, Councillor Nisan decided to revisit the issue of what Councillors are paid for what felt like hours but might have only been 20 minutes, while council and senior staff once again struggled to make sense of this issue.

When council salaries were reported in 2024, Councillor Sharman went to great lengths to explain why he was the lowest-paid councillor.

OMERs does not accept any contributions from people over the age of 71.

In 2025, after many discussions in council and countless hours of staff time, this issue was resolved, and a plan was put in place to ensure that Sharman was no longer the lowest-paid Councillor.

The problem arose because city employees contribute to the OMERs pension plan with money deducted from their salary, and the city makes an additional payment on the employee’s behalf.

For the mayor and councillors, 14.6% of their salary is deducted from each paycheque and sent to OMERs. The city matches the contribution with another 14.6% payment to OMERs.

To keep the numbers simple, and ignoring income tax, let’s say Councillor Nisan is paid $1,000 a week. The councillor is then required to pay $146 or 14.6% of his pay into his pension plan. The city matches the $146, and OMERs receive $292 to support Councillor Nisan in his old age. Councillor Nisan’s total compensation (the total cost to the taxpayer) in this theoretical example is $1,146 per week.

In 2024, in Councillor Sharman’s case, OMERs would not accept any contributions from people over the age of 71. Councillor Sharman, as a truly senior councillor, was being paid $1,000 a week, and his total compensation (the total cost to the taxpayer) was $1,000 a week.

Reports from the city showed that Councillor Sharman’s total compensation was lower than that of the other councillors. Obviously, at least from Sharman’s perspective, this was totally unacceptable. Sharman started a campaign to receive the amount the city was paying to OMERs, the match, as part of his salary to bring his total compensation to $1,146. In 2025, after hours of discussion and staff reports, the council agreed and passed a motion to pay Sharman retroactively from the compensation he had missed and to add the city portion of the OMERs benefit to Councillor Sharman’s base pay.

During this epic journey, Councillor Bentivegna turned 71 and joined the senior councillors’ club.

Councillor Rory Nisan: He pushed his fellow Council member for more information on his total income, which was really none of his business.

Why Nisan decided to rehash this issue during the March 3, 2026, Committee of the Whole meeting is difficult to fathom. Many of us without pension plans would jump at the chance to have an inflation-indexed, taxpayer-supported pension in our old age. Shouldn’t Nisan be happy with the status quo, even if his contribution to OMERs makes his take-home pay smaller than Councillor Sherman’s?

There is a strong argument that total compensation should be the same for people doing the same job, regardless of their age or gender.

How many more hours of staff and council time will be spent on this issue of vital unimportance to the taxpayers remains to be seen.

Sharman wanted some of the data on a staff document revised.  This will come up again at Council later in the month

Related news story:

City pension plans.