If a request from East Garafraxa is approved at county council tonight, there could be an additional two members at its table, bringing the total to 16 — although that's not the township's intent.

The request is to allow an alternate to sit in place of the regular member (Mayor Allen Taylor) in the event he is absent. But county clerk Pam Hillock says provincial regulations would not allow such an arrangement.

The composition of county council is such that all eight municipalities have a minimum of two weighted votes, and all are entitled to have two members at the council if the number of their eligible voters exceeds 2,500.

East Garafraxa and East Luther Grand Valley each has two votes at county, but only one member by virtue of the formula.

Ms. Hillock says the only way to satisfy the request would be to amend the formula. The enabling bylaw would require a triple-majority vote: a majority of votes on Council, a majority of the Councils of the lower tier municipalities and those lower tier councils who vote in favour must represent a majority of the Dufferin electors.

The change would not alter the number of weighted votes at council, but it could in theory change the direction of committees. Although the 14, or 16, members would have a total of 30 weighted votes at council, each member has only one vote at committee.

Under the weighted vote and representation formulae, municipalities gain a second seat when they attain an elector population of 2,501, but still have only the minimum of two votes. They achieve a third vote when their electors total 4,500, and an additional one at 6,000 electors.

Ms. Hillock describes the formula as simply "the number of electors divided by 1,500."

The addition of two seats at county would entail added annual costs of about $32,000 — including salaries of $14,707 each plus benefits.

It might also require some difficult reorganization of the council table, as the 14 existing seats appear to take up all available space.

The position of the lower-tier municipalities was not immediately known except that Mono council, for one, spoke generally in opposition to changes Tuesday night, largely on the basis of the added cost.

However, if a change wins approval, it would not take effect until after the 2010 municipal election.