Part 2: Wellington Town Hall EOI Approval, Council Split, and Sale-Focused Direction – 02/29/2024

This part of the February 29, 2024 Committee of the Whole meeting focuses on who said what, how councillors voted, and where divisions fell, as council debated the future of Wellington Town Hall. The discussion unfolded largely along lines of cost, accessibility, heritage value, and public consultation, with clear differences in emphasis across wards.

Public voices set the stakes

The strongest calls for keeping the Town Hall in community use came from Wellington-area residents. Jennifer Cobb framed the issue around community health and volunteerism, repeatedly emphasizing that the building functions as a central gathering space tied to daily village life. Cobb challenged council to think beyond operating costs and consider long-term social value, and she explicitly asked for broad public consultation before decisions are made.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Joanna Green, Chair of the Wellington Community Association, reinforced that message. She cited the association’s 2023 community survey, saying residents consistently raised the Town Hall as a priority and that Wellington lacks an affordable, accessible indoor gathering space. Green supported staff recommendations only if they led first to authentic consultation, not a pre-determined outcome.

During public comments, Richard Elliott, a Wellington resident, focused on the financial framing in the staff report. He questioned how infrastructure upgrades, operating costs, and capital expenses were presented, and argued the report understated the value of municipal office use and the building’s role in village events.

Councillors emphasizing cost, accessibility, and risk

Several councillors leaned toward moving the building out of municipal hands.

Roy Pennell repeatedly returned to accessibility and structural costs, saying the estimated hundreds of thousands needed to bring the building to modern standards raised serious concerns. Pennell said he would prefer to see a private buyer invest in the building rather than the County fall behind on multiple heritage assets.

Phil St-Jean was among the clearest voices supporting the Expression of Interest (EOI) approach. Drawing on his past involvement with the building, St-Jean said the Town Hall struggled with utilization before municipal offices moved in and argued it may be at the end of its lifecycle as a town hall. He emphasized that serving food to the public would require costly commercial kitchen upgrades, and warned against recreating a board of management model that previously failed.

Mayor Steve Ferguson, acknowledged the sobering cost information presented earlier in the week. While recognizing the building’s heritage and prominent location, Ferguson said he supported the EOI process as a way to invite creative, community-minded proposals, rather than letting the building continue to deteriorate.

Councillors urging caution and consultation

Others pushed back on the direction embedded in the report.

Janice Maynard raised repeated concerns that the Terms of Reference effectively assumed the building would be sold, without first allowing the public to explore alternatives. She noted that most town halls do not work under a strict business model, but still hold deep community value, and warned about precedent for other County-owned halls. Maynard stated she would not support the motion as written and signaled she intended to bring forward an amendment at council.

©  Prince Edward County

Sam Grosso spoke about the symbolic and heritage importance of town halls, arguing that once sold, such assets are gone permanently. Grosso suggested greater effort could be made to promote and fund community use, rather than divesting ownership.

Chair Kate MacNaughton also expressed discomfort with what she described as a predetermined outcome. MacNaughton said she would prefer to see public consultation occur first, before forming a working group tied to a potential sale, and questioned whether alternative spaces in Wellington truly compare to the Town Hall.

Staff clarifications shaped the vote

Director Lisa Lindsay and Chief Administrative Officer Marcia Wallace repeatedly clarified that staff’s recommendation was a sale-oriented EOI, not general consultation on whether to keep the building. Wallace stressed that council retained the ability to amend direction, but the report before them focused on shaping a sale outcome rather than delaying decisions.

Fire and building officials confirmed that commercial food service, accessibility upgrades, and structural repairs would significantly increase costs if the County retained ownership.

When the recorded vote was called, the motion to approve the Wellington Town Hall Expression of Interest Working Group, its Terms of Reference, and to rescind By-law 4408-2019 carried 9–2.

Voting in favour were Mayor Steve Ferguson, Phil St-Jean, Phil Prinzen, Sam Branderhorst, Corey Engelsdorfer, David Harrison, Roy Pennell, and Sam Grosso. Voting against were Janice Maynard and Kate MacNaughton.

What it means for the residents

The County is formally moving toward a sale-focused process, with consultation centered on shaping an Expression of Interest, not on deciding whether the building should remain public.

The next stage shifts to full council, where amendments are still possible. For locals, the immediate impact is uncertainty: community use is not guaranteed, but neither is a simple sale to the highest bidder. The outcome will depend on who comes forward through the EOI, what conditions council ultimately sets, and whether councillors revisit public consultation before final decisions are made.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:33:12. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.