Part 2: Long-Term Care Costs, Deficit & Financial Planning - 03/25/2026

The conversation at the Audit Committee on March 25, 2026 shifted into a more detailed back-and-forth between councillors and staff. This is where the tone became more practical, with members asking direct questions about what went wrong, what is changing, and how the County plans to respond.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Long-Term Care Costs and Budget Gaps

A large portion of the discussion focused on the financial pressures coming from H.J. McFarland long-term care home. Councillor Kate MacNaughton (Picton) pressed staff on how the situation developed, particularly around the provincial funding clawback and the use of temporary agency staff.

Staff explained that the clawback was tied to COVID-era funding and occupancy requirements, while the staffing issue was partly due to an underestimation in the original budget. This led to higher reliance on contract workers, which significantly increased costs.

Reta Coburn followed up by connecting the numbers more directly, noting that most of the overrun appeared to be tied to staffing rather than other operational costs. Staff confirmed this, explaining that purchased services, which include agency staffing, were the main driver.

Chief Administrative Officer Adam Goheen added that once the issue became clear, staff went to Council to approve additional permanent positions. The goal was to replace high-cost agency staff with full-time employees, which is expected to stabilize costs moving forward.

Treasurer Arryn McNichol  also clarified that improvements are already underway, including better coordination between long-term care and finance staff to monitor occupancy levels and avoid future funding clawbacks.

Financial Reporting and Transparency

The conversation then shifted toward how financial issues are identified and reported. Reta Coburn raised concerns about timing, pointing out that financial updates often arrive too late for meaningful action.

Staff confirmed that this is being addressed through more frequent reporting. Departments will now present financial updates to Council twice a year, rather than once, allowing earlier visibility into potential issues.

Councillor MacNaughton supported this direction but emphasized the importance of clarity. She noted that financial reports can be difficult to interpret and suggested that clearer explanations and better formatting would help both Council and the public understand what is happening.

CAO Adam Goheen responded by outlining plans to improve communication, including the eventual use of dashboards that present financial data in a simpler and more accessible way. The intent is to make information easier to understand without requiring a technical background.

Reserves, Debt, and Long-Term Planning

As the discussion broadened, attention turned to the County’s overall financial position. Councillor John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) raised concerns about the lack of reserves, pointing out that the County does not currently have enough savings to cover unexpected costs.

Hirsch also noted that these discussions often do not get enough attention at the Council level, even though they have long-term consequences. He indicated that he plans to bring this issue forward again when the committee’s report reaches Council.

Councillor MacNaughton introduced a motion calling for a deeper review of the County’s debt profile and financial vulnerability. She argued that having clearer data and comparisons to other municipalities would help guide better decision-making.

Mark Kaplan acknowledged the importance of the information but raised concerns about staff workload. Treasurer Arryn responded by explaining that while resources are limited, much of the requested information is already available and could be compiled into a report for a future meeting.

The motion was ultimately supported, with members agreeing that even partial progress would be valuable given the County’s current financial pressures.

Tax Levels and Local Economic Reality

Toward the end of the discussion, the conversation turned to taxation and how it compares to other municipalities.

Councillor MacNaughton noted that, based on available data, the County’s property taxes are slightly below the median for similar municipalities. This suggests that, on paper, there may be room to increase revenues if needed.

However, Councillor Brad Nieman (Bloomfield/Hallowell) pushed back on that idea, pointing out that local economic conditions are very different from larger or more industrialized areas. He emphasized that many residents rely on multiple part-time jobs or commute outside the County for work, which limits their ability to absorb higher taxes.

Treasurer Arryn supported this point by explaining that the County’s tax base is heavily residential, with fewer commercial and industrial sources to offset the burden. This creates a different financial dynamic compared to municipalities along major economic corridors.

What This Means for Locals

This meeting made it clear that the County is dealing with both short-term financial strain and longer-term structural challenges, and both will likely shape decisions in the near future.

The immediate issue is the 2025 deficit, which will need to be addressed through future budgets since there are not enough reserves to absorb it. That means residents could see financial impacts over the next few years as the County works to close that gap.

At the same time, the shift toward more frequent reporting and better coordination should help reduce the risk of similar surprises. Residents may not see these changes directly, but they are meant to improve how quickly problems are identified and addressed.

The bigger picture is about financial stability. With low reserves and a limited tax base, the County has less flexibility than many of its peers. That means future decisions around spending, staffing, and possibly taxation will need to be more deliberate and more closely tied to long-term planning.

For residents, this likely translates into a period where the County is balancing competing pressures, maintaining services, improving financial health, and responding to the realities of the local economy.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:50:54. 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.