Part 2: Climate, Wellington Manor Relief, and Transit Strategy 2028 – 02/12/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 12
- 6 min read
Updated: May 8
Councillor Brad Nieman (Chair) opened the meeting and immediately called on Mayor Steve Ferguson for opening remarks. Ferguson spoke about the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, noted that the County lowered flags, and led a minute of silence before the meeting continued.
When it came time to lock in the day’s work, Councillor Phil Prinzen moved the motion to confirm the agenda, with St-Jean named as seconder. The Chair called the vote and it carried.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Climate Action Plan Final Report and baseline emissions
Angus Ross (Vice Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee; Chair, Climate Action Plan Working Group) and Don Wilford (Vice Chair, Working Group) delivered the presentation on the Climate Action Plan Final Report.
They talked about what they see as the big risks and pressures ahead, including drought, heat, and the insurance landscape shifting toward hazard mapping and higher costs. They also walked Council through where the County’s emissions are coming from, and why buildings, transportation, and agriculture were treated as the major pieces.
Albert Paschkowiak, Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor commented on the amount of work behind the report and why the baseline matters. His question was direct: what was the biggest surprise in the data, specifically what they could not find. Ross answered that the major gap was fuel sales data, including what visitors buy locally, and why that matters for understanding transportation emissions.
Mayor Steve Ferguson praised the report and asked about consumer costs, like the buy-in costs for heat pumps and EVs. The presenters said they intentionally stayed away from a cost-benefit analysis and focused on energy use and emissions.
Councillor Brad Nieman thanked the presenters and said the facts and data changed some of his own assumptions. He also asked about Heidelberg and the scale of emissions. In that discussion, Ross spoke about Heidelberg examples in Europe and said they were in contact about lower-carbon fuel options.
Ferguson and St-Jean both emphasized interest in public education as part of climate work, including practical information for residents on heat pumps, geothermal, and where to find grants or low-interest financing.
At the end of the climate presentation, Ferguson was named as mover and Councillor Hirsch was named as seconder for receiving the presentation. The Chair called the vote and it carried.
Wellington Manor tax waiver request and the decision to pause
Linda Conley (Wellington Legion Manor Corporation) deputed to request that Council designate Wellington Manor as a municipal capital housing facility and waive the property tax bill to reduce operating pressure and help keep rents affordable. She spoke about rising costs, the building’s role as supportive seniors housing, and the challenge of keeping deeply affordable rents in place while expenses grow.
Councillor Nieman asked about subsidized units and how Pellis fits into the picture. Conley explained what she understood about subsidies, including that some subsidies are effectively covered by the rent paid by other tenants, and that past arrangements with Pellis changed over time.
Once the staff report came forward on the municipal capital facilities agreement, Nieman raised an alternative direction. He said he supports preserving deeply affordable seniors housing, but also wanted staff to look at financial relief options within the existing municipal grant framework before committing to the full tax exemption approach.
Albert Paschkowiak asked about the practical difference between the tax waiver request and what could exist through other relief mechanisms, especially with hydro costs climbing.
The CAO (Adam) explained that the existing municipal financial relief grant program is currently structured around low-income households and tax or water/wastewater grants, and it does not currently cover renter situations in the same way. He said staff were already working on improvements to the program and planned to return in Q2, and that this situation could potentially dovetail with that work.
Councillor Janice Maynard pointed out related work being discussed through the Community Safety and Wellbeing stream, including the challenge of helping people when water is included in rent. She also clarified procedural wording in the discussion, with staff confirming the approach would be a deferral process rather than blending both into one motion on the spot.
There was also a specific thread about involving Pellis directly. St-Jean said Pellis should be at the table, and staff indicated that direction could be captured clearly in the minutes.
Councillor Engelsdorfer and Ferguson moved and seconded the motion to receive Conley’s deputation. The vote was called and it carried.
After that, Nieman put forward the direction for staff to explore financial relief options for seniors affordable housing within the existing municipal financial relief grant program and report back in early Q2 2026. The Chair called the vote and it carried.
With that direction in place, the Committee then moved to defer the main Wellington Manor capital facilities motion so it could line up with the broader relief program review. The Chair called the vote and it carried.
Transit Strategy 2028 and funding mechanics
Vincent Detournet (Transit Coordinator) explained staff were asking Council to endorse the overall direction of the County Transit Strategy 2028, but that implementation would be more gradual than the report’s original timeline. He said endorsement would not commit new funding that day, but it would allow staff to apply for external funding and bring future service expansion decisions back to Council.
Councillor Hirsch asked about what external funding might look like and its scale. Julianne Snepts (Programs Supervisor) answered, pointing to the Ontario Transit Improvement Fund (OTIF), its focus on regional collaboration, and the reality that grants require a municipal match that increases over time.
Councillor Janice Maynard pushed back on endorsing service recommendations without a more detailed long-term financial analysis. She also flagged the issue of fairness in a large rural municipality where transit serves only part of the geography. She asked about employer contributions, given transit’s role in helping workers get to jobs.
Detournet responded that rural transit will always have physical limits across a 1,000 km² area, but noted that businesses did help support the summer connector service, including funding contributed alongside municipal support.
Councillor Nieman spoke in support of moving forward, saying the County already accepts that services are not identical everywhere, and that a plan is often a basic requirement for grant success. Ferguson also supported moving forward, repeating his understanding that staff would return with cost implications when needed.
Hirsch added that endorsing a strategy helps staff know where to go, and spoke about upcoming and planned housing developments that could increase demand among residents more likely to use transit.
Maynard put forward an amendment to make the endorsement subject to future funding. Councillor Engelsdorfer seconded it. The Chair called the vote and stated the amendment failed.
The Chair then called the vote on the main motion, and it carried.
There was also a detailed discussion about grant-funded buses and what happens if the service agreement with Quinte Transit ends in the future. Snepts explained that the federal government wanted the grant relationship tied to the asset owner, so ownership and purchase would sit with Quinte Transit, with terms being clarified by amendment. She described options being discussed, including buses returning to the County at a nominal cost, being retained by Quinte Transit at book value, or being sold with revenues returning to the County. Councillor asked when Council would see the agreement, and Snepts said it would come back by by-law before the end of March.
What this means for the locals
For County-wide climate planning, the main takeaway is that Ross and Wilford gave Council a baseline and a set of practical tools they said the municipality can influence, like embedding a climate lens into staff reports and strengthening Official Plan language. That does not change anything overnight, but it shapes what future reports, plans, and development conversations look like.
For Wellington, the Wellington Manor decision did not end with an immediate tax waiver. Nieman steered it toward a pause and a bigger look at how the County can support low-income seniors and renters through broader financial relief options. That means residents who care about Manor affordability will be watching what comes back in early Q2 2026, and what role Pellis plays when it comes to subsidies and coordination.
For Picton, Bloomfield, and anyone relying on connections to Belleville, Transit Strategy 2028 moved forward because a majority of Committee supported endorsement now, even with funding and costing questions still in the background.
Maynard raised the clearest caution on long-term financial exposure, but the Committee still carried the main motion. Locally, that keeps momentum going on transit planning, grant applications, and the behind-the-scenes work around vehicles and agreements that staff said will return to Council before the end of March.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:00:10. 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.
Comments