Part 2: Housing Debate, Service Review Divides, and Council Alignment – 04/23/2026

Following a meeting that unpacked some topics, the second half of the April 23 Committee of the Whole focused more on how councillors reacted in real time. While no final decisions were made, the conversations revealed where different members stand and how those positions could shape what happens next.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Housing and Human Services

When the HART presentation wrapped, the tone around the table was largely supportive. Mayor Steve Ferguson spoke first, thanking staff and noting he had seen firsthand how serious the issue is. He emphasized that the problem connects directly to housing and broader community well-being.

Councillor Roy Pennell took a slightly different angle, stressing the importance of neighbours checking in on vulnerable residents and raising concerns about how hoarding could impact future affordable housing units.

Questions from Councillor Albert Paschkowiak focused more on prevention, asking whether better supports could stop people from reaching crisis points. Staff responses pointed to trauma and long-term support needs rather than quick fixes.

When the motion came forward to receive the presentation, it passed without resistance. The consensus was clear. Council sees this as important work, even if the long-term solution is still unclear.

Service Review: Agreement on the Problem

The discussion around the service delivery and organizational review brought out more variation in perspective. Councillor Roy Pennell questioned how comparable municipalities were chosen, showing concern about whether the County is being measured fairly. Staff explained that multiple municipalities were used to build a more balanced comparison.

Councillor Chris Grosso raised a more direct concern, asking how Council could justify increasing taxes when many residents, especially seniors, are already struggling. The consultants responded that the goal is not to recommend higher taxes first, but to reassess services and spending before anything else.

Councillor Janice Maynard leaned into that point, saying expectations have grown faster than what residents are willing to pay. She highlighted how difficult it is for Council to balance those two realities.

On the other side, Councillor Albert Paschkowiak pointed out that the County appears to be delivering more services than comparable municipalities with fewer resources. Consultants agreed, noting that the County is “punching above its weight.”

When asked directly whether the review would tell Council which services are essential versus optional, staff confirmed that the final report will break services into legislated, core, and discretionary categories, leaving Council to decide what to adjust. The motion to receive the report carried.

Affordable Housing: Clear Divide Around Risk and Responsibility

The most divided conversation of the day came during the Disraeli Street housing update.

Councillor Roy Pennell questioned whether rental income would fully cover long-term costs, including maintenance and operations. Staff confirmed that the project is expected to generate a surplus over time once fully operational.

Councillor Phil St. Jean defended the report, emphasizing that it was about transparency, not approval. He pointed out that all financial risks and gaps are being openly shared with Council and the public.

But Councillor Sam Harrison pushed back strongly, arguing that the financial model does not make sense and questioning why the municipality is involved in housing development at all when the private sector could take on that role.

Councillor Chris Braney echoed that concern, saying that even one major financial risk would be enough to pause the project, let alone several. He urged Council to take staff warnings seriously.

On the other side, Councillor Albert Paschkowiak argued that affordable housing rarely happens without public involvement, especially in smaller communities. He said the County has a responsibility to act, even if it is difficult.

Mayor Steve Ferguson closed the discussion by encouraging the housing board to keep moving forward, noting that funding opportunities could still emerge and that the need in the community remains urgent.

In the end, the motion to receive the report passed, but the divide was clear. Some councillors see this as necessary leadership, while others see it as financial risk.

Operations and Services: General Support Across Departments

The later department updates drew fewer disagreements and more clarification questions.

During the Corporate and Legislative Services update, Councillor Roy Pennell focused on cost efficiency, asking how much time and money new systems would save. Staff acknowledged the difficulty in quantifying it but stressed that automation would reduce manual work significantly.

On community services and transit, Councillor Janice Maynard asked whether rising ridership is making the system more financially stable. Staff explained that while revenues are improving, transit still relies on external funding and partnerships to operate.

Finally, in the water and wastewater discussion, Councillor Roy Pennell raised concerns about drought and system capacity, while Councillor Albert Paschkowiak asked about environmental impacts from recent system exceedances. Staff reassured Council that impacts were minimal and within regulatory reporting requirements. All departmental reports were received without opposition.

What This Means for the Locals

For residents across the County, this meeting shows a Council that is aligned on the challenges but still working through the solutions.

On housing, there is clear tension. Some councillors are ready to take on financial risk to create new units, while others are hesitant to commit public funds. This means progress may continue, but likely with ongoing debate at every step.

On services, the County is at a turning point. The upcoming review could lead to changes in what services are offered, how they are delivered, or how they are funded. Residents may start to see conversations about trade-offs more openly.

And on day-to-day operations, the message is steady. Core services like water, transit, and community programs are continuing, but they are being stretched by growth, seasonal demand, and limited funding.

Overall, nothing changed overnight, but the direction is becoming clearer. The County is moving toward some big decisions, and those decisions will directly shape what residents pay for, what services they receive, and how the community grows in the years ahead.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 03:09:38. 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.