PART 1: Council Sets Asset Service Levels, Confronts Long-Term Funding Gap - 08/28/2025

This special Committee of the Whole meeting followed a full-day working session and was entirely focused on asset management and how the County pays for what it already owns. By the time Council reconvened, everyone was clearly tired, but the discussion was substantive and consequential.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue for speaker comments and councillor votes>

The meeting was chaired by Councillor Phil St-Jean, with Mayor Steve Ferguson and the full Council present. There were no public comments, and no declarations of pecuniary interest. The single agenda item was FINN-12-2025, a report from Finance and IT on establishing levels of service for municipal asset classes.

Staff, led by Peter, walked Council through the financial reality behind roads, bridges, buildings, fleets, parks, and equipment. The key takeaway was blunt. At the baseline level of service, the County needs about $36.4 million per year to properly maintain its tax-supported assets. The current budget only provides about $11.5 million, leaving an annual funding gap of roughly $24.9 million.

Peter translated this gap into household terms. Closing it all at once would mean a 46 percent tax increase, or about $1,600 per year on a typical home. No one suggested doing that. Instead, staff proposed a 10-year phased approach, which would require average annual tax levy increases of about 7.3 to 7.4 percent, translating to roughly 5.4 to 5.5 percent on individual tax bills once assessment growth is factored in.

Council was repeatedly reminded that this is not about setting tax rates today. It is about setting service levels, which then define the capital funding envelope that future budgets must work within.

The heart of the meeting came when Council went asset class by asset class, deciding whether to accept staff’s proposed service level or choose a reduced option where available. These decisions were made through a long series of amendments to the main motion.

For bridges, staff recommended a single option. Maintaining all bridges at a Bridge Condition Index of 70 or better. There was no opposition, and the recommendation stood.

For roads, the most contentious category, Council debated between a high service option targeting a PCI of 83 and a lower option around 68. After discussion and some procedural confusion, Councillor Janice Maynard moved an amendment to adopt Option 1, the higher road service level. That amendment passed, committing the County to a higher long-term investment in roads.

For the corporate fleet, staff presented two options. Option 1 maintained current replacement cycles, while Option 2 extended fleet life cycles by 25 percent. A motion to choose the higher option failed, and a subsequent motion to adopt Option 2 passed, signaling a willingness to stretch vehicle lifespans to control costs.

The fire fleet was left unchanged, with Council agreeing to maintain the existing service model for approximately two years while a Community Risk Assessment and Fire Master Plan are updated.

For facilities, discussion turned to long-standing frustration about surplus buildings that have been identified but not sold. Staff framed the facilities numbers as a placeholder, acknowledging that divestment, consolidation, or demolition could change the picture later. After some back-and-forth, Council ultimately adopted Option 2, which assumes a 25 percent reduction in priority buildings over time.

For equipment, there was no alternative presented, and Council accepted the staff recommendation to maintain all equipment in fair condition or better.

For parks and recreation, Council adopted Option 1, maintaining 100 percent of parks assets in fair or better condition. The financial difference between options here was relatively small, roughly $75,000, and there was little resistance.

Once all amendments were settled, the main motion as amended passed, directing staff to incorporate these service levels into the County’s asset management plan and reflect the financial impacts in the 2026 budget process. The plan will return to Council for final approval on September 25, 2025.

The meeting adjourned at 4:02 pm.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:30:053. 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.