Part 2: Split Votes on AMP and Ballot Question Highlight Divisions – 02/24/2026

Following the broader discussions with regards to the Regular meeting on February 24, 2026 at Shire Hall, several key votes shaped how this meeting will affect residents across the County. Here is a closer look at who voted which way, and where Council was divided.

Volunteer Firefighter Negotiations

Coming out of closed session, Council approved the terms of reference for a negotiating working group with the Volunteer Firefighters Association. The motion carried without opposition.

Council then appointed two members to sit on that working group. Councillor Janice Maynard and Councillor Nieman agreed to let their names stand and were acclaimed after other nominees declined. There was no recorded opposition to those appointments. This portion of the meeting showed full alignment around moving firefighter negotiations forward.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Housing and Homelessness Update

The housing update itself was received for information and did not face a split vote.

During discussion, Councillor Bill Roberts spoke about the broader issue of wealth inequality and whether municipalities are being left to manage the consequences of senior government policy decisions. Councillor Jane McNaughton supported stronger advocacy efforts, particularly through regional bodies like the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus. Other members echoed the need for sustained provincial and federal engagement.

There was no formal division at the vote stage, but the discussion made it clear that housing remains one of the County’s most urgent long-term pressures.

Administrative Monetary Penalties By-law Update

This was the most divided vote of the evening.

When Council voted on updates to the Administrative Monetary Penalties system, the motion passed 8 to 6. Voting in favour were Mayor Steve Ferguson, Councillor Roberts, St. Jean, McNaughton, Maynard, Nieman, Grosso, and Engelsdorfer.

Voting opposed were Councillor Braney, Pennell, Harrison, Hirsch, Prinzen, along with one additional opposing vote recorded during roll call.

Those in favour emphasized improving fairness and clarifying appeal rights before the busy enforcement season begins. Those opposed raised concerns about cost analysis, timing, and adding procedural changes while broader service reviews are underway.

2026 Ballot Question By-law

Council also held a recorded vote on the by-law to place a question on the ballot for the October 26, 2026 municipal election. The by-law carried 10 to 4.

Voting in favour were Mayor Steve Ferguson, Councillor Roberts, St. Jean, Nieman, Grosso, Engelsdorfer, McNaughton, Maynard, Prinzen, and Braney.

Voting opposed were Councillor Pennell, Harrison, Hirsch, and one additional opposing vote recorded during roll call.

Members who opposed the by-law expressed concern that a ballot question tied to council size and ward structure could cause confusion or division. Those in favour argued that putting the question directly to voters allows residents to decide the issue themselves.

Open Air Burning By-law Amendment

The amendment correcting the burn permit fee from $20 to $25 passed without notable opposition.

There was also discussion about fireworks during full burn bans. While no amendment was made at this meeting, staff indicated that the issue may return as part of a broader review of fire-related by-laws.

What This Means for the Locals

For residents, the practical impacts are fairly direct. If you receive a parking or short-term accommodation penalty, the appeals process will now include clearer notice procedures and an option to reopen a hearing in certain limited circumstances. That change directly affects anyone navigating enforcement under those by-laws.

Housing pressures remain a central issue. While no new funding was approved at this meeting, Council signaled continued advocacy to senior governments. For residents waiting on housing supports, this confirms the issue remains active but constrained by funding structures beyond the County’s control.

Voters can also expect to see a formal question on the 2026 municipal ballot. That means residents will have a direct say on at least one structural governance issue during the next election cycle.

Finally, volunteer firefighter negotiations are now formally underway. That process affects emergency service stability across the County.

Overall, this meeting showed clear agreement on the seriousness of housing challenges, but noticeable division on administrative processes and governance changes. The effects of those votes will become more visible as enforcement season begins and preparations for the 2026 election continue.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:04:043 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.