Part 2: Affordable Housing Decisions, American Eel Debate, and Local Access – 03/26/2024
- PECConnect
- Mar 26, 2024
- 4 min read
The County Council’s March 26, 2024 meeting moved beyond policy into clear positions, especially on affordable housing, environmental advocacy, and how public spaces are used. This section focuses on who said what, how councillors voted, and where disagreements surfaced, drawing directly from the meeting transcript and official minutes.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Affordable housing: clear divisions, recorded votes
The most consequential debate centred on the proposal to provide a $5 million municipal construction loan to the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation, tied to the Niles Street (Wellington) and Disraeli Street (Picton) projects.
Public comments raised early caution. Speakers questioned the County’s role as a lender, the size of the loan, repayment certainty, and whether council was stepping into unfamiliar financial territory. These concerns echoed later among councillors.
During council debate, Phil St-Jean and Brad Nieman, both serving on the Housing Corporation board, repeatedly emphasized urgency. St-Jean described years of stalled progress and argued the loan was the only viable path left after failed senior government funding attempts. Nieman stressed that without upfront funding, neither project could reach the stage needed to unlock long-term financing.
Skepticism came most clearly from Chris Braney, who introduced an amendment to defer the loan decision to explore other options. Corey Engelsdorfer seconded the motion, citing interest from private developers and concern about escalating costs. Sam Branderhorst and Phil Prinzen also voiced unease, questioning whether the County was taking on too much risk too quickly.
Council rejected the deferral on a recorded vote, defeating it 9–5. Voting in favour of deferral were Braney, Engelsdorfer, Prinzen, Roy Pennell, and David Harrison. Voting against deferral were Mayor Steve Ferguson, St-Jean, Nieman, Branderhorst, Kate MacNaughton, Sam Grosso, John Hirsch, Janice Maynard, and Roberts.
Council then voted on the main motion, approving the loan and related bylaw 9–5. The voting split mirrored the amendment vote, confirming a majority willing to proceed despite acknowledged risk.
American Eel: science, process, and pause
Environmental advocacy surfaced through multiple voices on the American Eel. Amy Bodman, speaking for Rick Beaver, an Alderville First Nation elder and biologist, urged council to support adding the species to Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act. Later, commercial fisher Kendall Dewey described eel population collapse linked to dams, turbines, and harvesting pressures.
Council questions came from St-Jean, Branderhorst, Roberts, and Harrison, focusing on jurisdiction, consultation gaps, and whether commercial fishers had been adequately engaged. While council initially received the deputation, Harrison later brought forward a motion to defer Environmental Advisory Committee comments on the eel listing to allow time for consultation with the Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association.
That deferral passed, pushing a final council position to the April 9 meeting, while still acknowledging the scientific concerns raised.
Council expenses: rare consensus through subtraction
A quieter but notable moment came during debate on updates to Policy CLS-08, Council Remuneration and Expense Policy. When discussion reached a proposed clause allowing memorial donations and flowers as an eligible expense, discomfort was immediate.
Branderhorst raised concerns about fairness, optics, and potential misuse. St-Jean agreed, stating he preferred such gestures remain personal rather than funded through council policy. With little opposition, council removed the clause before approving the rest of the policy updates.
Accessibility: unanimous support
Council spoke with one voice on accessibility. A resolution advanced by MacNaughton and Pennell called on the province to create a Municipal Accessibility Fund and act on recommendations from the Donovan Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
Several councillors praised the work of Irene Harris, chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, and highlighted the gap between provincial standards and municipal funding. The resolution passed unanimously, with no recorded opposition.
Boat launches and local access
Debate resurfaced around boat launch parking, led by Branderhorst, who sought guaranteed free parking spaces for residents using launch areas as informal waterfront access points. Concerns were raised by St-Jean and Engelsdorfer about enforcement, fairness, and impacts at busier launches like Wellington.
Council ultimately approved a temporary, discretionary approach, directing staff to identify two free spaces where space permits, install signage, and collect usage data ahead of a broader review.
What this means locally
Council’s housing vote directly affects when long-planned projects may finally move off paper and toward construction. The decision signals a willingness to use municipal financing to address housing shortages, even as risks remain debated.
The boat launch parking decision acknowledges long-standing informal use of waterfront spaces and attempts to make access more consistent across wards.
Council’s actions show a clear pattern: when outside funding stalls, council is increasingly prepared to act locally, even when the votes are close and the debates are uncomfortable.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:03:44. 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