Part 2: Council Divisions on Housing, Governance, and Road Work — 05/26/2026
- PECConnect
- May 26
- 5 min read
The May 26, 2026 council meeting was not just about reports and presentations. It also revealed where councillors stood on several major local issues, especially around housing, infrastructure, governance, and provincial influence over municipal decisions.
As the meeting moved through the evening, voting patterns and comments from councillors painted a clearer picture of the priorities and concerns shaping the County right now.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Child Welfare Concerns Drew Broad Support
The strongest unified response of the night came after the presentation from Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society Executive Director Jess Sundberg.
Several councillors openly acknowledged the growing pressures facing families and social services in the county.
Councillor Sam Grosso asked what municipalities could realistically do to help support Children’s Aid and improve local advocacy efforts.
Councillor Kate MacNaughton focused heavily on poverty-related issues, asking whether families are still at risk of losing children due to economic hardship and lack of stable housing. He also connected the discussion to broader county policies around water disconnections and affordability.
Councillor Janice Maynard questioned how closely the agency works with local housing and social service providers, including Hastings and Prince Edward social housing systems.
Councillor Roy Pennell, drawing on decades of personal involvement with foster care and group homes, spoke emotionally about the importance of helping vulnerable children build practical life skills.
The discussion showed a fairly strong consensus around the idea that housing, mental health, and poverty are becoming increasingly tied to child welfare issues in PEC.
Housing Projects Sparked Tougher Questions
The proposed Cosmopolitan Homes development at Folkard Lane produced a much more divided discussion.
The developers argued they are ready to build quickly if council reserves water and wastewater servicing capacity for their 111-unit townhouse project.
But several councillors raised concerns about timing and accountability.
Councillor Roy Pennell questioned whether the company could realistically build enough homes quickly enough to justify locking up servicing allocation during an uncertain housing market.
Councillor David Harrison pushed for safeguards that would return unused servicing capacity to the county if construction stalls or sales fail to materialize.
The developers agreed they would accept timelines and accountability conditions if capacity were reserved.
Councillor Phil Prinzen appeared more open to helping move the project forward, suggesting council explore ways to give the developers some assurance while still protecting county interests.
Meanwhile, Councillor Janice Maynard pressed the developers on the difference between “attainable” housing and officially recognized “affordable” housing, highlighting an issue council continues to wrestle with as more projects come forward.
The Nicholas Street affordable housing project created another round of debate later in the evening.
Developer Alan Hirschfield narrowed his request to relief from wastewater connection charges for affordable rental units only. But several residents speaking during public comments questioned why taxpayers should subsidize a private development that reduced its original affordable housing commitment.
Council did not approve the request immediately. Instead, councillors voted to send the matter back to staff for further review.
County Road 49 Finally Gets Green Light
One of the clearest moments of agreement came with the approval of the County Road 49 rehabilitation contract.
After years of deteriorating pavement, safety complaints, and political pressure, council unanimously approved the construction tender.
Still, councillors raised concerns about how construction itself could impact the county.
Councillor Phil St-Jean asked whether turning lanes near industrial traffic areas should be added during reconstruction and questioned how Picton Terminals’ future road access plans might affect the project.
Councillor Bill Roberts warned that heavy traffic detouring around construction could badly damage County Road 15 if mitigation plans are not carefully managed.
Councillor Roy Pennell focused heavily on winter safety concerns around the Skyway Bridge and asked staff whether enough precautions were being taken to prevent accidents during construction phases.
Staff repeatedly emphasized that traffic management and communication planning would be a major priority throughout the multi-year project.
Governance and Democracy Became a Major Flashpoint
The most politically charged debate of the evening centered on a motion from Councillor Kate MacNaughton criticizing Ontario’s Better Municipal Governance Act.
The motion argued that the province’s expanding powers over municipalities threaten local democracy and could eventually allow unelected municipal leaders to gain significant authority.
Several councillors strongly backed the motion.
Councillor David Harrison said he believes local democratic representation has steadily weakened over the years and argued municipalities need to push back before provincial control expands even further.
Councillor Sam Branderhorst said provincial funding should not be viewed as a favor to municipalities, arguing that upper levels of government have a responsibility to support communities properly.
But others expressed caution.
Councillor Bill Roberts warned that the wording of the motion could damage the county’s relationship with Queen’s Park at a time when provincial funding remains critical for infrastructure and local services.
Mayor Steve Ferguson shared similar concerns, saying PEC has built strong relationships with provincial officials that have helped secure major funding commitments in recent years.
Despite those concerns, the motion still passed in an 11-1 recorded vote, showing strong support around the council table for defending municipal independence.
What This Means for Locals
The meeting highlighted several issues that are likely to shape local politics over the next few years.
Housing remains one of the county’s biggest balancing acts. Council is trying to encourage development while also protecting limited water and wastewater capacity and managing concerns about affordability.
Infrastructure spending is accelerating quickly. The County Road 49 project alone will reshape traffic patterns, tourism travel, and road conditions for several years.
At the same time, social pressures linked to housing affordability, mental health, and poverty are becoming impossible for local government to ignore. The Children’s Aid presentation made it clear that those challenges are already affecting families across the region.
Finally, council is increasingly signaling frustration with provincial control over municipal decision-making. That tension could become even more important if future provincial reforms continue to centralize authority away from local councils.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:38:20. 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