Part 2: The Interim Water Rate Plan and Why the Committee Isn’t Finished Yet – 05/21/2026

While the May 21, 2026 Water and Wastewater Rates Community Committee meeting focused heavily on numbers and planning timelines, a large part of the discussion also revealed where committee members stand on future infrastructure planning, public oversight, and how transparent the County should be with residents moving forward. The biggest vote of the meeting came around the proposed 2027 one-year interim water and wastewater rate bylaw.

Director Aaron McNichol explained that staff were recommending a temporary 2.1 percent increase because several larger planning pieces are still incomplete. Those include the County’s long-term servicing strategy, updated growth projections, development charge studies, and underground infrastructure modeling.

Rather than commit residents to a longer five-year structure without finalized information, staff proposed a short-term holding pattern until a much larger review can happen in 2027.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Committee member Bob Cooke spent much of the discussion questioning how closely the proposed increase actually reflects real-world costs. Cooke repeatedly pushed for clarification on whether the County’s actual operating and capital increases over the last year were higher or lower than 2.1 percent.

Cooke’s concern centered around fairness for ratepayers. He explained that if actual costs were lower than the proposed increase, residents could end up paying more than necessary. McNichol responded that operating increases are likely close to CPI levels, while infrastructure and construction-related capital costs are increasing much faster. He noted that capital inflation is currently sitting above four percent in some areas.

Although Cooke questioned the math and assumptions behind the increase, he did not oppose moving the recommendation forward.

Committee member Nick raised a different concern entirely. He focused on long-term infrastructure funding and questioned how much money the County earns from infrastructure rentals such as antennas installed on municipal systems. Nick argued that this type of revenue should help offset future replacement costs so that ratepayers are not left carrying massive bills later on.

McNichol said staff did not have those numbers immediately available during the meeting but agreed to provide the information afterward.

When it came time to vote on the interim bylaw recommendation, the committee supported it unanimously.

Chair Councillor Phil St-Jean openly supported the temporary one-year approach, saying the County simply does not yet have enough certainty around growth projections, infrastructure conditions, and long-term servicing decisions to responsibly lock residents into a larger financial framework.

That discussion eventually led into another major issue during the meeting: whether the committee itself should continue to exist.

A recommendation had originally been placed on the floor suggesting the Water and Wastewater Rates Community Committee be dissolved because no further work was expected during the current Council term.

That idea quickly changed once members began discussing unfinished issues they still wanted addressed.

© Visit the County

Bob Cooke said previous conversations around communication planning had never properly returned to the committee. He also wanted more discussion around Pete’s Point and suggested the committee should review its own effectiveness before shutting down.

Cooke explained that committees asking members of the public to volunteer their time should also evaluate what worked well, what did not, and how future advisory groups could improve public engagement and discussion.

Councillor St-Jean agreed there were still unresolved topics worth discussing. He also noted interest in discussing alternative governance structures, including commission-style or municipal services corporation models.

Ray Ford strongly supported keeping discussions going beyond the current meeting cycle. Ford argued that major asset management reviews and infrastructure studies are still actively unfolding, meaning future rate decisions could change significantly depending on what those studies reveal.

Ford also suggested there should be some form of continuation into the next term of Council, even if the exact structure of the committee changes after the municipal election.

Municipal Clerk Bob Waldon clarified that any future committee would ultimately be up to the next Council after the election. However, he encouraged members to prepare recommendations, unfinished business summaries, or advisory notes that could help guide future councils or future committees.

After discussion, members agreed not to dissolve the committee yet.

Instead, the committee amended its motion and removed the clause that would have ended the group immediately. A final meeting is now expected in July, where members plan to revisit communication planning, Pete’s Point, governance structure discussions, and recommendations for future committees.

What This Means for Locals

For water and wastewater users across the County, the immediate takeaway is relatively straightforward: a modest rate increase is likely coming in 2027, but much larger financial decisions are still ahead.

The County is clearly signaling that bigger infrastructure planning decisions are being delayed until more studies and growth projections are finalized. That means future rates could still change substantially depending on what those reports uncover next year.

Residents should also expect ongoing discussion around how the County funds infrastructure replacement long term. Several committee members made it clear they are concerned about protecting ratepayers from future financial shocks tied to aging systems and rising construction costs.

The decision to keep the committee active for one more meeting also shows there are still unresolved concerns around transparency, governance, communication, and infrastructure planning that committee members do not feel are finished yet.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 22:05. 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.