Part 2: Rate Strategy, Affordability & Next Steps - 04/02/2026

After the broader discussion around shifting to a one-year rate plan, the conversation turned more specific, with committee members weighing in on how that approach should actually work.

Early on, Councillor Phil St.-Jean focused on understanding the practical impact of the proposal. He asked whether the County would simply carry forward the existing rate structure for a year or make adjustments.

In response, Director of Finance & Information Technology Arryn McNichol made it clear that holding rates completely flat was not realistic. He explained that some form of indexing or modest increase would likely be needed to keep up with inflation and avoid drawing down reserves.

St-Jean supported that direction, agreeing that indexing made sense given rising costs. His questions helped confirm that the one-year approach is not about freezing rates, but about keeping things stable while better data is gathered.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Affordability Concerns Raised

The discussion shifted when Bob Cooke raised a separate but related issue around affordability.

Cooke pointed out that the County’s bill relief program has not been updated in years and no longer reflects current income realities. He emphasized that the threshold to qualify is too high, meaning some residents who need help may not be eligible.

He also framed the cost of expanding the program as relatively small compared to total water revenue, suggesting that updating it would not place a significant financial burden on the system.

Cooke pushed for the issue to be addressed alongside rate decisions, arguing that increases and relief should be considered together so the system stays balanced.

In response, Arryn McNichol acknowledged the concern and confirmed that a review is already in progress through a separate pilot project on financial relief.

However, Councillor Janice Maynard clarified that the relief program operates as a social support system, separate from how water rates are set. She explained that it has its own eligibility rules and funding considerations, and cannot easily be adjusted within this committee’s scope.

While there was no formal decision on the relief program during this meeting, the exchange made it clear that affordability remains part of the broader conversation.

How the Rate Increase Might Be Set

Later in the discussion, Janice Maynard pressed further on how the County would determine the actual increase under the one-year plan.

She asked whether something like the Consumer Price Index would be used and noted that residents will want a clear explanation of how any increase is calculated.

McNichols outlined several options that staff are considering. These include standard CPI for operating costs, a construction-related index for capital expenses, or another benchmark developed internally. He emphasized that no final decision has been made and that staff will bring forward options for the committee to review.

Maynard also suggested that known cost increases from external suppliers, such as water purchased from neighbouring municipalities, could help guide the decision and make it easier for the public to understand.

Broader Issues Still on the Table

© Ontario Parks

As the meeting moved toward its later stages, members began looking ahead at what still needs attention before the committee wraps up its current term.

Bob Cooke highlighted two areas he wants to see addressed. First, he asked for an update on Pete’s Point infrastructure planning, noting that earlier studies outlined a path forward but there has been little recent communication.

Second, he raised concerns about the lack of public communication around the shift to a one-year rate plan. From his perspective, residents who are not closely following council meetings may not be aware of the change in direction.

The chair acknowledged these concerns and suggested that both communication planning and the Pete’s Point issue could be discussed at a future meeting, likely in July.

At the same time, Councillor Phil St-Jean brought forward another topic that has been circulating in the community: the possibility of a Municipal Services Corporation model for water and wastewater services.

St-Jean noted that while the idea has potential benefits, it also comes with risks and unanswered questions. He encouraged at least an initial discussion so the committee and the public can better understand whether it is a viable option for the County.

McNichols confirmed that staff have begun exploring the concept through seminars and could bring forward a report for discussion at a future meeting.

Final Vote and Direction

When it came time to vote, the committee moved forward with the recommendation.

The motion to adopt the one-year water and wastewater rate approach and defer the full study to a later date was carried with all members in favour.

This means staff will now return in May with a draft bylaw and proposed rate adjustment for further review before going to Council.

What This Means for Locals

For residents, the biggest takeaway is that there will be no major overhaul of water rates in 2026, but there will likely still be a small increase tied to inflation or operating costs.

The County is choosing to pause and gather better data before making long-term decisions. That reduces the risk of setting rates too high or too low based on incomplete information.

At the same time, affordability concerns are clearly on the radar. While the relief program was not changed at this meeting, it is being reviewed separately, which could lead to adjustments in who qualifies for support.

Looking ahead, residents can expect more clarity in May when the draft rate bylaw is presented. That will be the point where the actual numbers and rationale become clearer.

Beyond that, larger questions about infrastructure planning, communication, and even how water services are delivered in the future are still in play. Those decisions will shape not just what residents pay, but how the system operates for years to come.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 24:45. 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.