Part 2: Housing Supports, Ukraine Friendship Policy, and Automated Speed Enforcement Review – 01/18/2024
- PECConnect
- Jan 18, 2024
- 5 min read
Councillor Pennell opened the meeting at Shire Hall in Picton and guided the room through the votes that would later be forwarded for final Council consideration. The agenda was confirmed through a motion moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Harrison, and it was carried.
The public comment portion centred on the Leeward House item. Jack Winberg (President, Rockport Group) spoke in support of the project and offered help and availability for questions. Council formally received the public comment through a motion moved by Mayor Steve Ferguson and seconded by Councillor Branderhorst, and it was carried.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Leeward House and Housing Supports
The Housing report was presented by Elis Ziegler (Affordable Housing Supervisor), with councillors using the Q and A to test how the program would work in real life.
Councillor St.-Jean focused on the basics residents would ask first: what the $72,000 housing support stream actually pays for, how people would find out the program exists, and how referrals would work for both the broader supports and the Leeward House beds.
Councillor Roberts raised questions about how the new program would connect with existing homelessness supports in the region, and whether the County would be helping other operations already doing similar work.
Councillor Janice Maynard pressed on risk and readiness. Her questions homed in on building condition and inspection, the way operating costs and lease responsibilities would be handled, whether zoning aligned with the intended use, and whether transportation access would be addressed so residents could actually connect to services and the community.
Councillor David Harrison asked for clear timing and impacts, including the changeover window and how many current residents would need to relocate.
Councillor John Hirsch later became a key voice on safety-zone definitions during the speed debate, but the housing discussion itself kept circling back to the same tension across the room: move fast on homelessness, but do it in a way that is defensible, consistent, and workable on day one.
When it came time to push the housing report forward, the motion was moved by Councillor Nieman and seconded by Councillor Branderhorst. The minutes show it was carried, directing the Mayor and CAO to execute two Memoranda of Understanding tied to homelessness prevention funding, and directing the CAO to enter into the lease arrangement tied to 1133 County Road 5 for the Transitional Housing Facility, identified as being in Sophiasburgh Ward.
Friendship City and Krasyliv, Ukraine: Who Asked About Costs and Commitments
The Friendship City update brought out two clear lanes of commentary: practical financial caution and broad community support.
On the caution side, Councillor Harrison asked directly what the County’s financial obligations could become over time, referencing how these relationships can evolve.
On the support side, Councillor Roberts spoke positively about the work and the County’s history of support for Ukraine. Mayor Steve Ferguson added context about the County’s prior connection and noted the Mayor of Krasyliv had visited the County in 2019. Councillor Pennell voiced support for the relationship, emphasizing moral support and future potential, while also underscoring that any future spending would still come back to council decisions.
The motion to adopt the Friendship City direction was moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Branderhorst. The minutes show it was carried, approving the proposed Friendship Policy and the Terms of Reference for the Krasyliv Friendship Working Group and directing staff to begin recruitment.
Automated Speed Enforcement: Who Wanted Guardrails, Who Wanted Coverage
The ASE discussion was introduced through a motion moved by Councillor Grosso and seconded by Councillor Engelsdorfer, and it was carried. From Councillor Braney and Harrison perspectives, the debate quickly split into “scope and fairness” versus “coverage where residents are complaining.”
Councillor Harrison raised the concern that automated enforcement could feel too blunt on rural roads where conditions vary and where officer discretion is currently part of how speeding is handled, and he asked that any future work keep the focus on school zones and built-up areas.
Councillor Hirsch pushed back on restricting it to urban areas, pointing out that community safety zones can exist outside settlement areas and that some non-urban locations would strongly welcome enforcement tools if speeding is persistent.
Councillor Maynard focused on definitions and criteria, questioning how community safety zones are set, what behaviour changes ASE actually produces given it is ticket-based without driver points, and whether the Traffic Advisory Committee would have input.
Through this section, Sam Branderhorst (Chief Administrative Officer) clarified the practical constraint that mattered most to the room: ASE can only be used in school zones or community safety zones, and community safety zones must exist through bylaw. That clarification helped explain why the vote at this stage was framed as “explore and report back,” rather than implement immediately.
How This Affects the Locals
The clearest immediate impact is the Leeward House direction tied to 1133 County Road 5, since that site is identified in the minutes as the transitional housing location, meaning nearby residents will be watching closely for how the facility operates and how the County manages transportation and on-site supports.
The housing registry and eviction-prevention support stream is positioned as a practical front door for residents struggling to find or keep rentals, and councillors from those wards focused on how people will access it and how quickly it starts.
The ASE discussion signalled a real coming conversation about where community safety zones should exist and how they are defined, since those designations determine where cameras could legally be used.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:28:40. 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