Part 2: Septic Rules, Youth Funding, Fire Fleet Decisions, and Relief Program Changes – 11/16/2023

The Committee of the Whole meeting on November 16, 2023 was chaired by Councillor Sam Grosso (Ameliasburgh), with Mayor Steve Ferguson in attendance. The meeting recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:14 p.m., at which point Nieman was not present. The agenda was confirmed through a motion moved by Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh) and seconded by Sam Branderhorst (Athol), and it carried.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Septic System Discussion

The meeting’s most personal and place-specific exchange began with a deputation from Wendy Russell, speaking about septic requirements tied to her property on Bloomfield Main Street and the financial consequences she said resulted from delays and unclear standards.

During questions, Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) asked whether Russell’s professional engineer had encountered a similar situation before. Phil St.-Jean (Picton) asked whether anyone was currently living in the home and confirmed the purchase timeline and the fact it remained uninhabitable during construction.

On the procedural side, the deputation was formally received through a motion moved by Brad Nieman (Bloomfield-Hallowell) and seconded by Bill Roberts, and it carried.

The septic issue then reappeared later under the Development Services report on criteria for on-site sewage disposal systems, where the conversation became more technical and more explicitly tied to how County rules affect real properties.

In that discussion, Phil St.-Jean returned to the fairness question, pointing to how two nearby sites appeared to face different outcomes. Staff responses came from Scott Pordham, Policy Coordinator, and Aynsley Osborne, Development Coordinator, who explained that lot size, the number of units, site conditions, and what the hydrogeological work identifies can change the required solution. Osborne specifically contrasted the Bloomfield case with another nearby site, saying the smaller lot and different environmental conditions drove a different septic approach. The motion to receive the Development Services report for information was moved by Phil St.-Jean and seconded by Corey Engelsdorfer (Wellington), and it carried.

A notable follow-through moment came when Sam Branderhorst, speaking as Chair during the septic report portion, answered a question that St.-Jean had raised earlier about property taxes on an uninhabitable dwelling. Branderhorst explained there is a mechanism involving an MPAC process and a form submitted through the tax office, with any approved rebate returning to Council for approval.

Youth Support Funding

Hilary Fennell, presenting on behalf of The ROC Youth Services, asked Council to consider stable, annualized municipal funding, framed as $90,000 annually for the remainder of the term of Council.

Supportive statements came clearly from Bill Roberts, who spoke about The ROC as more than a hangout and described it as a place that helps young people with safety, food, and guidance. Phil St.-Jean echoed support, emphasizing that budget deliberations are where the deeper funding conversation belongs, and encouraged Council to move the request forward to that stage. Chris Braney also said he expected to support the request at budget.

Questions and clarifications came from Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh), who asked whether the request was for one year or the rest of the term, and later asked whether the funding would allow expansion into rural areas of the County. St-Jean asked how the funding would be spent and pressed for clarity on staffing cost proportions.

The combined motion to receive the deputation and direct that The ROC request be considered in the 2024 budget was moved by Bill Roberts and seconded by John Hirsch (South Marysburgh), and it carried.

Financial Empowerment Support

The deputation from the Prince Edward Learning Centre featured Kathy Kennedy, Tammy Harvey, Cameron Bedford, and Joanne Munro-Cape, presenting the Financial Empowerment Program and the scale of benefits residents can access through tax filing and navigation support.

During questions, Bill Roberts raised the idea of social prescribing and asked whether it had come to the Learning Centre’s attention. Kate MacNaughton spoke strongly about the importance of wraparound support and indicated she wanted to move the motion when the time came. Roy Pennell acknowledged the value of the work but also flagged the reality of budget pressures and the fact that Council would be facing difficult choices.

The motion to receive the deputation and consider $80,000 annually for the remainder of the term of Council in the 2024 budget was moved by Kate MacNaughton (Picton) and seconded by Bill Roberts, and it carried.

Immediately after, during Comments from the Audience, Cameron Bedford spoke again, this time as a resident and volunteer tax preparer, describing what he had seen while helping people file returns, including very low incomes and how tax filing unlocks essential benefits. Phil St.-Jean used that moment to raise a broader education question about teaching tax filing skills in schools. The comment was received through a motion moved by Kate MacNaughton and seconded by Roy Pennell, and it carried.

Recreation Funding Context

The annual presentation from the Prince Edward Fitness and Aquatic Centre was delivered by Sue Mathieu. The questions in this segment were pointed and practical. Phil St.-Jean asked again about the long-term plan to move away from renting and toward ownership, and asked whether the landlord effectively “donates back” through below-market rent. Councillors asked about whether usage could be broken down geographically and were told that addresses do not map cleanly to wards.

Bill Roberts asked about cash on hand and how reserves relate to financial need. Janice Maynard asked about governance, how funding decisions are made, and whether youth had a seat on the board. The deputation was received through a motion moved by Sam Branderhorst and seconded by Brad Nieman, and it carried.

Financial Relief and Who Pushed for Change

The Committee then moved into the 2024 Municipal Financial Relief Grant Program, and this is where councillors most clearly signaled how they wanted staff to reshape a program before budget.

Kate MacNaughton described the program as improved year over year, but argued the next version should better reflect greatest need, including concerns about how the structure may lean toward homeowners over renters. Phil St.-Jean agreed improvements are worth pursuing but initially worried about timing and staff capacity to redesign the program quickly.

The turning point came when Sam Branderhorst, speaking as Chair, told Council that staff could bring forward an alternative approach focused on adjusting how support is calculated so that those in the lowest income ranges receive a greater benefit. A motion directing staff to explore program design to ensure the greatest benefit to those with the greatest need was moved by Kate MacNaughton and seconded by Bill Roberts, and it carried.

The main motion to receive the finance report and direct staff to bring forward the 2024 program as part of budget was moved by Phil St.-Jean and seconded by Sam Branderhorst, and it carried as amended.

Wellington, Picton, and the Fire Fleet Pressures

The final major section, and the one most likely to shape the next budget, centered on Fire Chief Chad Brown presenting the Asset Management Fire Apparatus Fleet report.

The motion to receive the report and direct staff to bring forward fleet replacements to budget was moved by Corey Engelsdorfer and seconded by Roy Pennell, and it ultimately carried, but not before an extended discussion about standards, risk, insurance, and rural service realities.

In questioning, John Hirsch pressed hardest on the relationship between Fire Underwriters Survey grading and real insurance costs, and asked whether reducing service levels could change the price tag. Brown said he could not confirm how insurers translate grading into premiums, and explained that reducing service levels would shift response toward exterior-only firefighting and could change County-wide grading outcomes.

Chris Braney framed the discussion as not overreacting to FUS pressure, but still supported the deeper look at how the County demonstrates value.

Roy Pennell raised the issue of non-accredited stations and asked about earlier station closure conversations, and Brown confirmed the broader strategic planning work had been halted after Council chose not to proceed. Pennell also raised a practical concern about water volume and apparatus capacity in remote service areas.

Janice Maynard asked whether Council could advocate to the Province or standards bodies to better reflect rural realities, and Brown responded that Council can pass resolutions, but suggested the underlying issue is tied to provincial oversight and the standards referenced.

Because the discussion went beyond the usual time limit, a motion to extend the meeting was moved by Sam Branderhorst and seconded by John Hirsch, and it carried.

The final motion on the fire report was moved by Phil St-Jean and seconded by Roy Pennell, and it carried. The meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m. through a motion moved by Sam Branderhorst and seconded by Roy Pennell, and it carried.

What it means for residents

The septic discussion is most immediately tied to Bloomfield and Hallowell where smaller lots and second units are creating higher-stakes servicing outcomes, but it also signals what property owners across the County could face as intensification increases.

The community funding motions directly affect families and youth, with the most visible service hubs in Picton and potential expansion pressures toward rural areas. The financial relief redesign matters across every ward, but especially for residents on fixed or very low incomes who are struggling with housing and basic costs.

The fire fleet debate hits differently depending on geography, with Picton and Wellington framed around tighter replacement timelines and higher call density, while outlying areas like South Marysburgh, Athol, and other rural stretches are most sensitive to response time realities and the long-running tension between service expectations, apparatus age, and what residents pay in taxes versus what they experience on the ground.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:14:11. 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.