Part 2: GIS Debate, Marina Expansion Talks, and Funding Approval Direction – 02/26/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 26
- 5 min read
After the main presentations and staff reports, the tone of the February 26 Committee of the Whole meeting stayed practical. Councillors used the time the way this format is meant to be used: asking the “how would this work” questions, flagging risks, and making sure motions were clear before anything heads to a formal Council vote.
Councillor Roy Pennell (Chair) ran the meeting, reminded everyone that Committee motions are not final until the March 10, 2026 Council meeting, and kept things moving from item to item. When it came time to formally receive the GIS deputation from Kathy McMillan and Melissa Dick (Esri Canada), the motion to receive the presentation carried.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Questions about value, accuracy, and access
The biggest theme from councillors was how GIS can be useful day to day, not just as a “nice to have.”
Councillor Janice Maynard pressed for clarity on the benchmarking. She asked how PEC’s “developing” score compares to similar-sized municipalities and whether there is detail on specific GIS uses, not just a broad overall rating. She also raised two practical cautions: property lines shown in a public viewer still need real-world confirmation, and routing issues can happen when the public relies on tools like Google Maps.
Grant Hopkins (GIS Supervisor) answered that survey-grade information is more accurate when it comes in, but the County still recommends confirming boundaries through an Ontario Land Surveyor. On routing, he said the County has contacted Google in the past when problems pop up and that an open data approach may help big platforms pull better local information over time.
Councillor John Hirsch focused on underground infrastructure, asking where the County is at on mapping pipes, sizes, and ages. Hopkins said water and sanitary mapping are in the high 90 percent completion range, with stormwater still in progress.
Councillor Phil St-Jean drilled into the “who can see what” issue. He asked why some GIS layers are not public. Hopkins explained that some layers are restricted due to privacy rules and sensitive information, including things like ownership details and archaeological sites. St-Jean also raised the security side, pointing out that detailed infrastructure layers can pose risks if made public.
When it came time to receive the staff report (DS-17-2026) about GIS work, the motion carried, meaning council accepted it for information at this stage.
Picton Marina
The marina discussion had a noticeably supportive tone, with councillors acknowledging the turnaround in 2025 and looking ahead to what changes are realistic for 2026.
Troy Gilmore (Director of Operations) recognized staff who brought operations back in-house quickly for the 2025 season.
Albert Paschkowiak (Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor) laid out results and gaps: roughly $185,000 in revenue, an operating shortfall of just under $20,000, and a list of service improvements being worked into 2026, including a marina management system and better communications tools like VHF radios.
Councillor Phil St-Jean focused on the numbers and what they suggest. He noted repairs were a big slice of costs and asked if fewer repairs over time could mean better financial performance. He also asked about food options for people who are not boaters but still use the waterfront, and he pushed for early thinking about how any new agreement could connect to the surrounding shoreline area.
Paschkowiak said food options are being explored, either inside the existing building where possible or through options like a third-party vendor setup. On the “bigger picture” questions about the neighbouring docks and lands, staff emphasized that discussions have not gone far because they need council authorization first.
Councillor Janice Maynard supported improvements like VHF radios and flagged reputational risk, saying the marina is only starting to rebuild its image and word of mouth matters in the boating community. Staff replied that the County would still be the operator, and that any agreement details would come back to council before decisions are made.
Councillor John Hirsch asked direct questions about the 35 Bridge Street dock situation, including whether ownership and legal footing are clear, and whether the slips could be rearranged to reduce interference with the County’s operating area. Staff said legal counsel is involved and that changes could be possible, but details would come later.
Mayor Steve Ferguson emphasized the importance of communicating clearly with boaters and local clubs as the County rebuilds trust. He also asked what happens when American boats arrive, and staff explained the port-of-entry process and CBSA reporting.
On the vote, the motion presented by Councillor Phil St-Jean carried: staff are authorized to engage in discussions with the Water Lot 1 dock owner and return with a draft operating agreement for the 2026 season.
Rural Ontario Development Fund: moving a contribution agreement forward
For the funding item, the motion was introduced as the Hirsch-Roberts motion by Councillor John Hirsch and carried.
Karen Palmer (Economic Development Officer) explained that the County was successful in receiving funding support to help develop a Community Improvement Plan, a Planning Act process expected to take about a year with consultations. The bylaw to authorize the contribution agreement is intended to come to a future council agenda for approval.
Near the end, Phil Prinzen brought forward a motion to adjourn. Councillor Janice Maynard said “nope” and stated opposition, and the chair kept the meeting going.
What this means for the locals
For residents watching from the outside, the GIS discussion was about service quality and transparency. Councillors were signalling that better data can mean better answers, like clearer road work information, better infrastructure tracking, and tools that help staff respond faster. At the same time, council made it clear that not everything should be public, especially where privacy and sensitive sites are involved.
For Picton, the marina vote matters because it keeps momentum going. Council supported staff continuing improvements for 2026 and opening talks that could increase docking capacity. If the discussions lead to a workable agreement, it could mean more slips, more activity on the waterfront, and potentially better service options for both boaters and people just spending time by the water.
The Rural Ontario Development Fund item is a small but meaningful step toward a longer planning process. A Community Improvement Plan can shape incentives for property upgrades, and that can affect how main streets, commercial buildings, and community areas evolve over time.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:17:58. 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