Part 2: Accessibility Committee Pushes for Stronger Planning, Communication, and Community Access in PEC- 05/05/2025

Stuart Houlihan chaired the meeting and guided discussion throughout. He focused on improving collaboration, encouraging open discussion, and making accessibility work more effective across departments. Ben Thornton supported the meeting procedurally and helped manage technical issues.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Community and Accessibility Advocacy

Irene was a strong voice throughout the meeting. She emphasized that accessibility is not optional and should be built into all County assets. She pushed for clearer timelines, stronger committee involvement, and practical action, especially around audits, parking, and public spaces.

Sarah highlighted communication access, especially for older residents and people with hearing loss. She stressed that accessibility includes how people receive information, not just physical access.

Jeffrey shared real-life examples of how transportation and communication access affect families dealing with illness and medical appointments. His comments showed how accessibility decisions directly impact daily life.

Data and Community Planning

Anne Van Vlack, who presented the Vital Signs Report, explained how data is used to guide funding, planning, and advocacy. Her request for committee input means local accessibility concerns can directly shape future decisions and funding priorities. For residents, this means accessibility issues raised by the committee could influence where money is spent and which gaps are addressed.

Council and Policy Input

Councillor Kate MacNaughton played a key role in connecting accessibility work with broader policy tools. She suggested adding a simple “accessibility implications” section to all staff reports, similar to environmental impacts. This idea, if adopted, would make accessibility a routine part of decision-making.

She also encouraged better use of storytelling and social media to highlight accessibility successes and educate the public.

Training and Program Decisions

Sarah Harvey explained that the original Access the County task team had completed its grant-based work. While some members were uncomfortable ending the task team, the committee agreed to dissolve it but delay decisions about new spending. This protects committee input and ensures future training is done thoughtfully.

For local businesses and non-profits, this means accessibility training is likely to continue, but with a format that is shorter, more flexible, and easier to attend.

What This Means for Residents

Overall, the meeting showed steady progress rather than big decisions. For residents, the impacts are gradual but important. Accessibility is being discussed earlier in planning, tied into data and budgets, and pushed into everyday County operations.

The committee is clearly trying to move from reacting to problems toward building accessibility into everything from the start. While timelines remain unclear in some areas, the direction is clear: better coordination, better data, and better outcomes for people living with disabilities, seniors, families, and visitors across Prince Edward County.

Key Takeaways for Locals

1. Accessibility may soon be considered in every County report. A proposal to include an “accessibility implications” section in staff reports could ensure accessibility is evaluated alongside financial and environmental impacts.

2. Local data will shape future accessibility decisions. Input from the committee will help inform the upcoming Vital Signs Report, which guides funding priorities and community planning.

3. Accessibility training for businesses will likely continue. The Access the County program is shifting to shorter, more flexible training sessions, helping businesses and non-profits improve accessibility without major time commitments.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:56:045. 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.