Part 2: Council Positions on Athol Daycare and Community Funding Direction – 05/23/2024
- PECConnect
- May 23, 2024
- 4 min read
The May 23, 2024 Committee of the Whole meeting moved from broad discussion into clear positions as councillors, presenters, and residents weighed in on the Athol Town Hall daycare proposal and the Community Funding Review. What emerged was a detailed record of who raised concerns, who supported moving forward, and how those positions translate into real impacts across the County.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Community Grants Review
The discussion on community grants was led by Dominique Jones, Executive Director of The County Foundation, who outlined how rising costs, staffing instability, and declining donor participation are affecting local non profits. Jones emphasized that municipal funding plays a stabilizing role, especially for volunteer run groups.
Questions came from multiple councillors. Councillor Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) asked about whether declining donations could be linked to widening income gaps. Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) questioned the limited role of provincial and federal funding and why municipalities are increasingly filling gaps. Councillor Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh) raised interest in alternative funding models such as impact investing.
The deputation was formally received with support from Council, signaling consensus that changes to the grants framework deserve further work. The later vote directed staff to continue consulting with community groups and return with recommendations ahead of the 2025 budget, affecting organizations County wide that rely on predictable funding.
Athol Town Hall Daycare
The most detailed and emotionally charged discussion focused on the proposed five year lease allowing The Hub Child and Family Centre to operate a daycare at Athol Town Hall.
Susan Wallis, representing the Athol Recreation Committee, spoke first from the community side. Wallis stressed that Athol Town Hall functions as a rural hub in a ward without libraries or cafés. She acknowledged the need for daycare but described the proposal as a limited response to a much larger waitlist and warned about the loss of daytime access for community programs.
From the service provider perspective, Stacey Stanford, Executive Director of The Hub, outlined why Athol was selected. Stanford confirmed that renovations including accessible washrooms, kitchen upgrades, and an outdoor play area would be paid for by The Hub. She repeatedly stated a willingness to work around community events and share the space.
Nicola Chapman, speaking as an Athol resident and member of the Women’s Institute community, questioned both timing and consultation. Chapman emphasized that Athol Town Hall is the only assembly capacity building in the ward and argued that the proposed lease would significantly reduce access for community groups during weekdays.
All three deputations were formally received by Council, reflecting that no single perspective was dismissed.
Public Comments: Support and Concern Side by Side
During the public comment period, residents expressed sharply different experiences.
Umbreen Tapal, an Athol resident and parent, described the personal impact of long commutes for childcare and spoke strongly in support of locating daycare in Athol.
Leah Garfield Wright, from South Marysburgh, framed the issue as a County wide workforce problem and urged Council to treat the proposal as a starting point rather than a final solution.
Rebecca Dunning, speaking on behalf of PEC Needs Child Care, called the proposal a practical step that would allow parents to return to work and give new purpose to an underused building. On the other side, Deborah Marshall, speaking for the Women’s Institute, raised concerns about the draft lease lacking clear shared use language. Glen Wallis, former chair of the Athol Recreation Committee, argued that community groups were being asked to absorb the consequences of long standing policy failures around childcare.
These comments highlighted a recurring tension between urgent service needs and long standing community use of public space.
Council discussions clarified positions.
Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol) led the push for balance. Branderhorst supported moving forward with the daycare proposal but introduced the key amendment requiring further consultation and clearer shared use terms before final approval.
Councillor Kate MacNaughton (Picton) supported the proposal, describing childcare access as an equity issue that disproportionately affects women. She emphasized the importance of maintaining community access to the hall alongside daycare use.
Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton) supported the direction of the amended motion, repeatedly noting that while childcare is not formally a municipal responsibility, the County is responding to immediate resident needs.
Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) raised concerns about consultation depth and fairness, particularly whether Athol residents would benefit directly given County wide waitlists.
Ultimately, Council voted unanimously to amend the motion. The final direction requires a revised lease to return to Council on June 25, following consultation with the Athol Recreation Committee, the Women’s Institute, and The Hub, with explicit shared use provisions.
What This Means for Locals
The decision keeps daycare on the table while protecting community groups from being sidelined without clearer agreements.
For families across the County, it signals movement on childcare expansion, even if incremental.
The meeting reinforced that Council is open to revisiting how public spaces and funding models adapt to changing needs, but not without continued negotiation and public input.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:54:37. 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