Part 2: Tourism Priorities, Chamber Funding Debate, and Economic Plan Alignment – 01/30/2025

Following the presentation by Mark Rose, Executive Director of the Picton BIA, councillors with Picton and nearby portfolios spoke most actively.

Councillors Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) and Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) both referenced the success of Picton’s Night Market, noting that it drew visitors from beyond the town itself. Phil St-Jean (Picton) and Mayor Steve Ferguson echoed that the event demonstrated what coordinated downtown programming can achieve.

Questions centred on governance rather than outcomes. Maynard pressed Rose on how a proposed associate membership program would avoid shifting resources away from Picton businesses. Rose confirmed the idea was still conceptual and would return to Council once fully developed.

The motion to receive the Picton BIA deputation was carried unanimously.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Different Priorities by Geography

Tourism discussion revealed clear geographic differences in councillor concerns.

Phil St-Jean challenged how day visitors contribute to municipal revenues, emphasizing that the Municipal Accommodation Tax primarily benefits from overnight stays. His questions reflected concerns from core tourism areas carrying infrastructure pressure without proportional fiscal return.

Roy Pennell pushed for broader promotion beyond established destinations, arguing that some communities receive visitors while others are overlooked. He also raised concerns about reliance on digital promotion, noting that some residents and visitors may be excluded.

Sarah Fox, Executive Director of Visit The County, acknowledged both points, stating that coordination among tourism and economic groups is improving and that funding strategies would be revisited later.

The motion to receive the Visit The County deputation carried unanimously.

Chamber Funding: Sharp Lines Drawn, Careful Approval

The most divided discussion followed Duarte Da Silva, CEO of the PEC Chamber of Commerce.

Chris Braney (Hillier) introduced a motion directing staff to explore an “exceptional partnership” with the Chamber under the Community Grants Policy. He stressed that the motion did not approve funding, only a report.

Roy Pennell was explicit in opposition to new funding during the current budget year, citing fiscal constraints. Phil St-Jean raised concerns about overlapping mandates between the Chamber, Visit The County, and municipal staff.

Despite reservations, the motion directing staff to prepare a report was carried unanimously, followed by a separate unanimous vote to receive the deputation.Local impact: Businesses County-wide will not see immediate financial support, but a pathway has been opened for future consideration without committing funds.

Economic Development Action Plan

Debate around the Economic Development Action Plan 2025–2030 showed general alignment with distinct local lenses.

John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) praised the consultation process and emphasized that the plan reflected real stakeholder input. Janice Maynard raised concerns about agriculture, pointing to land-use conflicts and regulatory pressures limiting farm expansion. Phil St-Jean focused on workforce realities, repeatedly stressing that residents already living in the County need stable employment now, not just long-term attraction strategies. He also emphasized childcare availability as a barrier to employment.

Karen Palmer, Economic Development Officer, responded that the plan prioritizes readiness, capacity-building, and tools such as a Community Improvement Plan and Childcare Task Team before pursuing major attraction.

The motion to endorse the Action Plan and direct further staff work carried unanimously. Every formal motion during the meeting was carried unanimously, including receiving all deputations, directing staff to report on a Chamber partnership, endorsing the Economic Development Action Plan, initiating work on a Community Improvement Plan and Childcare Task Team

No funding was approved, no policies were enacted, and no by-laws were changed.

What this means for residents

For residents, this meeting set direction but did not bring immediate changes. Council showed continued support for downtown activity in Picton, while broader inclusion of other areas is still being considered. Tourism discussions highlighted ongoing tension between busy areas and under-promoted communities, but no changes were made yet.

Support for local businesses, including the Chamber, is being explored, though no funding has been approved. The Economic Development Action Plan points to future work on jobs, childcare, and agriculture, but impacts will take time.

Overall, residents can expect a cautious, gradual approach, with bigger decisions still to come.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:47:17. 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.