Part 2: Waste Access Changes, Strategic Plan Metrics, and Housing Outcomes Added – 02/27/2025

The February 27, 2025 Committee of the Whole meeting moved from background explanation into clear decision making as councillors debated waste service changes and refined how the County will measure progress on its long term priorities. While much of the discussion was technical, the votes and exchanges at the table revealed where councillors were aligned and where concerns about fairness, access, and accountability surfaced.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Waste services: clarity, access, and fairness

Discussion on the dissolution of the Centre and South Hastings Waste Services Board was led by John Hirsch (South Marysburgh), who framed the report as a necessary response to a decision already made by the regional board. Hirsch emphasized that while recycling is shifting to a producer responsibility system, household hazardous waste still requires municipal coordination.

Roy Pennell (Sophiasburgh) pressed for clarity on where new electronic waste containers would be located and raised concerns about travel distances for residents in larger or more rural wards. Hirsch responded that site selection was constrained by Environmental Compliance Approvals, identifying Sophiasburgh and South Marysburgh as locations that were both approved and feasible.

Mayor Steve Ferguson focused on resident experience, asking how people would know what belonged in electronic waste containers and what did not. Using batteries as an example, Ferguson highlighted the risk of confusion. Hirsch agreed and noted that staff would be present during operating hours and that additional signage and education would be developed.

Rotary involvement and an amended motion

The most pointed debate centred on community fundraising and whether dedicating electronic waste revenue to a single group would be fair. Phil St-Jean (Picton) drew on his experience with past electronic waste drives, cautioning that revenue is now limited and that many organizations have participated over the years. He warned against naming one group in a way that could exclude others.

Janice Maynard (Wellington) expressed support for recognizing the Wellington Rotary Club’s historical role but emphasized the need for flexibility and collaboration rather than locking council into a narrow commitment.

The discussion resulted in an amending motion, which clarified that electronic waste collected during specific months would be directed to the Wellington Rotary Club for fundraising, while allowing staff to establish similar agreements with other organizations during the remainder of the year. The amended motion was put forward and carried, reflecting council’s attempt to balance recognition with fairness.

Strategic plan metrics: discussion before endorsement

The second half of the meeting focused on how council tracks and evaluates progress under the Corporate Strategic Plan. While the report itself was received for information, councillors actively reshaped several metrics through discussion and motions.

Rural severances and planning impacts

Sarah Viau, Municipal Lawyer, addressed councillors on missing data related to rural and agricultural severances, explaining that a summer student had compiled multi-year figures showing trends before and after adoption of the Official Plan. She clarified that severances were tracked by application year, not completion year, and that changes to the Planning Act affected timelines.

Phil St-Jean (Picton) questioned how agricultural designations and soil class factored into the numbers, noting that planning rules have changed significantly since 2017. Marcia Wallace, Chief Administrative Officer, responded that the metric was intended to show the impact of Council’s policy decisions over time, not resolve every planning nuance in a single measure.

The additional severance data was directed to be circulated as an addendum, ensuring it would become part of the public record.

Affordable housing: adding outcome-based measures

Affordable housing sparked multiple motions. Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) argued that progress should not be measured solely by construction numbers and pointed to Leeward House as an example of meaningful local impact. She called for metrics that reflect movement into permanent housing and eviction prevention.

With support from Elis Ziegler, Affordable Housing Supervisor, council introduced and approved an amending motion adding two new measures under Housing that is Affordable: tracking the percentage of residents moving from Leeward House into permanent housing, and tracking outcomes from the County’s Housing Help program related to eviction avoidance.

Engagement, youth, and rural participation

Council also debated how to measure community equity and engagement.

Maynard pushed for better recognition of youth engagement, including informal participation and ideas that influence municipal decisions. Staff acknowledged the challenge of quantifying this work but committed to stronger narrative reporting.

Later, Maynard introduced a separate amending motion to expand tracking of rural resident participation in volunteer and engagement activities. The motion passed, adding a new metric under Community Equity.

Following the public discussion items, council moved into closed session under the Municipal Act to consider committee appointments and personnel matters.

When council returned to open session, a motion was approved directing staff to bring forward a by law appointing Claudio Rocha as a voting public member of the Sophiasburgh Ward Recreation Committee at the March 11 council meeting.

What this means for residents

For residents, the decisions made at this meeting translate into: more consistent access to electronic waste disposal, particularly in Sophiasburgh and South Marysburgh, continued hazardous waste services through joint municipal planning, clearer public reporting on rural land severances, expanded tracking of affordable housing outcomes, not just approvals, and stronger attention to rural and youth engagement in County decision making.

The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m., closing a session that moved beyond information sharing into concrete direction on how the County delivers services and measures its progress.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:53:37. 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.