Part 2: Council Divides on Long-Term Care While Advancing Glen Lane Review and Recycling Plans – 05/09/2024

This article of the Committee of the Whole report focuses on who spoke, how councillors positioned themselves, and how formal votes landed. The discussion unfolded across three main areas: Glen Lane, recycling changes, and long-term care redevelopment, each with different levels of division and local impact.

Glen Lane: Deputations Heard, Direction Given

The Glen Lane item did not involve a divided vote, but it did reveal where councillors stood in terms of process and caution. David J. Potts, a Glen Lane property owner, spoke in support of restricting access using Section 35 of the Municipal Act, describing recent vegetation clearing, road damage, and what he said was a change in long-standing access patterns. His presentation emphasized that Glen Lane is a municipal road that has historically served cottage lots, not agricultural access.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Billy Wright, owner of the agricultural lands south of Glen Lane, pushed back strongly. He argued that agricultural access had existed historically, described vegetation removal as environmental cleanup, and framed the issue as a neighbour dispute rather than a municipal enforcement matter.

Questions came from several councillors. Councillor Roy Pennell asked about ownership, deeds, and whether access rights were registered. Councillor Janice Maynard questioned land use, zoning, and whether the cleared area might qualify as a hedgerow. Councillor David Harrison sought clarity on whether Glen Lane is a municipally vested road or a right-of-way.

The key action came from Councillor Chris Braney, who moved a motion directing staff to explore the application of Section 35 of the Municipal Act in the context of Glen Lane and report back by Q4 2024. The motion was seconded by Councillor Harrison and carried without a recorded vote.

Recycling Transition: Broad Agreement, Lingering Concern

The recycling item also passed without a recorded vote, but councillors raised concerns about business impacts and communication. Albert Paschkowiak, Environmental Services Supervisor, explained that provincial rules will shift recycling responsibility to producers beginning in July 2025. Residential curbside recycling will continue, but non-eligible sources, including many businesses, may lose service unless the County intervenes.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer emphasized that residential service would remain intact and that staff are working with Circular Materials Ontario and Quinte Waste Solutions to find options. Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton) expressed concern about impacts on Main Street businesses in Picton, Wellington, and Bloomfield, warning that councillors would be fielding angry calls if service disappears.

Council ultimately received the report and directed staff to pursue agreements, request a deputation from Quinte Waste Solutions, and return with options for managing non-eligible recycling. The motion was moved by Engelsdorfer, seconded by Councillor Bill Roberts, and carried.

Long-Term Care Redevelopment: Clear Split on the Vote

The most divided issue of the meeting was the H.J. McFarland Memorial Home redevelopment and whether to move forward toward provincial funding milestones. Staff, led by Kyle Cotton, Director of Long-Term Care, outlined conditions tied to a provincial Construction Funding Subsidy top-up, including strict deadlines. CAO Marcia Wallace clarified that the County has received a letter confirming eligibility, but only if all milestones are met by November 2024.

Financial implications were laid out by Amanda Carter, Director of Finance & IT, who confirmed the project would result in a 6.53% net levy impact, proposed to be phased in over three years.

© Prince Edward County

Supporters focused on care capacity and obligation. Councillor Phil St-Jean spoke emotionally about families unable to find beds. Councillor Janice Maynard framed long-term care as a core municipal responsibility. Mayor Steve Ferguson pointed to broader advocacy underway through the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus.

Opponents focused on cost, debt, and risk. Councillor Roy Pennell questioned whether the County was building too large. Councillor Chris Braney raised concerns about levy pressure and asset sales. Councillor John Hirsch acknowledged the need for beds but highlighted the long-term tax burden.

A recorded vote was requested. The motion to move forward passed 8–5. In favour are Councillors Janice Maynard, Sam Grosso, Brad Nieman, Bill Roberts, Phil St-Jean, Sam Branderhorst, John Hirsch, Mayor Steve Ferguson

Meanwhile, those who opposed are Councillors Phil Prinzen, David Harrison, Roy Pennell, Corey Engelsdorfer, Chris Braney.

What This Means for Residents

For Glen Lane residents, this means no immediate restriction or approval of access. Instead, staff will now investigate legal authority and implications before Council makes any binding decision. The issue moves into staff review rather than immediate enforcement.

For business owners, recycling service changes are likely but still unsettled.

The long-term care vote signals a commitment to expanding beds despite tax impacts, with a divided Council acknowledging both urgency and financial strain.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:16:10. 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.