Part 2: School Safety Measures, Budget Debate, and Appeals Committee Approved — 08/31/2023

This section focuses on the discussion at the Council table, including who spoke on each topic, how decisions were handled through motions and votes, and how these items connect to ongoing issues affecting residents across the County.

School safety measures

Jeremy Doolan and Sean Guscott, representing local OPP leadership, explained how the silhouette signage program works and shared results from previous pilot projects. They noted that the signs are designed to influence driver behavior by increasing awareness around school zones, rather than relying on added enforcement or penalties.

Committee members asked about how locations would be selected, whether the program overlaps with existing enforcement efforts, and how effective it is over time. Staff clarified that schools with known or reported safety concerns would be prioritized as the program moves forward.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Water conservation concerns raised

Victoria Taylor, a Picton resident and business owner, raised concerns that recent water studies did not treat conservation as a primary strategy, and asked Council to consider how reducing demand could help manage long-term infrastructure costs. In response, Phil St-Jean pointed out technical challenges related to low-flow systems, while Janice Maynard noted that pricing structures and existing conservation programs are already in place to help manage usage.

The deputation was formally received, meaning no immediate action was taken, but the concerns are now part of the public record and may inform future discussions.

Budget debate and staffing direction

Sam Branderhorst explained that achieving the level of savings being discussed would likely require service reductions, emphasizing that current cost pressures are structural rather than short-term. Albert Paschkowiak raised concerns about outdated property assessments and how they limit municipal revenue growth, with staff confirming that this issue falls outside municipal control.

Roy Pennell also stressed the importance of allowing more time for public discussion before moving too quickly through the budget process.

Council approved a motion to explore staffing matters further during closed budget sessions, while a separate motion to base the 2024 budget on current service levels resulted in a tied vote and did not pass. As a result, overall budget direction remains unresolved.

Appeals Committee approval

Phil St-Jean moved a motion to establish a new Appeals Committee, with Mike Kelly, Supervisor of Enforcement Services, outlining how the committee would operate and the types of cases it would review.

Questions were raised by Albert Paschkowiak regarding privacy, and staff confirmed that appropriate measures would be in place to protect personal information.

The motion carried, creating a new formal process for residents to appeal certain enforcement-related decisions, which adds another layer of review and accountability within municipal processes.

Agricultural land advocacy

David Roberts brought forward a request for Council to support a submission from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Members of Council agreed that the request aligns with existing County policies focused on protecting agricultural land, and the motion passed unanimously.

What it means for residents

Across these discussions, residents can expect a combination of gradual policy movement and ongoing decision-making rather than immediate changes. School safety measures may begin appearing near priority locations as part of a preventative approach, while water conservation continues to be raised as a concern that could influence future infrastructure planning but has not yet resulted in policy shifts.

At the same time, the budget discussion shows that tax levels and service decisions remain unresolved, with further debate and direction still required before final decisions are made. The creation of an Appeals Committee introduces a new formal process for reviewing enforcement-related issues, which may provide residents with clearer options when disputing decisions.

Finally, Council’s support for agricultural advocacy confirms that farmland preservation remains a consistent municipal priority, particularly for rural areas, even as broader financial and infrastructure discussions continue.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:27:20. 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.