Part 1: Council Weighs PFAC’s Future, Rural Water Rules, and Medical Waste Support - 09/25/2025

PFAC Uncertainty, Rural Severances, and a Pilot for Medical Waste

The meeting opened under the chairmanship of Councillor Phil St Jean, with standard procedural items approved quickly. There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest and no pre registered public comments.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue for speaker comments and councillor votes>

The first major item was a deputation from Sue Michaud, Secretary of the Prince Edward Fitness and Aquatic Centre Board, presenting PFAC’s Annual Impact Report. Michaud outlined strong performance across almost every metric.

Membership is up nine percent year over year, day pass use is up forty percent, and facility use would have approached 100,000 visits if not for extended maintenance closures. PFAC’s summer day camp served nearly 100 children, aquatic programming has fully recovered after staffing shortages, and new partnerships have been formed with groups like the County School of Dance.

Financially, PFAC reported that earned revenue covers 92 percent of operating costs, with the County’s $70,000 contribution making up the remaining eight percent. Michaud emphasized that comparable aquatic facilities are typically municipally owned and operated at much higher taxpayer cost.

The tone shifted when Michaud explained that the PFAC building has been listed for sale at $4.6 million, following changes in the Lester family’s circumstances. PFAC has also received notice of a significant upcoming rent increase. The organization’s priority is to secure long term continuity at the site, but fundraising is complicated because PFAC is not a registered charity.

PFAC formally requested two things. First, designation of a project of community interest, which would allow the municipality to issue charitable tax receipts for donations raised on PFAC’s behalf. Second, direction for staff to explore how the municipality might support PFAC’s efforts to maintain operations at its current location.

Council questions revealed deep concern about financial pressure, fairness, and precedent. Councillors raised issues around who uses the facility, whether County funds should support a site that primarily serves Picton and surrounding wards, competition with private gyms, and the broader fiscal reality facing the municipality. Multiple councillors emphasized that no new funding was being approved, but many were uneasy about opening the door to a complex fundraising arrangement without clarity on outcomes or risks.

After extensive debate, Council voted to receive the deputation, but ultimately decided to refer the project of community interest request back to staff. Staff were directed to return with clearer information about the proposed fundraising campaign, how donated funds would be held and used, and what the terms of any agreement would look like. The referral passed 9 to 2.

Public Comment on Surplus Farm Dwellings

Later in the meeting, Kurt Van Cleef, a resident of Hillier Ward, addressed Council regarding the upcoming report on surplus farm dwelling severances. Van Cleef focused on ambiguity in the definition of a “qualified person” and the lack of clarity around when a full hydrogeological study versus a scoped study should be required. He warned that vague language creates inconsistency, delays, and unnecessary conflict, particularly when staff turnover occurs.

Council discussion following the deputation highlighted longstanding tensions between rural affordability, water protection, and procedural consistency. Councillors debated whether surplus farm dwellings should be treated differently from new lot creation, given that many already have functioning wells and septic systems. Concerns were raised about cost burdens, long timelines, and shifting requirements that make it difficult for farmers and rural landowners to plan.

Review of Rural Severance Requirement

Planning staff, led by Scott Pordham, presented Report DS 55 2025, which reviewed hydrogeological study requirements for rural severances. The report compared the County’s policies with neighbouring municipalities and examined provincial policy, geological conditions, and legal risk.

Staff explained that while many municipalities do not explicitly require hydrogeological studies, The County’s shallow soils and fractured bedrock present higher water supply risks. Legal advice confirmed that existing water agreements registered on title do not fully protect the municipality from liability.

Two options were presented. The first recommended maintaining the current Official Plan policy, which requires hydrogeological studies but allows scoping and staff discretion. The second proposed amending the Official Plan to rely more heavily on post approval conditions rather than pre approval studies.

After lengthy debate, Council approved a motion to retain the existing policy, while also directing staff to review all remaining standard conditions for rural severances and return with recommendations to improve clarity, consistency, and fairness.

Medical Hardship Waste Assistance Pilot

The final substantive item was Report OPS 18 2025, proposing a one year pilot program to assist residents with medical conditions that generate excess waste. The program would allow up to 20 residents to place one additional garbage bag at the curb at no cost.

Staff explained that the pilot was intentionally limited to manage costs and evaluate demand. Council discussion focused on whether the cap was fair and how future demand would be handled. Staff confirmed the program would be monitored closely and adjusted if demand exceeded expectations.

Council approved the pilot program unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 3:37 pm.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:39:048. 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.