Part 2: Public Art Funding, Budget Decisions, and Service Priorities – 10/10/2024

Following the presentation of the Public Art Plan 2025–2030 by Andrea Dawes of the Prince Edward County Arts Council, council members shared a range of comments and questions.

Phil St-Jean (Picton) thanked Dawes and County Arts for completing the plan and described it as a positive step forward for the community, pointing to expected social and economic benefits.

Mayor Steve Ferguson echoed that support, calling the written plan comprehensive and well organized. He raised a practical question about whether public art could be used to improve vacant storefronts, particularly in settlement areas where empty windows can affect streetscapes.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

 John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) focused on heritage protection. He asked how murals or public art attached to heritage or designated buildings would be handled. Chris Palmer, Supervisor of Museums and Cultural Services, responded that mural policy and heritage protections would be addressed through the future public art policy and appropriate advisory processes.

Funding and timing concerns came from Brad Nieman (Bloomfield) who questioned why the funding discussion was happening before the formal budget process. Branderhorst, as Chair, explained that staff bring forward financial context when implementing council direction so it is understood early rather than appearing unexpectedly during budget deliberations.

Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) raised concerns about adding new spending during a period of budget pressure. She asked what alternatives had been explored, including grants and private contributions. Palmer explained that many grants require municipal matching funds and that the plan itself had already been developed with significant non levy funding.

The presentation was formally received on a motion moved by Mayor Ferguson and seconded by Phil St-Jean, which carried. Later in the meeting, the staff report approving the plan framework and directing staff to proceed was moved by Ferguson and seconded by Kate MacNaughton (Picton) and also carried.

Road Allowance Closure: Limited Debate, Clear Location

Council then held a public meeting on the closure and conveyance of a road allowance between Ameliasburgh and Sophiasburgh Wards. No members of the public attended to speak.

Brad Nieman asked whether a map was available to show the location. Aynsley Osborne, Development Coordinator, explained that the parcels are located within the fenced boundary of the Mountain View Airport, including one near the northern entrance and another along the eastern fence line.

Councillors suggested that future public notices include maps to make similar items clearer for residents. The public meeting was closed without objection.

Period Poverty Pilot Project

Discussion of the Period Poverty Pilot Project centred on whether free menstrual products should be expanded to town halls.

Kate MacNaughton questioned why town halls were excluded, noting they are used for public events. Lisa Lindsay, Director of Recreation and Community Facilities, explained that town halls are not open full time and are often unsupervised, raising concerns about vandalism and plumbing damage.

MacNaughton followed up, suggesting a low cost approach such as baskets during events. Staff responded that misuse and vandalism had already occurred in other public washrooms and that even supervised locations face challenges.

No amendment was introduced to expand the program, but the discussion highlighted a difference between councillors seeking broader access and staff emphasizing operational risks. The motion to receive the report and continue the project was moved by Phil St-Jean and seconded by Mayor Ferguson, and it carried.

Capital Deferrals and Portable Toilets

The longest exchange followed the Pre Budget 2025 Direction report presented by Marcia Wallace, Chief Administrative Officer.

Wallace explained that staff were seeking early direction on the 2025 budget, including whether to defer non urgent capital projects until service standards and asset priorities are reviewed in early 2025.

Janice Maynard questioned whether deferring projects would increase costs due to inflation and asked how reserves were being addressed. Wallace responded that staff believe a comprehensive plan should come before asking taxpayers for increased funding and that a broader asset strategy would follow.

The issue that drew the clearest consensus was portable toilets in parks and boat launches.

David Harrison (North Marysburgh) said removing portable toilets would be a mistake, especially at boat launches used by anglers and visitors. John Hirsch supported continuing the service, noting the County’s long standing lack of public washrooms.

Phil St.-Jean asked where the funding currently comes from and suggested using the Municipal Accommodation Tax, since visitors benefit from the service. Wallace confirmed MAT funding could be used with council direction.

St.-Jean formally moved an amendment to continue the portable toilet service using MAT funds, seconded by David Harrison, and the amendment carried. The amended recommendation later carried as part of the report votes. Council also voted to defer non urgent capital projects, continue the Municipal Finance Tax Relief Grant Program, and revise the ice allocation policy. At St Jean’s request, each motion was voted on separately, and all carried.

What this means for residents

The councillors repeatedly referenced downtown vitality and visible public spaces. While no sites were selected, the public art plan sets the stage for future projects affecting commercial areas and gathering places.

The road allowance item affects land near the Mountain View Airport and highlights a push for clearer public communication on similar matters.

Council’s decision to continue portable toilets directly affects waterfront access, boat launches, and seasonal use by residents and visitors.

The strongest message was early budget caution. Council supported deferring non urgent capital projects while preparing for more detailed service and infrastructure decisions in 2025, signaling that residents across all wards will see further debate about priorities as the budget process continues.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 01:42:15. 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.