Part 1: Organics Strategy, Tourism Oversight, and Election Planning Discussions — 12/11/2025

The December 11,2025 Committee of the Whole meeting covered a wide stretch of ground, from organics processing and social housing ideas, to tourism governance, election planning, and a growing conversation about how the County prepares for the future.

While many of the motions passed at this meeting are not final until Council’s January vote, this session offered a clear look at the direction staff and councillors are exploring and the tensions that continue to surface around cost, responsibility, and long term planning. One thing worth keeping in mind throughout this meeting is that Committee of the Whole is not the final decision maker.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

A proposal blending housing, farming, and organics processing

The meeting opened with a deputation from Kate’s Rest Foundation, alongside partners involved in agriculture, modular housing, and waste processing. Their presentation focused on the Home and Farm Initiative, a proposed social enterprise model that would combine supportive housing, hydroponic farming, and an organics processing facility on County owned land near Demorestville.

At the heart of the proposal was a request for Council to direct staff to explore a public private civil society partnership, and to report back by March 2026 with recommendations on whether the project should move forward. The speakers emphasized several goals at once, including maintaining small scale farming, creating economic opportunities for vulnerable residents, and reducing organic waste disposal costs for the County.

The proposed facility would process household organic waste into liquid organic fertilizer, which could then be used by County farms or donated for municipal lands. Supporters highlighted potential cost savings, environmental benefits, and employment pathways, while councillors raised questions about water use, traffic, regulatory approvals, fertilizer composition, and financial viability.

Importantly, no decision was made to proceed with the project itself. Council voted only to receive the deputation, meaning the proposal was formally heard but not approved or rejected. The broader question of organics processing would later be addressed through a separate staff report.

Public concern over a proposed referendum on council size

The next public delegation came from a County resident speaking about the planned 2026 referendum question related to a third party review of council size and ward boundaries. The speaker raised concerns about low public turnout at information sessions, the potential cost of a consultant’s report, and whether the issue should bind a future Council.

This portion of the meeting revealed a deeper philosophical divide. Some councillors emphasized the importance of governance reform and believed residents want the review, even if attendance at meetings was low. Others stressed the value of communities of interest, historical ward identities, and the risk of imposing costs on a future Council.

While no new motion was introduced during this exchange, the discussion previewed debates that will intensify as the referendum question comes forward formally in January.

Organics processing and the cost of doing it alone

One of the most detailed sections of the meeting focused on a staff report examining the feasibility of a County run organics processing facility. The report evaluated potential sites, technologies, and costs, and ultimately concluded that building and operating a County owned facility is not financially viable at this time.

Staff explained that while certain technologies could work in the County, the capital cost, estimated in the millions, combined with relatively low waste volumes, would take decades to pay back. Instead, staff recommended pursuing an expression of interest process to see whether third party operators could offer better solutions for managing the County’s organic waste.

Council supported this direction. They voted to pursue third party options, to monitor funding opportunities, and to continue backyard composter giveaways on a biennial basis. This decision kept the door open to private or partnership models without committing County funds to construction or long term operating risk.

The earlier Kate’s Rest presentation hovered quietly in the background of this discussion, but staff were clear that the motion before Council was about County organics management, not any single proposal.

Tourism governance and financial accountability

Council then turned its attention to a proposed five year financial accountability and relationship agreement with Visit the County, the municipal services corporation responsible for tourism promotion. Staff outlined updates to governance definitions, financial oversight, and how municipal accommodation tax revenues are administered.

Several councillors expressed discomfort with the length of the agreement and raised questions about financial transparency, including comparisons to Stay PEC, another organization that receives accommodation tax funding. After discussion, Council amended the agreement to a three year term, balancing stability with the ability for a future Council to revisit the relationship.

The motion, as amended, passed. Council also requested that clearer financial reporting and presentations be brought forward, reinforcing ongoing concerns about accountability and public visibility.

Preparing for the 2026 municipal election

The final major item addressed preparations for the 2026 municipal election, including updates to election policies, use of corporate resources, and restricted acts of Council during the election period. Staff highlighted improvements to the voters list, now managed through Elections Ontario, and outlined plans for public education, candidate outreach, and expanded voting locations where possible.

Councillors praised the Clerk’s office for its planning and emphasized the importance of voter confidence, accurate voter information, and accessibility, particularly for seniors and new residents.

With no major objections raised, Council approved the updated policies and direction, allowing staff to continue preparations.

Key Takeaways

1. Innovation is welcome, but decisions remain cautious. Council considered several ambitious ideas related to housing, organics, and partnerships, but actions focused mainly on receiving information and requesting further study rather than approvals.

   
   

2. Cost and accountability continue to shape decisions. Discussions repeatedly returned to financial risk, transparency, and the desire to avoid long term commitments that could limit future councils.

   
   

3. Planning for the future is moving at different speeds. Election preparations advanced with broad support, while larger governance and service delivery questions were deferred for debate later in the year.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:05:12. 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.