Part 2: -Staffing Controls, Shoreline Planning, and Transit Integration – 02/25/2025

This coverage of the February 25, 2025 Regular Council meeting moved away from presentations and into clear positions, recorded votes, and visible differences in how councillors see the County’s priorities. Several items produced long discussion and split votes, offering residents a clearer look at how individual councillors approached growth, finances, and risk.

Coming out of closed session, Council voted unanimously to direct staff to maximize childcare uses as of right within the comprehensive zoning bylaw review. The motion was moved by Brad Nieman (Bloomfield/Hallowell) and seconded by Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh). There was no debate recorded on this item, suggesting broad agreement across Council that childcare access should face fewer planning barriers.

This direction signals council support for embedding childcare into neighbourhoods and employment areas without requiring site specific rezonings or exceptions.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Planning settlement and Loyalist Parkway lands

Council also unanimously approved the Minutes of Settlement between Choice REIT and the County, again moved by Brad Nieman and seconded by Roy Pennell. The decision authorized staff to advise the Ontario Land Tribunal that council consented to zoning amendments for lands on Loyalist Parkway.

No councillor raised objections or questions on the record, indicating council alignment on resolving the planning dispute and moving the file forward.

External audit of planning and affordable housing advocacy

During announcements, Chris Braney (Athol) gave notice that he would bring forward a motion calling for an external audit and review of the Planning and Development Department. Braney explained that the goal would be to improve service and effectiveness, with the review conducted alongside the CAO and an external firm reporting directly to Council.

Separately, Phil St-Jean (Picton) gave notice of a motion seeking Council support for an Affordable Housing advocacy letter already sent to CMHC, focused on rental market data and financing tools for rural housing supply.

These notices did not involve votes yet but clearly signalled upcoming policy debates around planning performance and housing supply.

Loyalist College deputation and advocacy vote

The deputation from Mark Kirkpatrick, President and CEO of Loyalist College, led to a clear direction vote. After questions from several councillors, council approved a motion directing the Mayor to advocate to provincial and federal governments about the impacts facing post secondary institutions and rural communities.

The motion was moved by Kate MacNaughton (Picton) and seconded by John Hirsch (South Marysburgh). The vote carried unanimously, showing Council unity on supporting Loyalist College and highlighting rural funding pressures.

Transit renewal and two system pass

Council supported renewing the Quinte Access Transportation contract and adding a two system transit pass valid on County Transit and Belleville Transit. The motion was moved by John Hirsch and seconded by Phil St.-Jean.

Discussion came mainly from Kate MacNaughton, who raised questions about affordability and usage patterns, while staff explained current ridership data and long term integration goals. The motion carried without opposition, reflecting broad support for incremental transit integration.

Hiring and hours control motion

The most divided vote of the night came with Motion 2025-101, introduced by Councillor Pennell, which placed limits on creating new positions or extending unbudgeted hours without explicit Council approval. Speaking in favour, Pennell argued that staffing costs represent a large portion of the municipal budget and that council has a duty to actively manage financial risk.

Councillor Harrison supported the motion, citing economic uncertainty and concern about future reserve pressures. Councillors Braney, Branderhorst, Engelsdorfer, Nieman, Prinzen, and Maynard also voted in favour. Opposition came from Councillor St.-Jean, who warned that the motion could interfere with operations, labour relations, and staff morale, especially during union negotiations.

Councillors Hirsch and MacNaughton echoed concerns about micromanagement and trust in staff. Mayor Steve Ferguson voted against the motion, stating that council already exercises oversight through the budget process and the CAO.

The motion carried on a recorded vote, seven in favour and six opposed.

Organizational chart request

Following the hiring debate, council unanimously approved a motion directing staff to provide a current municipal organizational chart. This motion was moved by Councillor Nieman and seconded by Councillor Pennell, reflecting agreement that council needs clearer information as it continues governance and service level discussions.

Shoreline planning votes

Later in the meeting, council addressed Planning and Development Committee motions related to shoreline designation work. Councillor Braney requested a recorded vote on Motion 2025 105, which approved a committee recommendation not to proceed with further shoreline designation changes at this time.

Councillors Nieman, Prinzen, Pennell, Engelsdorfer, Braney, and Mayor Steve Ferguson voted in favour. Councillors Maynard, Branderhorst, Hirsch, and MacNaughton voted against. The motion carried by a narrow margin.

A follow up motion to approve Motion 2025 87 then carried, finalizing council’s decision to leave shoreline designations unchanged for now.

What this means for residents

For residents across the County, these votes translate into a few practical impacts. Childcare providers may find it easier to locate in more areas as zoning rules evolve.

Transit users can expect continued service and a new regional pass option. Municipal staffing will now face tighter council oversight, which could slow internal adjustments but is intended to protect reserves.

Shoreline property owners and rural landowners will see no immediate changes to shoreline designations, with council opting for caution while broader zoning work continues.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:54:58. 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.