Part 2: Bloomfield Decision, Roads Program, and Policing Costs Resolution – 03/10/2026

The coverage of this March 10 council meeting is about their decisions. Council had to weigh timing, funding, and community impact, especially around the Bloomfield Main Street project, along with several other key votes.

The most closely watched decision of the night was the vote on the Bloomfield reconstruction timeline. Councillor Braney (Hillier) was the only member to formally push for a one-year deferral. Braney spoke at length about concerns coming from residents in Hillier and the lingering impact of the Wellington project. He said he wanted more time to ensure communication and planning were done right before moving forward. However, Braney’s motion did not receive a seconder, which meant it could not proceed to a vote.

A second attempt came from Councillor Engelsdorfer (Wellington), who asked council to consider Option 3, a split schedule that would pause construction during peak summer months and resume in the fall. Councillor Grosso (Ameliasburgh) seconded that motion. When the vote was called, the motion failed, meaning council rejected the split construction option.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Council then moved to the main recommendation, which was to proceed with the April to June construction schedule. This motion passed, with a clear majority in favour. Several councillors spoke directly in support of moving ahead.

Councillor St.-Jean (Picton) made it clear he supported the plan, pointing to the importance of completing the work quickly and securing provincial funding. He emphasized that delaying could shift the cost burden onto taxpayers and said the proposed schedule was the most efficient option.

Mayor Steve Ferguson also supported proceeding, noting that the plan appeared well thought out and that the project was less complex than previous work in Wellington. He also raised concerns about the County’s reputation with upper levels of government if funding was declined.

Councillor Grosso expressed some openness to deferral earlier in discussion but ultimately seconded the split option, which failed. He later participated in the final vote to proceed.

Councillor Engelsdorfer voiced concern about whether public input was being fully reflected, especially given feedback heard during consultations.

In the end, the majority of council supported staff’s recommendation, prioritizing timeline certainty and funding security over delay.

Roads program: sticking to the plan

Council also voted on the 2026 surface treatment and microsurfacing program, awarding contracts to Miller Paving Limited. There was some discussion about Victoria Road, particularly from Councillor Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh), who raised concerns about long-standing issues with drainage and road base conditions. She questioned whether enough investigation had been done to prevent repeat failures.

Staff explained that geotechnical work, contingency funding, and on-site adjustments were built into the project.

Councillor Braney stepped in to support the broader plan, reminding council that the road program is based on a larger asset management strategy. He stressed the importance of sticking to that plan rather than shifting resources mid-project.

Councillor St-Jean echoed that sentiment, adding that if extra funds become available, council should be consulted before reallocating them.

The motion to award the contracts passed, allowing the road work program to move forward as planned.

Policing costs resolution: unanimous support

Councillor Roberts brought forward a resolution calling on the province to provide more support for rising policing costs, particularly those tied to provincial legislation.

Roberts outlined concerns that municipalities are increasingly responsible for costs tied to provincial mandates, including mental health, homelessness, and compliance requirements.

The resolution asked the province to review funding structures and provide additional financial assistance. Council supported the motion, and it passed without opposition.

Other decisions and smaller votes

Council also passed several smaller but still important motions. Two traffic-related motions were approved, directing staff to report back on traffic calming measures in Sophiasburgh and Hallowell.

A heritage permit for Macaulay Church in Picton was also approved, allowing work to proceed.

Another item, brought forward by Councillor St.-Jean, addressed parking restrictions on Picton Main Street near the hospital. The motion aimed to improve safety and visibility for residents by limiting daytime parking in certain sections. Council supported that change and the motion passed.

What this means for locals

For residents and businesses, the biggest impact comes from the Bloomfield construction decision. Work will now move ahead starting in April, with the expectation that most of it will be completed by late May or early June. This means navigating construction during part of the early tourism season, but also avoiding disruption during the busiest summer and fall months.

The decision protects access to provincial funding, which covers the majority of the project cost. Choosing not to proceed could have meant paying for the work locally in the future.

The roads program approval means continued investment in maintaining and extending the life of County roads, though concerns about specific problem areas like Victoria Road remain on council’s radar.

The policing resolution reflects a broader issue affecting municipalities across Ontario. While it does not create immediate change, it signals that the County is joining other communities in pushing for a new funding approach.

Finally, smaller decisions around traffic safety, parking, and heritage approvals show the day-to-day work of council that directly affects neighbourhoods, road use, and local infrastructure.

Taken together, the meeting showed a council balancing long-term planning, financial realities, and community concerns, with decisions that will be felt both immediately and over the coming years.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 5:29:05. 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.