Part 1: Council Hears Picton Terminals Anger, Then Moves Into Big-Ticket Decisions – 07/23/2024
- PECConnect
- Jul 23, 2024
- 4 min read
The Council met on July 23, 2024 for a Regular Council meeting to hear public input and make decisions on several major files, from the long-running Picton Terminals dispute to long-term care redevelopment, accessibility upgrades, and heritage permitting. Mayor Steve Ferguson, as chair, opened the floor to registered speakers before Council moved into its main agenda.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Picton Terminals Settlement Sparks Public Pushback
Several deputations and audience comments focused on Picton Terminals and the news of a settlement discussed earlier in the meeting.
Ken Stewart questioned why Council had met in closed session and said the announcement made public meetings and consultation feel meaningless if an agreement was already “legally binding.” Stewart also raised homeowner compensation, suggesting impacts could be significant.
Meg Kerr, director with the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, said Picton Terminals stood apart from other controversial proposals because of repeated bylaw disregard and environmental concerns. Kerr raised the possibility of expansion beyond the existing waterfront site, referencing additional parcels owned by ABNA Investments Limited across White Chapel Road and asking what plans could follow.
Eugenia Venchiarutti urged Council to return to litigation rather than negotiation, pointing to ongoing bylaw violations and arguing closed sessions were eroding public trust.
Councillor Kate MacNaughton also spoke during the public portion, raising financial risk and enforcement concerns based on past incidents she listed, including dust issues, spills, and ministry findings. In the audience, Debbie Rankin and Shelley McFarland described day-to-day impacts they said they experience living near the site, including noise, dust, lights, and health fears.
Council later passed a motion to receive the public comments, moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Councillor Brad Nieman.
Pushing Upper Governments on Infrastructure
Council then considered a resolution brought forward by Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer, seconded by Mayor Ferguson, calling for stronger federal and provincial partnership on municipal infrastructure funding. Engelsdorfer cited the region’s infrastructure pressures and argued property taxes could not cover growing deficits.
Mayor Ferguson supported the motion, saying the need was clear. Councillor John Hirsch backed it as part of a broader municipal push for a new funding framework. Councillor Erin Roberts added that Eastern Ontario growth projections underscored the urgency. The resolution carried.
McFarland Home Costs, Milestones, and Levy Pressure
Council reviewed Report HDM 03-2024 on the H. J. McFarland Memorial Home redevelopment, moved by Councillor St-Jean and seconded by Roberts. Councillor Roy Pennell asked about a recently completed roof tender, and Kyle Cotton confirmed it came in just under $78,000.
Nieman pressed staff on how provincial funding works versus borrowing. Cotton explained the subsidy flows over time and would offset some borrowing costs. Councillor Sam Branderhorst said staff would return to Council before the final provincial milestone, and Council would not issue a construction tender until those requirements were confirmed.
Branderhorst also described an operating gap, citing figures in the report that pointed to a net levy pressure, with details to be addressed through the budget process. The motion carried.
Reuse of the Existing McFarland Site
Council then received Report HD-05-2024 directing staff to run an Expression of Interest process for reusing the existing McFarland site and report back in Q4 2024. Discussion included the building’s architectural significance, identified as a Ron Thom design, and whether future use could include housing, childcare, or other community needs. Council supported exploring external proposals, with the expectation the municipality would ultimately sell the property.
Accessibility Parking Changes and Amendments
Council approved amendments to Schedule J for accessible parking spaces in Picton, Bloomfield, and Wellington, with discussion about locations, consultation duties, and practical impacts. A specific Bloomfield location at 264 Main Street was amended to shift west, and Council later directed staff to explore relocating a proposed Picton spot near 130 Main Street before implementation.
Late in the meeting, MacNaughton introduced a time-sensitive motion to move into closed session under Municipal Act Section 239 for litigation or potential litigation. A recorded vote carried 7 to 5.
Council approved most items on the consent agenda, and also received a heritage permit item for 146 Wellington Main after Hirsch clarified the committee’s list was recommendations, not conditions. Council then passed the bylaws package, including the confirmatory bylaw, and adjourned at 11:04 p.m.
Key Takeaways
Council faced continued public distrust and concern around Picton Terminals, especially transparency, enforcement, and expansion fears.
The County is moving fast on the McFarland Home redevelopment, with major borrowing and future levy impacts still to be settled through budget decisions.
Council approved concrete steps on accessibility and property reuse, signaling more near-term changes to parking, and a longer-term push to repurpose a major public building.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 5:06:00. 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.
Comments