Part 1: Picton Terminals, Wastewater Infrastructure, and Governance Decisions – 09/10/2024
- PECConnect
- Sep 10, 2024
- 4 min read
The County Council met on the evening of September 10, 2024 at Shire Hall for a regular Council meeting that stretched past four hours and touched on some of the most consequential issues currently facing the municipality. Chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, the meeting drew significant public attention, largely due to ongoing litigation and settlement discussions involving Picton Terminals, alongside major decisions related to infrastructure, housing, and governance.
Council formally convened at 6:00 p.m., following an earlier closed session permitted under the Municipal Act. After opening with a land acknowledgement and procedural remarks, Ferguson outlined how the meeting would unfold and reminded the public that comments would form part of the official record.
When Council returned to open session shortly after 7:00 p.m., the most anticipated item came forward immediately. Councillor Kate MacNaughton (Picton) introduced a motion seeking a separate legal opinion on the County’s approved minutes of settlement agreement with Picton Terminals before any related bylaw would be brought forward.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
The motion followed weeks of public debate and concern about how the proposed settlement had been negotiated and what it would allow. After a recorded vote requested by Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) Council approved the motion 8–4, effectively pausing any immediate bylaw approval tied to the settlement.
Municipal Clerk Catalina Blumenberg clarified for the public that, as a result, no Picton Terminals bylaw would be approved that night, a point that set the tone for the lengthy deputations that followed.
Public Deputations Focused on Picton Terminals
Four formal deputations were heard, all addressing Picton Terminals.
Michael Jowett spoke first, raising concerns about vague language in the draft settlement, particularly repeated use of the word “reasonable,” which he argued could lead to future disputes. He questioned the lack of clear conflict-resolution mechanisms and criticized the process used to reach the settlement, describing it as opaque and damaging to public trust.
David MacKinnon followed with a detailed critique of the legal advice Council had received. He questioned whether Indigenous consultation obligations had been properly met and emphasized that the settlement documents were repeatedly described as “draft,” arguing that Council was not bound to proceed. MacKinnon urged Council to abandon the settlement entirely and continue asserting land-use authority through the courts.
Speaking remotely, Ryan Wallach focused on specific provisions within the draft settlement, including escarpment protection, hours of operation, aggregate extraction, and complaint handling. Wallach argued that many commitments in the document were either unenforceable or simply restated existing legal obligations. He urged Council to reject settlement and seek a definitive court ruling instead.
The final deputation came from Leslie Stewart, who stated that municipalities cannot legally “sell zoning” through settlement agreements. She warned that rezoning tied to litigation settlement could expose the County to further legal risk and asked that correspondence from external legal counsel be formally placed on the public record.
Council voted to receive each deputation without debate, as required by procedure.
Audience Comments Highlight Division and Concern
The public comment period that followed underscored how divided and emotionally charged the issue has become. Residents raised concerns about environmental protection, drinking water safety, traffic impacts on County Road 49, property values, and public transparency. Several speakers questioned the legality of the settlement process and asked Council to recommit to open consultation. Others, including Trevor Crowe of Reynolds Farms, spoke in support of resolving the matter to enable grain shipping opportunities that could benefit County farmers and reduce long-haul trucking.
Throughout the comments, a recurring theme emerged: while there was broad support for agriculture and economic activity, many residents felt the Picton Terminals issue had grown far beyond a single land-use dispute and now raised fundamental governance questions. Council formally received all audience comments before taking a short recess.
Wellington Wastewater Plant Moves Forward
After the break, Council turned to infrastructure.Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton introduced a motion to award a $1.447 million design contract to CIMA Canada Inc. for the new Wellington Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Project Manager Garrett Osborne explained that the existing plant is over 50 years old and has no remaining unallocated capacity. The new facility will use aerobic granular sludge technology, allowing for a smaller footprint and phased expansion. Construction is tentatively expected to be completed by late 2027.
Councillors asked detailed questions about public consultation, procurement transparency, development charge funding, and timing. Staff confirmed that 72 percent of the project would be funded through development charges, with the remainder borne by existing users. The motion passed unanimously following a recorded vote.
Housing and Governance Items
Council also approved submission of a Housing Accelerator Fund 2 application ahead of the federal deadline, with Affordable Housing Supervisor Elis Ziegler noting that an updated housing plan would be required before year-end.
Later in the meeting, Integrity Commissioner Robert J. Swayze presented findings related to complaints about closed-session confidentiality in the Picton Terminals matter. Swayze reported that no evidence supported sanctions against any councillor but emphasized the importance of strict confidentiality during litigation. Council received the report without penalty.
Key Takeaways
Council has formally slowed down the Picton Terminals settlement process by seeking independent legal advice, signaling that no final decision is imminent.
Major infrastructure investment in Wellington is moving ahead, with long-term implications for growth, housing, and service capacity.
The meeting highlighted deep public concern about transparency, legal process, and trust, themes that are likely to continue shaping County politics in the months ahead.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:46:55. 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