Part 2: Where Council Drew the Lines: Votes, Divisions, and Consequences | September 24, 2024

This article of the September 24, 2024 Regular Council meeting focuses less on the agenda flow and more on who said what, how councillors lined up, and where those decisions land for residents across the County.

Integrity, communication, and who raised the flag

Concerns around governance and transparency surfaced early through both council comments and a public deputation.

Councillor Chris Braney (Hillier) formally introduced a notice of motion calling for a review of Integrity Commissioner Services. Braney referenced the recent public investigation report from Integrity Commissioner Robert J. Swayze, noting it was the first such report in several years and signaling it was time to reconsider how the service is delivered. Braney asked the Clerk to bring forward options for Council’s consideration at a future meeting.

That theme was reinforced by deputant Paul Allen, who spoke critically about the Commissioner’s messaging around confidentiality. Allen directly referenced comments made about Councillor John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) and argued that discouraging councillors from speaking publicly, even about information already in the public realm, could chill communication with residents. Council did not question Allen and formally received the deputation.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Union Street sidewalk: support, but not without warnings

The most geographically specific discussion of the night centred on the Union Street sidewalk project, linking John Street to Pine Ridge Drive.

Staff, led by David MacPherson, explained the safety rationale, while Chris Timpson detailed the tender process. Council ultimately voted to award the contract to Earth-Crete Ontario Inc. for $441,155 plus taxes, with additional funds drawn from capital projects and reserves. Several councillors raised pointed concerns.

Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton) questioned why the sidewalk was not built at the subdivision stage and asked whether the developer could be asked to contribute. MacPherson confirmed there was no mechanism in the subdivision agreement, though staff said the question could be asked informally.

Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) supported the sidewalk on safety grounds but warned Council about repeated tender overruns and urged a broader look at how sidewalks are funded, including the possibility of urban versus rural taxation or local improvements.

Councillor Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) went further, openly questioning the fairness of drawing heavily from reserves mid-cycle. She referenced roads and sidewalks in her ward and elsewhere that remain unfunded or pushed down priority lists, and warned that approving projects outside the normal budget cycle makes it harder to explain equity to residents.

Chief Administrative Officer Marcia Wallace responded that many 2024 tenders had come in under budget, but this project faced unique stormwater and safety challenges. Wallace emphasized staff still believed the sidewalk was a good use of funds to address a known safety gap.

The motion carried, with Council approving both the contract and funding adjustments.

H.J. McFarland: where Council split, and why

The most divided vote of the night came on the future of H.J. McFarland Memorial Home.

The original motion would have authorized an agreement with Troy Life and Fire Safety Limited for a facility-wide sprinkler system and fire alarm upgrade, totaling $476,660.02 plus taxes. Kyle Cotton, Executive Director, clarified the work would be completed in 2025 and explained the urgency created by the January 1, 2025 fire code compliance deadline.

Fire Chief Chad Brown outlined the availability of alternative compliance measures, but stressed these are temporary and carry legal and reputational risk if relied on too long. Councillors split into two clear camps.

Councillor St-Jean moved a referral motion, arguing Council should not commit to half a million dollars without knowing the cost of alternative measures. He asked staff to return with detailed costing before a final decision.

Councillor Maynard opposed delaying the decision, stating that even the County’s share of roughly $271,000 would add long-term value to the building and improve safety for residents immediately.

Councillor Pennell supported installing sprinklers but emphasized the importance of understanding how the investment affects the building’s future value, especially if repurposing or sale is considered.

Councillor Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh) spoke strongly against delay, arguing there is no place for uncertainty when it comes to fire safety in a long-term care setting.

The referral motion carried on a recorded vote, meaning the sprinkler contract was not approved that night. Staff will return with costing for alternative solutions by the November 12 Council meeting.

What this means locally

The Union Street sidewalk approval signals real movement on pedestrian safety near Pine Ridge Drive, but also raises questions about how growth-related infrastructure is funded.

Councilors' comments underscored concerns that reserve-funded projects can disadvantage areas still waiting for basic road and sidewalk work.

For families connected to H.J. McFarland, Council’s decision means safety upgrades are not yet confirmed, but scrutiny is being applied to cost, timing, and long-term planning before committing public dollars.

The meeting revealed a Council navigating competing pressures: transparency versus confidentiality, immediate safety versus long-term planning, and ward-level fairness versus County-wide priorities.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:29:33. 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.