Part 2: Picton Terminals Settlement, Meeting Schedule, and Winter Contract – 10/08/2024

The County Council’s October 8, 2024 meeting moved from presentations into decisions, debate, and recorded votes that revealed clear differences among councillors on several high-impact issues. Chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, the latter half of the meeting focused on governance mechanics, procurement, and the most contentious item of the night: the Picton Terminals settlement by-law.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

The first major decision point came with discussion of the 2025 Council and Committee Meeting Schedule, introduced by Councillor Phil Prinzen (Bloomfield/Hallowell) and Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer (Wellington).

Phil St-Jean (Picton) raised concern about a Council meeting scheduled for November 11, 2025, arguing that Remembrance Day should remain available for councillors to attend ceremonies and community events. His amendment to move the meeting to November 10, 2025 was seconded by Sam Branderhorst (Athol) and carried unanimously.

A second amendment, brought forward by Brad Nieman (Bloomfield/Hallowell) and seconded by Kate MacNaughton (Picton), proposed splitting advisory and statutory committee meetings between hybrid and fully electronic formats.

St-Jean argued for more in-person participation, saying that team-building and decision-making suffer in fully virtual settings. Prinzen opposed the change, citing technical issues and staff workload. Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) supported flexibility, pointing to accessibility and weather concerns for rural members.

Following clarification from Clerk Catalina Blumenberg and Deputy Clerk Becky O’Hara, the amendment failed on a recorded vote. Council ultimately approved continuing electronic meetings, with committees required to meet in person at least once per year.

Winter Maintenance Contract Award

Council then considered FIN-15-2024, awarding the winter maintenance contract. The motion was brought forward by John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) and seconded by St-Jean, recommending Terra Vista Landscape Firm.

Hirsch questioned whether the lowest bid fully reflected the scope of work. Staff confirmed Terra Vista had performed the work previously and had access to detailed mapping and specifications. Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) asked whether the contract was awarded strictly to the lowest compliant bidder, which staff confirmed.

St-Jean asked whether the work could be done in-house instead. Staff responded that the County lacks both the equipment and staffing to do so. The motion carried without opposition.

Picton Terminals Settlement: The Dividing Line

The most consequential and divisive decision of the evening came with By-law 13.1.1, authorizing the Mayor and CAO to execute Minutes of Settlement with ABNA Investments Ltd. (Picton Terminals).

Before the vote, Hirsch spoke at length against the settlement. He argued Council had not adequately discussed reasons for and against the agreement in open session and raised concerns about quarrying activity, federal jurisdiction, the White Chapel heritage context, and the absence of a broader public process. He stated clearly that he believed approving the settlement was “not desirable.”

Councillor Maynard questioned how much control the County would retain over future site activity. Staff explained that while the agreement sets a development framework, certain approvals, particularly related to aggregate extraction, remain under provincial authority.

In contrast, Pennell supported moving forward, stating Council had relied on professional legal advice from more than one lawyer and that it was time to conclude the matter and move on.

At Councillor MacNaughton’s request, a recorded vote was taken.

Voting in favour of the by-law were: Braney (Hillier), Maynard, Grosso (Ameliasburgh), Nieman, Harrison (North Marysburgh), Pennell, Engelsdorfer, and Mayor Steve Ferguson.

Voting against were: MacNaughton, Prinzen, St-Jean, Branderhorst, and Hirsch.

The motion carried 7–6, underscoring a deeply split Council.

What This Means for Residents

For residents across the County, these decisions have practical implications. The approval of the Picton Terminals settlement moves the long-running dispute closer to resolution, but concerns remain among some councillors and residents about future land use, quarrying impacts, and transparency.

For rural residents, particularly those serving on advisory committees, Council’s decision to maintain primarily electronic meetings prioritizes accessibility and flexibility, while limiting in-person engagement to a minimum standard.

The winter maintenance contract confirms continuity in snow and ice control services, with Council satisfied that cost, experience, and compliance were adequately addressed.

Perhaps most notably, the split vote on Picton Terminals illustrates a Council that is willing to disagree publicly and on record. That means decisions are being shaped by competing views on growth, environmental protection, legal risk, and long-term planning, with no single perspective dominating the table.

The October 8 meeting made clear that while some issues are procedural, others cut to the core of how the County balances development, agriculture, heritage, and community trust.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 02:54:58. 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.