Part 2: Highlights on Asset Management and Service Levels - 06/12/2025

The June 12, 2025 Council and Staff Working Session meeting was chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, who opened and closed the session and guided the flow of discussion. He regularly clarified process, reminded council that this was a learning session, and flagged where topics would return later for formal decisions.

The main asset management presentation was led by Arryn McNichol, Director of Finance and Information Technology, who explained the overall framework, timelines, and how future tax impacts will be modeled. Public engagement plans were presented by Emily Cowan, Director of Community Programs Services and Initiatives, and Mark Kerr, Communications and Consultation Supervisor.

Asset specific discussions were led by Chad Brown, Fire Chief for fire fleet and Lisa Lindsay, Director of Recreation and Community Facilities for parks and recreation.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Corporate fleet discussion and who raised concerns

During the corporate fleet discussion, several council members asked detailed questions about costs, replacement timing, and fairness to taxpayers.

Councillor Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) focused on long term financial planning. She asked how reserves are built so residents are not hit with sudden large tax increases when vehicles need replacing. She also questioned whether replacement costs shown in today’s dollars properly reflect inflation and future pricing.

Councillor  Phil St.-Jean (Picton) questioned why municipal vehicles are sometimes replaced while similar vehicles continue operating for contractors. His comments reflected concerns often raised by residents who see older municipal trucks still running elsewhere.

Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol) raised questions about seasonal vehicle rentals and whether renting makes financial sense compared to ownership. He also asked whether different vehicle types should be chosen more carefully to reduce costs over time.

Electric vehicles were raised by St.-Jean, who referenced discussions with other municipalities and vendors. Staff responded that electric options may be explored but only where they meet operational needs.

No decisions were made. Staff confirmed that clearer cost comparisons and service level impacts will be presented at the August workshop.

Fire fleet discussion and area specific implications

The fire fleet discussion generated the most area specific conversation. Chad Brown, Fire Chief, explained that fire trucks are tied directly to council approved levels of service. He described the difference between first duty trucks used for interior firefighting and rescue and second duty trucks used for lower risk responses.

Brown specifically referenced Sophiasburgh, Milford, and Cressy. He explained that some stations serving these areas currently rely on trucks that are beyond the twenty year benchmark discussed in safety guidance. As a result, when a fire requires interior firefighting, compliant equipment and full time staff based in Picton are used to support those communities.

Branderhorst questioned why used fire trucks that still meet safety standards could not be considered to reduce costs. He referenced conversations with provincial officials and stressed affordability for smaller communities.

St.-Jean asked how rural response works in practice and confirmed that equipment and staff from Picton respond into areas like Sophiasburgh and Cressy when higher level service is required.

Maynard asked for clarification on the regulatory language being used and whether standards are mandatory or guidance. She requested that council see the referenced documentation and understand liability implications before making future decisions.

No changes to fire service levels were approved. Staff confirmed that these questions will be addressed through the Community Risk Assessment and the upcoming Fire Master Plan.

Parks and recreation discussion and community focus

The parks and recreation discussion focused heavily on how different communities use and value park spaces.

Lisa Lindsay explained that parks across the county serve different purposes and that replacement is not as simple as rebuilding the same equipment everywhere. She referenced aging parks built in the late nineteen seventies and the need to balance accessibility, safety, and community expectations.

Maynard emphasized that rural communities should not be overlooked simply because they have fewer residents. She noted that some parks are the only recreational space available in certain areas and that accessibility matters just as much outside urban centres.

Branderhorst raised concerns about vandalism and asked whether washroom hours or access controls should be changed to protect assets. Lindsay confirmed that electronic locks, cameras, and coordination with police are being used where vandalism has occurred.

No parks were approved for closure, reduction, or upgrade at this meeting. Staff confirmed that future changes will be guided by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and further public consultation.

The official meeting minutes confirm the following outcomes. There were no motions.

There were no votes. There were no formal directions issued. The meeting adjourned at 3: 16 pm.

What this means for residents

The meeting confirmed that key municipal services including fire response currently rely on centralized staff and compliant equipment. This continues to play a major role in supporting surrounding areas.

The discussion clarified that higher level fire response is supported by equipment and staff beyond immediate stations. Any future changes to this model will depend on council decisions tied to service levels and cost.

For residents, council members emphasized that financial planning, fairness, and access to services remain central concerns as asset decisions move forward.

For parks and recreation spaces across the County, the discussion signaled that changes will be gradual, community informed, and shaped by how different areas actually use their parks rather than a one size fits all approach.

Formal decisions that affect service levels and taxes are expected later this summer, with the next major discussion scheduled for August 28.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:18:06. 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.