Part 2: Council Divisions on Pay, Noise Bylaw Support, Water Planning, and Heritage Deadline Request — 06/09/2026

While the June 9 Council meeting covered everything from noise bylaws to water rates and council compensation, much of the evening's interest came from where individual councillors stood on the issues and how those positions could affect residents in different parts of the County.

Noise Bylaw Changes Gain Broad Support

The proposed amendments to the County's Noise Bylaw received support from most members of Council, although there was debate over one particular recommendation involving the citizen-led group Good Neighbours Together.

Director of Corporate and Legislative Services Sarah Viau explained that the key change was adding the words "cause or permit" to the bylaw. She argued this would help enforcement officers address situations where excessive noise occurs at properties such as short-term accommodations, wedding venues, or event sites, particularly when it is difficult to identify the specific individual responsible for creating the noise.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Councillor Janice Maynard repeatedly emphasized that the amendment was relatively modest and largely brought the County into line with standard language already used in many Ontario municipalities. She stressed that Council was not changing permitted noise levels or operating hours, but simply improving enforcement language.

Councillor Phil St-Jean supported updating the bylaw but questioned the recommendation directing staff to collaborate with Good Neighbours Together. He argued that residents are already free to organize and work with staff without requiring formal Council direction. He later introduced a motion removing that recommendation, which Council approved.

The discussion also touched on enforcement challenges. Councillor Chris Braney raised concerns about after-hours enforcement and whether the OPP would face additional demands. Viau responded that most late-night complaints already go to the police because County bylaw officers do not currently work those hours.

For residents living near short-term accommodations, event venues, wedding locations, or rural gathering spaces, the bylaw changes could provide additional enforcement tools if repeated noise complaints occur. For responsible operators and property owners, Council heard that a due diligence defence would still be available if reasonable efforts are made to prevent violations.

Water and Wastewater Planning Moves Ahead

The discussion around water and wastewater rates was much less divisive but still important.

Councillor Jane McNaughton successfully proposed adding affordability considerations to future water and wastewater planning work. The amendment was accepted as a friendly addition to the motion.

Councillor Phil St-Jean questioned whether any increase was necessary at all this year, given that larger studies are still underway. Staff explained that the proposed increase is intended primarily to keep pace with operating costs while larger infrastructure, growth, and development charge studies continue.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer and Councillor Phil St-Jean both sought clarification about future growth projections and the timelines for several major studies that will shape future rates. Staff confirmed that several pieces of planning work remain underway and will eventually feed into long-term servicing decisions.

Heritage Concerns Unite Council

One issue that generated little disagreement was the County's request for additional time to deal with provincial heritage requirements.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer introduced the motion asking the Province to extend the current deadline for evaluating heritage properties. He explained that the County relies heavily on volunteers and does not have dedicated heritage planning staff available to complete reviews for more than 200 listed properties before the current deadline.

Council approved the request unanimously. If successful, the extension could provide more time for heritage reviews involving older homes, farms, commercial buildings, and historic properties throughout the County, particularly in areas such as Picton, Bloomfield, Wellington and many rural villages where heritage properties are common.

Council Pay Debate Splits the Room

The most contentious discussion involved Council remuneration, and voting revealed a clear divide around the horseshoe.

Councillors St-Jean, MacNaughton, Maynard, Engelsdorfer, Grosso, Hirsch, and Mayor Steve Ferguson all spoke about the challenge of attracting future candidates, particularly younger residents, working-age professionals, and people who cannot afford to take significant income reductions to serve on Council. Several argued that compensation levels can create barriers to participation.

On the other side, Councillors Pennell, Nieman, Braney, Harrison, and Branderhorst raised concerns about public perception, taxpayer impacts, and whether the current system should remain in place until broader governance questions are addressed.

A motion to maintain the current compensation framework ended in a 6-6 tie and failed. A second motion supporting a compensation model based on comparable single-tier municipalities also failed by the same 6-6 margin. After a lengthy procedural debate, Council voted 7-5 to defer the matter until the June 23 meeting.

What This Means for Locals

For most residents, the practical impacts from this meeting are fairly straightforward.

People living near event venues, short-term accommodations, and gathering spaces may see stronger enforcement tools become available under the updated Noise Bylaw. Residents connected to municipal water and wastewater systems should expect further discussion on affordability and long-term infrastructure costs over the next year. Property owners with heritage-listed buildings may benefit if the Province grants municipalities additional time to complete heritage reviews.

The council compensation debate may seem less directly connected to daily life, but it touches on a larger question facing the County. Several councillors argued that future councils should reflect a wider range of ages, incomes, and backgrounds. Others argued taxpayers expect restraint and that compensation should remain unchanged. That discussion remains unresolved, meaning residents will likely hear much more about it when Council revisits the issue later this month.

While the June 9 Council meeting covered everything from noise bylaws to water rates and council compensation, much of the evening's interest came from where individual councillors stood on the issues and how those positions could affect residents in different parts of Prince Edward County.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:49:40. 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.