Part 2: Divided on Redevelopment Direction, Partnership Approach, and Site Priorities – 08/07/2024

As the August 7 Special Committee of the Whole meeting moved deeper into the Queen Elizabeth School discussion, the focus shifted from possibilities to positions. This portion of the meeting was where councillors began clearly stating what they supported, what they were uncomfortable with, and how far they were willing to go at this stage of the process. While no final redevelopment decision was made, the votes and comments revealed where Council is aligned and where tensions remain.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Who Supported Keeping All Five Proponents in Play

A majority of Council supported staff’s recommendation to invite all five Expression of Interest respondents to refine their proposals and to begin public consultation.

Kate MacNaughton, Picton, was a strong supporter of moving forward broadly. She thanked residents for speaking and said she appreciated the structure staff proposed because it allowed Council, the community, and potential partners to shape the project together rather than locking in outcomes too early. MacNaughton emphasized that this stage was about listening and learning, not making final pronouncements.

John Hirsch, South Marysburgh, also supported keeping all proponents involved but made it clear he wanted more community hub space preserved than some proposals suggested. He signaled concern about losing too much of the original service space vision and cautioned against proposals that would require boundary expansions elsewhere in the municipality.

Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) consistently returned to the idea of social integration. She supported continuing discussions with all proponents while stressing that any final proposal must deliver a barrier free, stigma free community hub with affordable housing woven throughout rather than isolated.

Councillors Sam Grosso, Bill Roberts, Chris Braney, David Harrison, and Mayor Steve Ferguson all ultimately voted in favour of continuing with staff’s recommended process, including public consultation and proposal refinement.

Who Raised Concerns About Scope, Cost, and Direction

Not every councillor was comfortable with the breadth of the approach.

Brad Nieman (Bloomfield/Hallowell) raised repeated questions about funding. He asked whether the County might still secure external funding and what would happen if it did. He also expressed discomfort with losing long term ownership control over the site, even if affordability guarantees were built into an agreement.

Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) , was wary of the County appearing to sell a public asset for private profit. He questioned how future school boards might view the County if it resold the site and worried about setting a precedent. Pennell also pushed Council to consider whether severing land from the building could be a better option.

Phil Prinzen  (Bloomfield/Hallowell) supported caution and said he trusted staff’s judgment but remained uneasy about some proponents asking the County to give more before seeing firm commitments in return.

Corey Engelsdorfer (Wellington) questioned whether sending all five proponents back for refinement could delay decisions past the County’s financial deadline. He suggested that focusing on fewer, more detailed proposals might reduce the risk of spinning wheels into November.

Motions That Failed and What That Signals

Two notable amendments did not pass. An amendment brought forward by Sam Branderhorst (Athol) and seconded by Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh), would have directed staff to explore a development partner specifically for Quinte’s Isle Non Profit Housing Corporation. The vote ended in a tie and failed. While several councillors praised Quinte’s Isle’s experience, others felt directing staff in that way signaled favoritism or was unnecessary since partnerships could form organically.

Another amendment by Brad Nieman, seconded by Sam Grosso, proposed exploring the use of part of the site for municipal staff offices to save operating costs. This motion also failed. Councillors opposing it said the idea was premature and would reopen earlier decisions about the site’s purpose.

These failed motions suggest Council is not ready to narrow options or repurpose the site internally. The preference for now is flexibility.

The Amendment That Did Pass

One amendment did receive strong support. Janice Maynard, seconded by Roy Pennell, successfully amended the main motion to require that any final recommendation return to Council with a suitable private or non profit partner that meets the stated objectives of the project.

This wording mattered. It clarified that staff are not simply bringing back any deal by November 1, but one that aligns with affordability, community benefit, and long term public value. The recorded vote passed comfortably, signaling broad agreement on guarding the project’s original intent.

What This Means for Locals

For residents living near Centre Street, Barker Street, Elm Street, and Paul Street, the Council has not approved density, building height, traffic changes, or site layout. What they did approve is a process that keeps multiple options alive while formally committing to early public consultation after Labour Day. That consultation will directly influence how proposals are refined before Council sees them again.

This means the next phase is where voices matter most. Council has made it clear that neighbourhood fit, accessibility, green space, and community services are still part of the conversation. The decisions made later this fall will shape the area for decades, but August 7 was about keeping the door open rather than closing it too soon.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:13:17. 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.