County News
Settled
Picton Terminals and the County agree to settlement terms
The years-long battle between Picton Terminals and the County has come to a close, after an out-of-court settlement was reached and accepted by Council last Tuesday evening.
In closed session earlier in the meeting, Council received a second confidential independent legal opinion from Loopstra Nixon LLP, which it was not able to make public.
In a recorded 7-6 vote, Mayor Steve Ferguson and councillors John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Phil St-Jean, Sam Branderhorst and Phil Prinzen were opposed.
Before the vote, Council heard from local farmer John Thompson, who spoke on behalf of the agricultural community. He said local farmers are pleased to welcome the construction of the Parrish & Heimbecker grain terminal at the port.
“This will result in better prices for County farmers and the regional farmers as well as a benefit for the agricultural economy,” he said, adding that the trucking cost to a port will be reduced by $10 a ton or more. “The grain terminal will provide local benefits for generations to come.”
Thompson also believes another benefit is that the County would have a strong negotiating position for getting provincial and federal assistance to re-build County Road 49.
“Repeatedly asking for help over a couple of decades has not shown any success, and playing the same plan repeatedly and expecting different results makes little sense. We finally have a strong hand to play,” said Thompson.
Ken Stewart of the County Conservancy reminded Council that the grain terminal had nothing to do with the settlement before them.
“We don’t need the settlement terms to make the P&H deal go. Picton Terminals was given the right to ship bulk products in the 2018 judgement from the Ontario Superior Court,” said Stewart. “If there is a bypass necessary to go through to 49 to make it easier for trucks to go in there, then Picton Terminals can apply through the normal planning process. You don’t need an MZO to put a road through to 49.”
Councillor John Hirsch, who has been an advocate for not settling and going to court, said he believed it it is not desirable to execute the minutes of settlement, and hoped the process could be stopped.
“Through this entire process of dealing with a settlement, there has never been a conversation in open session for the public to hear about reasons for and against. I am asking Council to vote no to the by-law before us,” said Hirsch.
“New information has come to light that we were not aware of on June 25. Information about legal case precedent, full scope of operations at the site, the White Chapel Church issue and, more recently, a very comprehensive letter from Transport Canada, confirming what many of us have believed all along: that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over the port facility,” he added.
Hirsch also worried about the complete lack of public input.
“This is not democratic and not how this council should be known. We have all heard significant objections from the public about Picton Terminals’ intention to create a container ship port and to significantly enlarge their operation. I continue to believe we would be better served to continue with our Superior Court request for an injunction so the County can determine its own destiny by approving only the operations which we believe are in the interest of the County,” he said.
Ameliasburgh Councillor Roy Pennell felt differently.
“It’s time we accept what the lawyers have told us and what the decision of Council was. I don’t know if we are trying to be heroes or what. It’s time to move on and start being a team,” he said.
Councillor Janice Maynard asked about the current quarrying of rock at Picton Terminals, and whether the County can leverage a site plan on the lands.
“Will they have to submit a plan for what they do with the property, and cease this years- long endless renovations of the site?” she asked.
CAO Marcia Wallace said the minutes of settlement agreement does not include site plan, but that it does create a development agreement which provides the same— and in some case more power—than a site plan would.
“You also need a formal site plan if you are required under the Aggregate Resources Act by the Ministry of Natural Resources to be treated as an aggregate pit,” she said.
I agree with the the flow. I like Teena’s verosity but all talk no action doesn’t improve the mess we are in.
All talk and no action. Alright. Let’s see now. My “political education” began mid-January of this year. Until then, I was a “card carrying Numpty”, and not much more informed now than I was then. But a little bit.
I have been in touch with our Mayor as well as various members of our Council and Staff at Shire Hall, multiple times, since the beginning of this year. I have been in touch with our Integrity Commissioner, multiple times, since the beginning of this year (to no avail, I might add – as he pointed out to me, he reports to Council and, as he also pointed out to me – “The Residents protection is in the next election”). I have been in touch with Todd Smith’s office (our previous MPP) a few times, since the beginning of this year – his assistant responded in his place, by the way – no direct contact for the likes of me – he’s a busy man. I’ve been in touch with Paul Calandra’s office who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, again, a few times, since the beginning of this year – again, his assistant responded in his place – and again, no direct contact for the likes of me – another busy man apparently. I have also been speaking with complete strangers – people on the street, in shops and restaurants – people I don’t even know (an incredibly difficult thing for me to do, by the way), as well as overhearing conversations in all of these public places. All this, AND trying to educate a few residents who appear as clueless as I’ve been, on how to contact the people “in charge”. So. What is “Everyone Else” doing to “improve this mess we are in”, hmmm?
Why doesn’t Teena get some useful information, seems to be in the know!
Well golly. I’ve just spent several months with an incredible instructor trying to learn how Municipal Council works and how to navigate Shire Hall’s website. I don’t wish this education on anyone, but Locals who I have spoken with aren’t aware of a pinch of what I’ve learned. And I wish I could unlearn it! Believe me, what I know wouldn’t fit in a thimble. I’m hoping other Residents will start asking their own hard questions of our Councillors – directly. Why just me? I’m giving you the contact information, as it appears that many people don’t even know this exists – please use it. I have my own concerns with this Council – Mine happens to be, why did our Mayor and Councillor St-Jean of Picton accept 2022 election donations from the developers working here? It’s allowed. Legally. But it still smells foul – I do no believe they can remain impartial in voting during the Planning and Development meetings, nor in the various Council meetings, and neither of them are declaring a Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – just look at the Conflict of Interest Registry since this Council has been elected. According to the MCIA, if a member of Council doesn’t think they have a Conflict, they don’t have to declare it. If they don’t declare it, most of us are no wiser. Why are so many so complacent and then complain when surprised that developers make proposals in their area? Ask your own questions…one voice being used, is also just one voice being ignored by Council – and they absolutely have a right to believe that it’s only one person concerned. If they’re right, well then, as far as I’m concerned, we’ll certainly deserve what we get in the next election, and I’ll just take a permanent sabbatical from the whole damned mess. So now, its over to you, and everyone else in PEC…
Just one more thing. I am providing contact links to various government agencies, and departments and people at Shire Hall for a reason. If Residents would just take the few moments to look into those links (which they don’t have to waste “their own” time trying to locate, by the way), then they are able to make informed and intelligent comments about their concerns directly to the person(s) and/or departments who matter. More importantly, they will be able to back up their complaints/concerns with hard, verifiable, “access to the general public” facts, and not supposition or innuendo, or “I saw this in the newspaper” hearsay. The comment by Cheryl in the “Bad Luck” article is a prime example in saying that Councillor Roberts “bailed”, but to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence of this. While I agree he should have been available for this vote, in any way he could, has anyone asked him? The information to contact him and do so is readily available. So, why don’t you ask?
What are the taxpayers legal fees in total for this years long saga?
Contact anyone on our PEC Council’s email list below and ask. That’s what we pay them for, isn’t it?
https://www.thecounty.ca/government/council/
Biggest question is why the Councilor Roberts deciding vote was missing in action.
Ask him directly, and stop the speculation:
broberts@pecounty.on.ca
Cheryl (Bad Luck) may be correct, but it’s best to ask. After all, as we elected all the members of this Council, they do answer to us.
What did Cheryl say?
Cheryl wrote in the Comments under the “Bad Luck” article. Read the article, and comments. I’ve no idea why Roberts wasn’t available to vote, and as he’s not my Councillor in my Ward (not that it will stop me from calling any Councillor to account – they represent All Residents!) it would be nice if someone in the Ward he’s representing would engage directly with him.