Council at first meeting of 2026 approves budget, waste tender, cemetery transfer, waives noise bylaw fee

By Sharon Harrison
The first meeting of the year for council Tuesday night – in the last year for this term of council – saw various items for consideration, including approval of the 2026 municipal budget , the curbside waste collection tender, a cemetery transfer and heritage designation.

Summarized below are some of the highlights.

Curbside waste collection – tender awarded
A tender for curbside waste collection was awarded to Environmental 360 Solutions Ltd. for a five-year term, with the contract term to begin on July 1, 2026 (to terminate on June 30, 2031).

The successful bid came in at $1,661,160 (excluding HST) per year. Two other bids received were from Miller Waste Systems Inc. in the amount of $2,775,651.22 and Halton Recycling Ltd. (dba Emterra Environmental) for $3,530,720.07.

“The contract term is set for five years to reduce costs of the overall project,” Albert Paschkowiak, supervisor of environmental services and sustainability, said in his report. “Longer terms allow for greater amortization periods for equipment and can foster more competitive bids.”

The curbside collection of waste in the County includes the collection of curbside waste, curbside source-separated organics, waste received at the County’s seven waste sites and provisional management of non-eligible recycling at the waste sites.

Councillor Roy Pennell asked how many people are using the green bin system, stating that he sees very few, suggesting it be something the municipality should be promoting more.

“We don’t have an exact count, but we have received information from our contractor and they are suggesting on average it’s about 60 percent in built-up areas, and about 40 percent in the rural areas for the usage amount,” said Paschkowiak.

He said with respect to promotion, council has elected to promote back yard composting and other options, as opposed to green bin collection because there is a cost associated with that.

“We are continually looking at more organics management, and there is an expression of interest that council directed us to undertake to look for better options,” he said. “I think the idea would be, to go full-force on promotion on this when you have something in place that’s a bit more sustainable.”

Pennell added that he saw no reason why the green boxes need to be picked-up every week from October to May 1, asking if that had been looked at as a way of cutting back.

Paschkowiak explained that the regulatory framework doesn’t allow for a reduction in services. “Whatever we do has to compliment it or improve it; we can’t reduce it. If we were to change the frequency, we would be reducing it in essence, and that would be putting us in contravention of the legislation.”

Centre and South Hastings Waste Services Board – disbursement of funds
In his report, Paschkowiak recommended that council accept surplus funds associated with the planned dissolution (at the end of 2025) of the Centre and South Hastings Waste Services Board, and to transfer the funds to the reserve for waste diversion.

It was noted that recycling services in the County were historically co-ordinated by the Centre and South Hastings Waste Services Board where Quinte Waste Solutions was created to administer waste-related services. In July 2025, responsibility for these services transitioned from municipalities to the producers of recyclable material in accordance with the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act.

Jointly-owned assets totalling $1,562,697 are to be divested and split among the member municipalities of which the County is one, with its remaining portion being $312,574.12. There was no discussion and council approved the decision.

Built and cultural heritage advisory committee – recommendations
Several recommendations from the built and cultural heritage advisory committee were approved by council. Those items included approving a heritage permit for the property located at 155 Picton Main Street, and the formal transfer of the land title of St. John’s Anglican Cemetery located at 3125 County Road 8 in Waupoos, to the municipality.

Some discussion ensued about the cemetery where it was confirmed that it is a working cemetery and because the church no longer wishes to maintain it, the municipality must now do so, including site maintenance, the selling of plots, burials, etc. It was noted that once the transfer is complete and the County has the operating licence, operations will resume as status quo.

Paschkowiak confirmed that the municipality already maintains the cemetery, but said that once the licence is transferred, the County could operate it. “If there are plots available, we would be entitled to commence sales, and complete sales of plots.”

Councillor Janice Maynard spoke to the significant amount of money of operating cemeteries.
“This problem will not get any better, and the cost will continue to escalate, and we have no choice as a municipality,” Maynard expressed.

Councillor John Hirsch noted that Sandy Latchford intends to produce a forecast of costs.

“Selling a few plots is not going to help the fact that it costs us a fortunate to maintain cemeteries, and this has been a subject that has been neglected over the years, as some residents believe the cemeteries themselves have been neglected, and we hear about that,” shared Hirsch.

“But there is a huge cost involved, and we have absolutely no choice with the province to set this up. The case in point here, the Anglican church decides they don’t want to maintain the cemetery anymore, so they just hand it over to us; there’s no bank account to manage it.”

Councillor Phil St-Jean asked if there had been any discussion with the Anglican church diocese.

“Because when they walk away from a cemetery, and they have assets, they have a lot of assets, they are dumping something on us, and this applies to any church,” expressed St-Jean. “Do we have any means to force the church to continue to fund the cemeteries that they are dumping on us?”

Paschkowiak reminded that the legislation says for anyone operating a cemetery, they are required to contribute money to a care maintenance fund. “They should transfer over to the municipality in the event that we are saddled with the maintenance,” he said. “I don’t believe that money can be kept by the original owner, it has to carry through with the actual cemetery.”

Hirsch said his understanding from Latchford is there is a maintenance fund associated with St. John’s, but that the fund now is down to a very small amount of money, and the municipality will inherit that fund.

Picton food bank – noise permit fee waived
In a deputation to council, Picton Food Bank volunteer Moira Coull requested council waive the $300 fee for the temporary noise bylaw permit for a New Year’s Eve fundraising event, due to attendance being significantly reduced due to a severe snowstorm. She asked that the $300 be donated to the Picton Food Bank, which council approved.

“Event expenses were incurred based on original attendance estimates and included hall rental, insurance, permits, food, band, decorations, bar services and a qualified Smart Serve bartender,” she explained. “Waiving the $300 noise bylaw permit fee would allow additional funds to be donated to the Picton Food Bank and offset unavoidable event expenses.“

Despite the low attendance, she said it was a very successful event with over 150 pounds of non-perishable food items collected.

Councillor Sam Branderhorst brought forward the idea, prompted by Coull, that the bylaw process for obtaining signatures from those neighbouring homes in close proximity to the event should be looked into due to its inappropriateness of asking for information of neighbours, given the number of scams happening in the region. Coull explained that without the signatures, a permit is not issued.

“We had to go to 10 homes… there were some seniors, and they are very trusting and very kind,” she explained, saying that she was required to get the telephone number, a signature, and an address for each, according to the bylaw department.

“I don’t think that’s information that seniors should be handing out; in today’s environments, it’s a little bit of a scary thing to do to seniors.”

Councillor Brad Nieman questioned why a noise bylaw was needed and why there was a need to have to talk to neighbours.

Also approved was Branderhorst’s amending motion that staff reviews the noise bylaw and fees and charges, and bring back a report to include a section whereby staff have the ability to waive fees for community groups seeking to fundraise for the community.

The full agenda and the meeting recording can be found on the County’s website.