Criticism over proposed fines and who can use the Millennium Trail

– Sue Capon file photo

By Sharon Harrison
The Millennium Trail took up a lot of discussion time at Thursday’s committee of the whole meeting as it considered the contents of a report regarding a bylaw update for the trail.

The report by the operational services department wasn’t well received by most council members, especially when it came to a proposed bylaw to regulate the use of the trail and limit the maximum size of vehicles allowed, along with proposed new set fines.

When all was said and done, council voted in favour of approving a motion to refer the entire bylaw update and the fee structure back to staff to be re-worked.

Discussion around the horseshoe centered around who and what vehicles can (and can’t) use the Millennium Trail, the hours they are allowed to use it, and was especially critical of the proposed fines for those who refuse to obey the rules.

But it was the penalties that garnered the most significant commentary among council members, who voiced strong opinion about the high fees, as well as how enforcement would ever work.

Fees for first offences ranged from $100 (for operating a motor vehicle without a valid permit), right up to $500 (for failing to stop). Unauthorized crossing of the trail: fine $200. An unauthorized group event: fine $300, same if you plant, remove or destroy any living tree, shrub, or groundcover without authorization.

If someone makes an unusual noise, the fine would be $200 (although it doesn’t define what constitutes “unusual”). Failure to yield to a right of way, cost $300. Entering or exiting the trail not at an access point would cost $200. If any sign is disobeyed, the proposed fine is $150 and exceeding a posted speed limit – fine $200. And there are many more examples, actually 63 in total, where fines increase substantially for second and subsequent offences.

The intent of the review was to address inefficiencies, to improve clarity and to address some major concerns around enforceability, outlined Albert Paschkowiak, supervisor of environmental services and sustainability.

He indicated that the PEC Trails Committee advocated for the bylaw and undertook a lot of the work, with input from other stakeholders, such as PEC Trail Riders Association, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the OPP, the Ministry of Natural Resources and others.

“Essentially, what this new bylaw is intended to do is to create a base level of enforceability,” explained Paschkowiak. “We understand that with these changes, the bylaw now will be enforceable by OPP, by provincial bylaw officers, and more so by our staff as well.”

He noted how it has been difficult not having some of these mechanisms and fines in place prior, something he described as a barrier to enforcement in the past.

Paschkowiak pointed out this process did not intend to explore allowable user groups, but he suggested that should it be undertaken at a later point, it should be done with a thorough consultation. Any such exploration should include a comprehensive review and data collection, to learn who the users are, how heavily it is being used, where the speed infractions are being done, and what user types are causing those speed infractions, he said.

Councillor Phil Prinzen was one of a number of councillors who took issue with the proposed new fines.

“If you get caught doing anything on the trail, it’s going to cost more than it does for a public highway. That I have an issue with,” he said. “The fine levels are absurd. I cannot believe it, and I wonder how we got to those levels.”

“I am not happy with the fines either,” contributed councillor Brad Nieman. “When I looked at the penalties, I thought my head was going to explode,” added councillor Chris Braney, who said the bylaw should be streamlined to have more practicality, as he questioned how it could be enforced and be effective.

“I think it’s a little over the top, and I think some of them quite frankly, because they are unenforceable, are ridiculous and they really have no place in this bylaw,” said councillor Phil St-Jean, who said more work needs to be done on the level of the fines, and what is being fined, with a more realistic approach to how enforcement would work.

We are being extreme with what we are trying to do to correct what is probably a very minor issue, continued St-Jean. As for the language of the bylaw and what it’s covering, he said he did not see the need to make any changes.

“This is a trail that was established for everyone, it’s a recreational trail and in my books, that should not change. Everybody has equitable access to this trail, whether you are on a motorcycle, on an ATV, on a snow mobile, walking, riding a horse, whatever, that’s what this trail was set-up for.”

When it was noted that some trails in other areas are user-fee based, Paschkowiak said they have heard in their consultations that user fees are not palatable to the public in Prince Edward County.

“This is a recreational facility, we all pay fees to use our recreational facilities, so maybe we do need to have a fee structure for using it if we are going to maintain this long-term for a wide variety of users,” suggested councillor Janice Maynard.

“Who came up with these ridiculous things that we are all buckling in on,” asked Braney, “who put these pages of discrepancies and bylaws and fines together?”

Referring to the amounts of the penalties, municipal lawyer Sarah Viau said there was no magic to it.

“It is a question of trying to come to amounts that will deter people from engaging in the activity, because those amounts are geared to enforcement, tools intended to deter behaviour in the most efficient means possible,” explained Viau. “So, it should be an amount that will deter behaviour, but not an amount that is so high that almost everyone would challenge them to get that penalty lowered.”

She said what also needs to be considered is how often enforcement activity will be taking place because on the Millennium Trail there isn’t going to be active enforcement regularly on the trail, unlike on a highway, for example.

“The amounts have to be high enough that people know that, probably nine times out of 10, I am not going to come across an enforcement officer, but when I do, I am going to make sure that I am following all the rules, so I don’t get hit with one of those penalties.“

Prinzen also questioned the definition of winter being Dec. 1 to March 31, where he noted the old policy was when snow grooming starts and finishes.

“I don’t like that at all; this year we had a good winter, but if you can’t drive your ATV on it between December and April, that’s silly 99 per cent of the years we’ve had lately, so I would like that to go back to when grooming starts.”

Nieman was concerned about a time restriction being put on the trail, with Paschkowiak confirming there was already a time restriction in the previous bylaw (trail can be used from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. only). And yes, it comes with a $200 fine.

The report and the proposed schedule of fines can be found on the corresponding agenda on the County’s website, along with the meeting recording.