Perth County council seeks further changes to stewardship grant program

By Galen Simmons

Perth County council is considering several administrative changes to its Stewardship Program for 2027, directing staff to return with additional recommendations aimed at making the grant program more equitable and ensuring more of the funding goes toward planting trees rather than labour costs.

Council considered staff's recommendation to limit applicants to one project per grant stream, per property, per year and to create a separate administrative process for lower-tier municipal applications after hearing the program has been oversubscribed in two of its first three years. The changes are intended to spread funding among more landowners while simplifying the application process for municipalities.

According to a report prepared by resiliency and stewardship co-ordinator Hannah Cann and presented by director of public works Bill Wilson, the program has supported 99 stewardship projects since launching in 2024, resulting in the planting of more than 28,000 trees, the establishment of 43 kilometres of windbreaks and the restoration of more than 52 acres of degraded land. The county plans to maintain the program's $100,000 budget in 2027.

While councillors supported the proposed changes, several argued they do not go far enough.

Coun. Bob Wilhelm pointed out that limiting grants to one project per property still allows landowners with multiple properties to receive funding for each parcel.

"This change does not correct that," Wilhelm said. "If an owner has 10 properties, they can get 10 grants, and I do have a bit of a problem with that."

Staff acknowledged that landowners with multiple properties identified by separate property identification numbers would still be eligible to apply for each property under the proposed rules.

Coun. Matt Duncan questioned whether the evaluation process should instead favour first-time applicants when demand exceeds available funding.

"If we get to the maximum limit and somebody has five projects and somebody has one, does that person with five projects only get four so the one gets included?" Duncan asked.

Warden Dean Trentowsky, who also serves as chair of the county’s agricultural advisory committee, which reviews the program applications and makes recommendations to council, agreed the issue deserved another look, noting repeat applicants can consume a significant portion of the available funding while new applicants receive reduced grants because the program budget must be prorated.

"I would prefer to see the newcomer be put to the top of the priority list, receive their full amount, or as close to their full amount as possible," Trentowsky said.

Council ultimately directed staff to review the program's scoring and evaluation system to enhance the prioritization of new applicants over previous recipients and to examine options such as limiting applicants to one application per property owner each year rather than one per property. Staff are expected to report back as early as September.

The discussion also turned to labour costs eligible under the program.

Deputy Warden Sue Orr questioned whether taxpayer funding should be paying contractors rather than putting more trees in the ground, arguing the county may be duplicating services already offered through local conservation authorities.

"I have no problem planting trees. I want to get more trees in the ground, but people are benefiting their business through this program and I have a real problem (with that)," Orr said.

Orr initially moved to eliminate contractor labour as an eligible expense, but the motion was defeated after staff reminded council that applications declined when labour costs were removed from the program in a previous year before rebounding once they were reinstated.

Instead, Duncan proposed a compromise that received council's support.

Staff will report back on the percentage of program funding spent on labour, labour costs per tree planted, the feasibility of capping labour costs on a per-tree basis and the range of tree prices being charged through the program.

Trentowsky supported further review rather than eliminating labour funding outright, noting many farm operators rely on contractors because tree planting coincides with busy spring and fall farming seasons.

"There needs to be a labour component included in this project," Trentowsky said. "To what extent? Yes, that would be worth the investigation to find out. But at the end of the day, labour is the work. Otherwise, the trees just don't get planted."