Part 2: Audit Committee Reviews Development Charges, Financial Oversight, and Project Accountability – 10/30/2024

The meeting focused on accountability, transparency, and how Prince Edward County manages the financial risks tied to growth and infrastructure planning. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that development charges are not simply a technical planning exercise, but one of the County’s most important financial tools for protecting taxpayers as growth continues.

The discussion also reflected growing concern about public trust, especially after previous development charge work drew criticism from both residents and developers who questioned assumptions, forecasting methods, and communication around major infrastructure costs.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Sam Branderhorst Stresses Urgency of Development Charges Study

CAO Sam Branderhorst emphasized that launching the development charges study quickly is essential if the County wants to responsibly plan future infrastructure spending and long-term debt management.

She explained that council cannot properly discuss financing strategies, growth-related infrastructure, or major capital investments without first understanding how much future development should contribute toward those costs. Updated development charges are expected to play a major role in determining how roads, water systems, wastewater infrastructure, and other services are funded as the County grows.

Branderhorst stressed that delays in the study could create larger planning problems later by leaving council without accurate financial tools while major infrastructure pressures continue building.

For residents, the issue matters because stronger and more accurate development charges can help ensure growth pays a larger share of growth-related costs instead of shifting those expenses onto existing property taxpayers and utility ratepayers.

Kate MacNaughton Pushes for Better Data and Transparency

Councillor Kate MacNaughton repeatedly raised concerns about how earlier development charge studies were conducted and communicated.

She questioned whether some previous work relied too heavily on judgment and generalized assumptions rather than detailed data analysis and clearly explained methodologies. MacNaughton stressed that residents lose confidence when technical studies appear difficult to understand or when financial outcomes later seem disconnected from earlier public discussions.

At one point, she argued that council must avoid situations where residents are later told decisions were based on “art, not science.”

MacNaughton pushed for clearer assumptions, stronger correlation analysis, and better transparency throughout the study process so residents, developers, and councillors can better understand how conclusions are reached.

Her comments reflected broader frustration around growth-related infrastructure costs and a desire to reduce confusion and mistrust surrounding long-term financial planning.

John Hirsch Supports Oversight Without Slowing Progress

Councillor John Hirsch acknowledged the challenge of balancing accountability with efficiency.

He noted that audit functions are traditionally focused on reviewing completed work and past financial performance rather than directly shaping future planning exercises. However, Hirsch agreed that part of effective risk management is identifying potential weaknesses early before major decisions are finalized.

He supported ensuring that concerns raised by the Audit Committee are reflected within the consultant’s work scope while also cautioning against turning the committee into a broader planning body that could unintentionally slow urgent infrastructure timelines.

His comments reflected an effort to strike a balance between careful oversight and the practical need to keep important financial and infrastructure planning moving forward. For residents, that balance matters because stronger oversight can improve accountability and reduce financial risks, while unnecessary delays could affect future infrastructure delivery and growth planning.

Committee Approves Early Audit Involvement

To address those concerns, the committee unanimously approved a motion recommending that the successful development charges consultant meet with the Audit Committee early in the assignment process.

Members viewed this as a practical way to ensure lessons learned from previous studies are addressed before major analysis work begins. The motion allows the Audit Committee to communicate expectations and concerns directly to the consultant without delaying procurement or interfering with staff timelines.

Several other motions involving deeper project reviews, five-year forecasting, and expanded reporting requirements were discussed but ultimately deferred rather than rejected outright.

Staff explained that many major planning components, including asset management work and the development charges study itself, are still underway. Attempting long-range forecasting before that foundational work is completed could produce unreliable projections or misleading assumptions.

The committee agreed those broader discussions should return in early 2025 once more accurate data and planning information are available.

Staff Explain Challenges Around Project Management and Capacity

The meeting also included discussion about project management capacity and why municipal infrastructure costs can sometimes appear to increase unexpectedly over time.

Staff from finance and infrastructure departments explained that many reporting systems and oversight mechanisms already exist internally, but that expanding reporting demands further could place additional strain on limited municipal resources, especially during budget season.

Staff also clarified that early project estimates are often based on preliminary designs and limited technical information. As projects move into engineering, regulatory review, and tendering phases, cost estimates naturally become more refined and can increase significantly depending on market conditions, design requirements, and construction realities.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of managing large infrastructure portfolios while also trying to communicate evolving project costs clearly to the public.

For residents, the explanation helps clarify why major projects involving water, wastewater, roads, or long-term care sometimes appear to “jump” in cost even when standard planning processes are being followed properly.

Better Communication Seen as Critical Moving Forward

A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the importance of improving how the County communicates major projects and financial decisions to residents.

Committee members acknowledged that infrastructure planning can often feel highly technical and difficult for the public to follow, especially over multi-year timelines where studies, engineering, approvals, and budgeting all happen at different stages.

Staff confirmed that work is underway to improve public-facing communication around major projects so residents can better understand how projects move from early concepts through construction and final completion.

The goal is to make large municipal projects easier to track and understand while reducing confusion and public frustration when timelines or costs evolve.

Overall Takeaway From the Meeting

Overall, the meeting reflected a municipality trying to strengthen accountability, transparency, and long-term financial planning while preparing for continued growth and infrastructure pressure.

Committee members pushed for clearer methodologies, stronger public communication, and earlier oversight involvement, while staff emphasized the need to keep foundational planning work moving efficiently without overwhelming limited municipal capacity.

For Prince Edward County residents, the discussions matter because development charges, infrastructure planning, and project management decisions will directly shape future taxes, utility rates, debt levels, and how growth-related costs are shared across the community moving forward.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:19:09. 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.