Part 1: Audit Committee Reviews Development Charges, Transparency, and Infrastructure Oversight – 10/30/2024

The Audit Committee met virtually for a policy-heavy meeting focused on development charges, infrastructure planning, project oversight, and public accountability. Once quorum was reached, the meeting was officially called to order, livestreamed publicly, and recorded. The agenda was approved without changes, there were no declarations of pecuniary interest, and no public comments or announcements were received, allowing the committee to move quickly into detailed financial and governance discussions.

Although no final infrastructure or tax decisions were made, the meeting dealt with several foundational issues that will directly shape how Prince Edward County funds future growth, manages major projects, and communicates with residents moving forward.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.

Development Charges Study Becomes Top Priority

The largest discussion centered around a draft Terms of Reference for a new Development Charges Background Study, which staff added to the agenda late because of urgent legislative timelines.

Staff explained that the County must move quickly to hire a consultant so that development charges can be reviewed and updated before larger infrastructure planning decisions proceed. The study will reassess how development charges are calculated across Prince Edward County, including updated population projections, employment growth assumptions, and the impact of recent provincial legislative changes.

The work will also explore the possibility of introducing broader water and wastewater development charges that could eventually replace or expand the existing Wellington-specific charge system.

Committee members stressed that this study carries major financial implications because development charges help determine how much future growth contributes toward roads, water systems, wastewater infrastructure, and other municipal services. Several members acknowledged that previous development charge studies had drawn criticism from both residents and developers, especially around assumptions and forecasting methods.

As a result, there was strong support for ensuring the new study relies on clearly explained methodologies, transparent data sources, and defensible analysis rather than broad judgment calls or vague forecasting models.

For residents, the discussion matters because development charges directly affect whether future infrastructure costs are paid more heavily by new development or shifted onto existing taxpayers and ratepayers.

Public Trust and Communication Become Central Themes

Another major theme throughout the meeting was public confidence and transparency. Committee members expressed concern that residents often feel disconnected from technical financial studies and infrastructure planning processes. Several members noted that important conclusions sometimes appear late in the process with little explanation about how decisions were reached, creating confusion and mistrust.

Staff confirmed that the consultant hired for the development charges study will be required to create a formal public and stakeholder consultation strategy. Importantly, engagement would not happen only at the beginning of the study but throughout the process as work progresses.

Members also discussed whether the final conclusions themselves should be communicated more clearly to the public rather than simply releasing technical reports without broader explanation. The idea of more educational and accessible public engagement received broad support around the table.

The discussion reflected a growing recognition that residents are more likely to support major financial or infrastructure decisions when they better understand the assumptions, trade-offs, and reasoning behind them.

Audit Committee Seeks Earlier Oversight Role

The committee also spent considerable time debating what role the Audit Committee should play once the development charges consultant is hired.

Staff reminded members that audit functions are traditionally focused on reviewing past financial controls and completed work rather than becoming directly involved in future planning exercises. However, several committee members argued that risk management also means ensuring strong processes are in place before major decisions are made.

Members stressed that many of the concerns raised in previous audit discussions involved methodology, assumptions, and communication failures that could potentially be avoided if the committee had earlier input.

To address this, the committee agreed that the consultant should meet with the Audit Committee early in the assignment process. This would allow members to clearly outline concerns, expectations, and lessons learned from previous development charge discussions before major analysis work begins.

A formal motion recommending early consultant engagement with the Audit Committee was approved. Members emphasized that this approach improves accountability and oversight without delaying procurement timelines or interfering with staff work.

Infrastructure Project Management Under Review

Photo: Picton Water Treatment Facility from Prince Edward County

The meeting later shifted toward broader project management and infrastructure communication issues, particularly involving major capital projects such as water, wastewater, and long-term care redevelopment. Staff outlined several initiatives already underway to improve how large projects are tracked, managed, and communicated to both council and the public.

Plans include developing a formal project management standard across departments, improving consistency in project reporting, and potentially bringing in outside expertise to assist with portfolio-level oversight for large infrastructure programs.

Staff also discussed efforts to improve public communication around infrastructure projects so residents can better understand how projects move from early planning through design, approvals, construction, and final completion.

The discussion acknowledged that many residents only see projects once costs rise or disruptions begin, without understanding the lengthy planning, engineering, regulatory, and procurement stages that happen beforehand.

For residents, the proposed communication improvements could eventually provide clearer updates, more understandable reporting, and better visibility into how large infrastructure decisions evolve over time.

Long-Term Forecasting Deferred Until More Work Is Complete

Several motions involving deeper project reviews, long-term forecasting, and expanded reporting were discussed during the meeting but ultimately deferred rather than rejected.

Staff explained that many critical planning pieces are still underway, including asset management work and the development charges study itself. Attempting to build detailed long-range forecasts before those foundational pieces are complete could produce unreliable or misleading projections.

Committee members accepted that more accurate forecasting will likely become possible once the County has updated development charge information, stronger asset management data, and more refined infrastructure planning models in place.

The committee agreed these topics should return in early 2025 once the groundwork has progressed further.

Overall Takeaway From the Meeting

Overall, the meeting reflected a municipality trying to improve financial accountability, infrastructure planning, and public confidence at the same time.

Discussions around development charges, audit oversight, project management, and public communication all pointed toward a broader effort to make complex municipal decisions more transparent, data-driven, and understandable for residents.

For Prince Edward County taxpayers, the issues discussed during the meeting will directly affect how future growth is funded, how infrastructure costs are managed, and how clearly the municipality explains major financial decisions 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.