Part 2: Council Positions, Ward Perspectives, and Infrastructure Direction – 01/29/2026

The motion on the floor directed staff to investigate adopting a 1 percent county-wide growth rate, undertake detailed condition assessments of the Picton and Wellington water and wastewater treatment plants, inclusive of modular solutions, and engage both the development community and the public before any formal adoption.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Data First, Then Decide

Councillor Kate MacNaughton and Councillor Phil St-Jean both spoke in support of gathering updated data before committing to long term infrastructure decisions.

Councillor MacNaughton made it clear that the regional water plant concept had not been approved and emphasized the importance of ensuring decisions are made publicly and transparently at the Council table.

Councillor St-Jean acknowledged that 2.4 percent growth now appeared too optimistic given changing economic conditions. He supported investigating the 1 percent scenario and emphasized the need for factual analysis over assumptions. At the same time, he expressed optimism that growth could exceed 1 percent and cautioned against losing provincial funding if timelines slipped.

When the final amended motion came to a vote, both Picton councillors voted in favour.

Guarded but Supportive

Councillor Brad Nieman and Councillor Phil Prinzen were also present .

Councillor Prinzen moved the main motion, which directed staff to investigate the lower growth scenario . That alone signaled support for taking a more cautious path before committing to major construction.

While both councillors acknowledged development pressures, neither argued to proceed immediately under the higher 2.4 percent scenario. Both Bloomfield/Hallowell councillors voted in favour of the amended motion.

Between Pressure and Prudence

Corey Engelsdorfer played a visible role in shaping the final direction.

He introduced the amendment requiring staff to assess both water and wastewater plants in Picton and Wellington, inclusive of modular solutions, and to engage the public alongside the development community. The amendment carried, and Councillor Engelsdorfer voted in favour of the amended motion.

Wellington has been at the centre of servicing debates for years. By broadening the review to include modular options and public consultation, the Wellington position reflected both the development pressure facing Wellington and local concerns about ratepayer exposure.

Long Term Thinking and Caution

Councillor Janice Maynard, Councillor Sam Grosso, and Councillor Roy Pennell were present, with Councillor Maynard arriving shortly after the meeting began.

Councillor Maynard spoke about generational responsibility, noting that infrastructure planning often extends decades into the future. She supported understanding the long term implications before deciding.

Councillor Pennell expressed skepticism about whether new infrastructure was needed immediately and repeatedly emphasized cost control and practicality. He questioned whether the County was being pushed toward expensive solutions prematurely.

Despite differing tones, all three Ameliasburgh councillors voted in favour of the amended motion.

Strong Skepticism About High Growth

Chris Braney was one of the most direct voices in the debate. He questioned the realism of the 2.4 percent growth rate and stressed that residents, not developers, elected Council. He urged colleagues to think about whether they would make the same decisions if it were their own money.

Ultimately, Councillor Braney voted in favour of investigating the 1 percent scenario and conducting the condition assessments.

Balance of Optimism and Data

David Harrison ((North Marysburg) asked about breaking down growth numbers between rural and serviced areas and about modular options as potential buffers. He focused on understanding where growth is actually occurring and whether rural permits are skewing the data.

John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) supported receiving the report and investigating the 1 percent scenario but stated openly that he believed growth might ultimately land closer to 2.4 percent. He emphasized the need to provide clarity to developers within a reasonable timeline. Both councillors voted in favour of the amended motion.

The Final Vote

The amended motion, which included investigating the 1 percent growth rate, assessing existing plants inclusive of modular solutions, and engaging both the development community and the public, carried as amended.

There was no recorded opposition vote in the minutes. The direction to staff passed.

What This Means for Locals

For residents across the County, the outcome means a temporary slowdown in committing to major water and wastewater construction tied to higher growth projections. Picton and Wellington plants will undergo updated condition assessments. Modular options will be reviewed. Growth assumptions will be re-evaluated before any formal adoption.

In practical terms, this reduces immediate risk of large debt increases tied to an aggressive 2.4 percent growth forecast. It also means development approvals tied to new servicing capacity remain in a holding pattern until updated data returns later this year. For ratepayers in every ward, especially those already concerned about water bills and municipal debt, Council’s vote reflects a collective decision to verify the numbers first and build second.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:38:44. 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.