Part 1: Growth Forecast, Infrastructure Planning, and Public Input Divide – 01/29/2026

The County’s January 29, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting was largely devoted to one central issue: how fast is the County actually growing, and how should that shape major water and wastewater infrastructure planning.

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. at Shire Hall by Chair Councillor Sam Grosso, with Mayor Steve Ferguson and the majority of Council present. The key item on the agenda was Report DS-09-2026: Implications of Updated Population Growth Forecasts for Infrastructure Planning.

At the heart of the discussion was whether the County should continue planning around a 2.4 percent annual growth forecast, or shift toward a more conservative 1 percent growth rate based on updated analysis.

No construction contracts were awarded. Instead, Council voted to further investigate the lower growth scenario and to undertake detailed condition assessments of existing treatment plants before proceeding.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Opening Business and Public Participation

After confirming the agenda and noting there were no disclosures of pecuniary interest, Council began with a deputation from Tim Good, Chair of the Wellington Community Association.

Good addressed Council regarding the infrastructure planning report and questioned whether previously discussed large-scale infrastructure options were financially viable under current economic conditions.

Speaking as a resident and water ratepayer, he raised concerns about debt exposure, the implementation of development charges, and the potential burden on existing ratepayers. He encouraged Council to fully review what had already been built, to reassess plant capacity through independent review, and to ensure meaningful community engagement before major decisions are made.

Council formally received his deputation before moving into public comments .

Nine speakers addressed Council on the same agenda item. Their comments revealed a clear divide between residents urging caution and members of the development community advocating for readiness.

Several residents questioned the assumptions behind higher growth forecasts. Kevin Hanbury referenced changing real estate conditions and market uncertainty. Gary Mooney, citing his professional background, supported projections more closely aligned with historical population trends. Jane Lesslie expressed support for revisiting growth assumptions in light of shifting immigration patterns, interest rates, and return-to-work policies.

Meanwhile, representatives from the development sector emphasized that infrastructure must be in place to support future housing delivery. Paul Mondell of Sterling Homes spoke in support of modular wastewater solutions that could incrementally add capacity as real growth materializes . Andrew Eldebs referenced significant land investments in the County and expressed willingness to collaborate on funding strategies. Chris Marchese highlighted the need for infrastructure preparedness and committed to partnership on creative funding solutions. Fred Heller, representing CDAG and FLC Group, noted that approved residential projects require servicing capacity to move forward. Hazzem Koudsi connected infrastructure planning to opportunities for affordable home ownership. Ruth Estwick, CEO of the Quinte Home Builders Association, called for structured collaboration between the municipality and the development industry.

Council extended the public comment period to allow all registered speakers to be heard and later formally received the comments for information.

Staff Presentation: Two Growth Paths

Following public input, Cristal Laanstra, Director of Development Services, presented the report to Committee.

The presentation outlined the background of infrastructure planning in Wellington and Picton, including previous master servicing plans and environmental assessments. The core comparison focused on two scenarios.

Under the 2.4 percent growth scenario, significant water and wastewater infrastructure projects would need to move forward in the near term. This approach relies heavily on development charges and assumes a higher number of new units coming online.

Under the 1 percent growth scenario, infrastructure projects could potentially be staggered over a longer period. This may reduce short-term borrowing pressure but could increase overall long-term costs due to inflation and extended timelines.

During the question and answer period, Council members raised concerns about timelines for completing plant assessments, how growth rates would influence capital planning, and whether upgrades would qualify under development charge recovery. There were also questions about modular treatment technologies, the remaining useful life of existing facilities, and ensuring that any approach remains practical and economical .

Staff indicated that condition assessments of the existing plants could be completed within months, with findings expected to return to Council later this year.

Amended Motion and Council Direction

An amendment was introduced by Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer to broaden the scope of the review. The amendment directed staff to undertake detailed condition assessments of both water and wastewater treatment plants in Picton and Wellington, inclusive of modular solutions, and to engage not only the development community but also the public in feedback discussions .

The amendment carried. Council then passed the amended main motion. The approved direction included receiving the report, investigating the implications of adopting a 1 percent county-wide growth rate, undertaking detailed plant assessments, and engaging both the development community and the public for feedback. The motion carried as amended .

The meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.

Key Takeaways

1. No decision was made to construct a regional water treatment plant. Council chose to gather additional data before committing to long-term infrastructure spending.

   
   

2. The 1 percent growth scenario will now be formally examined, with financial and infrastructure implications to be brought back to Council for consideration.

   
   

3. Detailed condition assessments of existing treatment facilities in Picton and Wellington will move forward, including review of modular expansion options and remaining useful life.

---

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.