Part 2: Development Charges and Governance Questions - 04/10/2025

The longest and most detailed exchange followed the presentation by Sean-Michael Stephen of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., particularly around development charge exemptions and whether growth truly pays for growth. Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) repeatedly pressed the issue of fairness, questioning how infrastructure upgrades triggered by new development, especially in areas like Wellington and Wallbridge, would be funded if large portions of housing are exempt from charges. Pennell argued that when development-related road upgrades fall to the general tax base, rural residents risk subsidizing growth that benefits others.

Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) focused on geographic equity and consultation. She questioned how a county-wide average approach to development charges fairly reflects areas with limited growth and little need for new infrastructure. Maynard consistently returned to concerns that rural residents often feel excluded from consultations and pushed for broader, more accessible engagement methods. Her concerns translated into action when she formally moved an amendment requiring stakeholder consultations to be held in both rural and urban portions of the County, an amendment that Council supported unanimously before receiving the development charge presentation.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Housing affordability drew pointed questions from multiple councillors. David Harrison (North Marysburgh) asked how exemptions for affordable units affect overall project financing, noting that when half a subdivision is exempt, the unrecovered costs do not disappear. Sean-Michael Stephen confirmed that these shortfalls cannot be passed on to other development and must be covered by non-development-charge sources. CAO Marcia Wallace reinforced that this outcome is driven by provincial policy choices, not local discretion, a reality that directly affects tax and rate payers across all wards.

The meeting’s most consequential votes came later, during debate on whether to place a governance-related question on the 2026 municipal election ballot. Deputations from Gary Mooney and Penny Morris illustrated opposing public views. Mooney warned against reopening council size debates, emphasizing long-standing ward identities and representation. Morris, by contrast, argued that population change and democratic accountability justified asking residents whether a comprehensive review should occur.

When Council formally considered the staff report on the ballot question, debate intensified. Phil St-Jean (Picton) moved an amendment proposing that the ballot ask: “Are you in favour of a comprehensive governance review which would look at Council size, ward boundaries, structure and method of election?” The amendment also directed staff to obtain legal advice on the wording and prepare supporting educational material.

Some councillors expressed reservations. Pennell opposed the amendment, arguing that the question bundled too many issues and risked constraining future councils. Maynard sought to add language explicitly referencing communities of interest, reflecting concerns about ward identity and voter parity, but the mover declined further amendments. Others, including Chris Braney (Hillier) and John Hirsch (South Marysburgh), spoke strongly in favour, framing the question as an opportunity for residents to decide whether a review should happen at all, not what its outcome must be.

A recorded vote was requested on the amendment. The result was decisive. Twelve councillors voted in favour, while David Harrison and Pennell voted against. Mayor Steve Ferguson supported the amendment, emphasizing that Prince Edward County has not undertaken a comprehensive governance review since amalgamation and that regular institutional self-examination is overdue.

Following the successful amendment, Council voted on the main motion as amended, which also carried, confirming that the governance question would move forward procedurally toward potential inclusion on the 2026 ballot, subject to legal review and further Council consideration.

What this means for the locals

For residents, the implications vary by area. Rural wards heard clear acknowledgment of consultation gaps and infrastructure cost concerns. Urban centres like Picton and Wellington saw councillors emphasize development pressure, housing affordability, and governance capacity. While no immediate changes were approved, the meeting set the stage for future debates on who pays for growth and how Prince Edward County governs itself.

The meeting concluded with formal adjournment at 3:05 p.m., closing a session that, while procedural in outcome, sharply illuminated the political and geographic tensions shaping County decision-making.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:06:55. 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.