Part 1: Committee of the Whole Meets to Tackle Development Charges and Governance Questions - 04/10/2025
- PECConnect
- Apr 10, 2025
- 5 min read
The County Committee of the Whole met on April 10, 2025, at Shire Hall in Picton, bringing together Council members, senior staff, consultants, and members of the public for a working meeting focused on long-term growth planning and municipal governance. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Kate MacNaughton, and was held to review major policy work in progress rather than to make final decisions. Any recommendations emerging from the meeting were clearly framed as preliminary, with final authority resting with Council at a later date.
Chair MacNaughton opened the meeting by outlining procedural expectations, confirming that the meeting was livestreamed, part of the public record, and governed by the County’s procedural bylaws. She emphasized respectful conduct in the chamber and clarified that any motions arising from the Committee of the Whole would not be final until considered by Council at a subsequent meeting. Attendance included Mayor Steve Ferguson, councillors from all wards, and senior staff led by Chief Administrative Officer Marcia Wallace and Municipal Clerk Victoria Leskie.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
The first major item was a presentation on the Development Charge Background Study, delivered by Sean-Michael Stephen, economist with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Stephen explained that the County is in the process of updating its development charge framework under the Development Charges Act, a tool used to recover growth-related capital costs from new residential and non-residential development. He outlined how the study would assess anticipated growth, identify eligible services, and calculate charges based on historical service levels and projected infrastructure needs.
Stephen described the study as having several interconnected components. These included an updated background study and bylaw, a comprehensive growth study examining multiple growth scenarios, and the development of a public development charge policy guide intended to clearly explain how charges are calculated and why certain policy choices are made. He stressed that consultation was a central part of the process, involving County staff, Council, the development industry, and the broader public.
As part of the presentation, Stephen walked Council through which services may be included in development charges. These ranged from roads, fire protection, waste diversion, libraries, and parks, to water and wastewater services, which are treated differently depending on service area. He explained the County’s current approach, where water and wastewater charges vary between Wellington, Picton, and other serviced areas, and noted that several alternative models would be evaluated to understand cost and equity implications across the municipality.
A significant portion of the discussion focused on statutory exemptions required by provincial legislation.
Stephen detailed exemptions for affordable housing, non-profit housing, certain rental developments, and expansions to existing industrial buildings. He emphasized that revenue lost through mandated exemptions cannot be recovered from other development and must instead be funded through non-development-charge sources such as taxes or rates. This point prompted extensive questions from councillors about how these exemptions affect fairness, infrastructure funding, and the often-repeated principle that “development pays for development.”
Councillors raised concerns about the County’s unusually high housing and rental costs compared to other municipalities, and how provincial affordability thresholds based on broader regional data may not reflect local realities. CAO Marcia Wallace provided additional context, explaining that Council had previously directed staff to align local policies more closely with County-specific housing data, where permitted by legislation, to better support affordable housing development.
Further questions explored how development charges apply in rural versus urban areas, how growth-related road upgrades are treated, and how municipalities manage financial risk when infrastructure is built in advance of actual development. Stephen explained that development charges are designed to reflect average costs across service areas rather than the precise cost of individual developments, and that tools such as prepayment agreements and developer-built infrastructure can help mitigate financial exposure.
Following discussion, the Committee formally received the presentation from Watson & Associates. Before doing so, Council approved an amendment directing that stakeholder consultations be held in both rural and urban areas of the County, reflecting concerns about equitable public engagement across the County’s diverse geography. The presentation was received as amended, with no final policy decisions made at this stage.
The meeting then moved into deputations, beginning with Gary Mooney, who addressed Council regarding a potential question on the ballot for the 2026 municipal election related to Council size and governance. Mooney urged Council to avoid revisiting council downsizing through a referendum, arguing that previous reviews had already addressed the issue and that ward representation was central to the County’s identity as a collection of distinct communities. Councillors asked clarifying questions, but no debate on the merits occurred at this stage, as the deputation was informational in nature.
Under Comments from the Audience, Penny Morris participated virtually to speak in favour of including a governance-related question on the 2026 ballot. Morris argued that population change, democratic engagement, and the passage of time since the last major review justified asking residents whether a comprehensive governance review should be undertaken. Councillors asked about ward boundaries, communities of interest, and the purpose of a ballot question versus direct Council action, drawing out differing perspectives without reaching conclusions during this portion of the meeting.
The final major discussion item was a staff report from the Corporate and Legislative Services Department regarding options for placing a governance question on the 2026 ballot. The report outlined several possible approaches, ranging from narrow questions focused on council size to broader questions about governance structure. This item generated extensive discussion among councillors about public engagement, voter understanding, ward boundaries, and the role of referenda in shaping future Council decisions.
Throughout the discussion, Municipal Clerk Victoria Leskie clarified procedural requirements, including the need for legal review of ballot wording and the distinction between asking voters whether to conduct a review versus committing to specific outcomes. CAO Wallace reiterated that any ballot question would inform, but not predetermine, the actions of a future Council.
The meeting concluded after the Committee dealt with procedural motions related to receiving deputations and comments. The Committee then adjourned at 3:05 p.m., with the understanding that recommendations arising from the meeting would be brought forward to Council for further consideration at a later date.
Key Takeaways
The County’s current development charge system is being revisited because it no longer reflects today’s growth pressures, construction costs, or infrastructure demands, particularly in Picton and Wellington.
Provincially mandated exemptions for affordable and rental housing mean some growth related costs cannot be recovered from development and will continue to fall to taxes or rates.
While no final decisions were made, the meeting set the groundwork for major long term choices about infrastructure funding, public consultation, and municipal governance.
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.
Comments