Part 2: Council Divided on Wellington Water Planning While Advancing Design and Funding Strategy – 04/25/2024

The April 25, 2025 Committee of the Whole meeting focuses on who spoke, how councillors voted, and where divisions emerged during debate on Wellington’s water and wastewater financing. The discussion unfolded primarily around Report FIN-09-2024, with repeated clarifications from staff and sharply split recorded votes.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Staff explanations and framing

The report was introduced by Amanda Carter, Director of Finance and IT, who explained that four separate procurement attempts to secure an external third-party peer review had failed due to capacity and expertise constraints among qualified firms. Carter emphasized that staff were recommending a return to Watson Economists for an addendum update, reflecting current economic conditions, as an alternative to a new peer review.

Marcia Wallace, Chief Administrative Officer, played a central role throughout the discussion. Branderhorst repeatedly clarified that beginning procurement for final design did not mean approving construction. She explained that final design work could satisfy federal requirements to show that a project had “begun” for the purposes of the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, while still allowing council to stop or change course later.

Branderhorst also addressed questions about communal servicing, explaining that while it can unlock growth in unserviced villages, it does not match the scale of demand already in the County’s planning pipeline. She referenced more than 8,000 housing units currently at various stages of approval to explain why Wellington and Picton infrastructure planning is being treated as urgent.

Councillors raising concerns and questions

Several councillors pressed staff on risk, sequencing, and growth assumptions.

Councillor Roy Pennell repeatedly expressed discomfort with the pace of decision-making, questioning whether intake pipes and plant upgrades were truly necessary now. Pennell emphasized concern for ratepayer debt exposure and argued that council had not yet exhausted options to maximize existing plant capacity.

Councillor Bill Harrison echoed those concerns, urging council to step back and more closely examine current plant capacity, phasing, and whether development timelines justified immediate design work. Harrison argued that growth was staged and uncertain, and that rushing could burden residents unnecessarily.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton described herself as conflicted. While acknowledging the risks of delay, she said she still struggled to fully grasp the long-term picture and urged that, if design procurement proceeded, sustainability principles be explicitly embedded into the process from the outset.

Councillor Phil St-Jean  took the opposite position. He repeatedly stressed that procurement was a procedural step, not a financial commitment, and warned that failing to move forward would jeopardize access to federal funding. St-Jean also supported shifting the peer review discussion to the Audit Committee, framing it as a way to refine numbers rather than question the entire project.

Councillor Bill Roberts aligned with St-Jean, stating that forfeiting the grant opportunity would damage the County’s credibility and create practical and political consequences.

Audit Committee debate and split vote

The most contentious vote involved whether council should immediately direct the Audit Committee to define a scope for a Watson addendum report.

The original motion directing that work tied and failed. Recorded votes showed Councillors Harrison, Pennell, Branderhorst, Braney, and Prinsen opposed, while Councillors Hirsch, MacNaughton, Maynard, Grosso, Nieman, Roberts, St-Jean, and Mayor Ferguson supported. The tie resulted in the motion failing.

Following that outcome, Councillor Branderhorst introduced an alternative motion directing the Audit Committee to incorporate review work into the upcoming Development Charges Background Study and Rate Study instead. That motion carried 8–6, with Harrison, Pennell, Braney, Nieman, and Prinzen opposed, and Maynard, Branderhorst, Hirsch, MacNaughton, Grosso, Roberts, St-Jean, and Mayor Ferguson in favour.

Procurement for final design vote

The final major vote concerned directing staff to begin procurement on final design for Wellington’s water and wastewater plants.

This motion carried 9–5. Voting in favour were Maynard, Branderhorst, Hirsch, MacNaughton, Grosso, Nieman, Roberts, St-Jean, and Mayor Ferguson. Voting against were Harrison, Pennell, Engelsdorfer, Braney, and Prinzen.

Supporters emphasized grant eligibility and future flexibility. Opponents emphasized debt risk, uncertainty around growth, and concern that design work would create momentum that would be difficult to stop later.

How this affects the residents

For Wellington residents and water ratepayers, the outcome means the County will keep moving forward procedurally while deferring deeper financial scrutiny to upcoming studies. Final design procurement can now begin, preserving eligibility for federal housing-linked infrastructure funding, but no construction has been approved. At the same time, council signaled that growth assumptions and cost impacts will resurface publicly through the next development charge and rate studies, where residents will again have a chance to weigh in on how much growth the County plans for and who ultimately pays for it.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:31:03. 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.