Part 2: Where PEC Councillors Stood on Water Costs, Growth and Other Key Decisions — 08/27/2026

The August 27 Committee of the Whole meeting became most divided when councillors reached the proposed Water and Wastewater Financial Strategy. While other items received relatively broad support, the water discussion exposed different views about growth, debt, developer responsibility and how much financial risk existing users should carry. The final recorded vote showed just how closely divided committee was, while the discussions leading up to it explained why members landed where they did.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Water and Wastewater Divides the Committee

Councillor John Hirsch supported Scenario 2B and argued that the County has a responsibility to plan for growth that is already moving forward. He pointed to projects including Base31, Port Picton and Caitlan developments as evidence that growth is not simply theoretical. Hirsch also stressed that developers had previously indicated a willingness to discuss front-end financing, making the proposed financial roadmap important for starting more concrete negotiations. Hirsch voted in favour of the strategy.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton also voted in favour, although her comments showed concern about the financial risks. She raised the potential effect of higher water bills on lower-income households, construction cost uncertainty and interest rates. Her support was strongly connected to the condition of Picton’s aging water treatment plant and the risk of delaying decisions about safe drinking water infrastructure.

Councillor Janice Maynard took the opposite position and voted against the strategy. Maynard repeatedly referred to the experience of Consecon water users, explaining how residents had paid connection costs and helped support infrastructure intended to serve future development. She argued that developers benefiting from new servicing should provide money upfront rather than leaving existing users to carry the borrowing risk. She also questioned moving ahead during a period of economic uncertainty.

Councillor Phil St-Jean ultimately voted in favour. He acknowledged that the numbers were difficult, but emphasized that the motion did not authorize the proposed $255 million in borrowing. In his view, staff needed permission to continue gathering information, talking to developers and determining whether the plan could actually work. He also noted that doing nothing would still leave existing users responsible for aging infrastructure.

Several others were not persuaded. Councillor Brad Nieman voted against, questioning whether the projected growth of roughly 150 residential units annually was realistic and asking how many homes had actually been constructed in serviced areas. He also raised concerns about the impact of higher water bills and the possibility that water and wastewater borrowing could reduce the County’s capacity to borrow for other municipal needs. Councillor Roy Pennell, who also voted against, questioned the reliability of cost estimates, contingencies and how much money developers could realistically provide upfront.

Councillor Bill Roberts voted in favour, supporting further exploration of financing options rather than treating the strategy as final approval of the entire capital program. Mayor Steve Ferguson also supported continuing the work, describing the proposal as an opportunity to determine whether financing from developers and institutions could make the plan workable. Councillor Phil Prinzen, who chaired the meeting, voted against, while Councillor Sam Grosso indicated that he was in favour after technical problems affected his participation. Councillor Chris Braney and Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer also voted against, with both expressing concern about making such a significant decision near the end of the council term. The motion failed, with the chair noting that Grosso’s vote would not change the outcome because a tie would also defeat the motion.

Dark Skies and Affordable Housing Find More Support

© Steven Burr

The mood changed considerably when committee moved to the proposed dark sky preserve along the South Shore. Hirsch moved the recommendation, seconded by MacNaughton, supporting a mayoral letter, development of a dark sky policy and work toward an agreement allowing astronomy programming at Mariner’s Park Museum lands. Unlike the water debate, the proposal received committee support without a prolonged disagreement.

Committee also supported recommendations involving Nicholas Street Homes, where 31 of 120 rental units in Building E were discussed as affordable units subject to a 25-year commitment associated with the development charge exemption. Pennell questioned how much relief developers should receive, while St-Jean and Maynard sought clarification about how affordability would be maintained. Staff explained that parts of the development charge treatment were governed by provincial legislation and that the County’s connection-charge bylaw required updating.

What This Means for the Locals

For Picton residents and water users, the failed Scenario 2B vote does not make the infrastructure problem disappear. Staff told committee that Picton’s water treatment plant has an estimated planning horizon of roughly 10 years and faces structural, process, electrical and source-water concerns. The larger question of how the County replaces that infrastructure, and who pays how much, remains unresolved.

For Wellington residents, the debate remains closely tied to growth and major planned infrastructure because Scenario 2B proposed Wellington as the location of a regional treatment plant eventually serving Wellington, Picton and Bloomfield. For Consecon and other existing system users, Maynard’s comments highlighted a continuing concern about fairness between communities that historically financed their own infrastructure and areas now facing major replacement and expansion costs.

For residents across PEC, the meeting showed that Council is not yet united on how to balance growth, developer contributions, water rates and municipal debt. At the same time, the dark sky proposal and affordable housing measures moved forward with much less division. The biggest unfinished issue from this meeting is therefore clear: PEC still needs a financially workable path for its aging and future water and wastewater infrastructure, but committee was not prepared to endorse the proposed path on August 27.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:39:24. 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.