Part 1: Water, Debt, and Trust - Council Confronts the Real Cost of Infrastructure 07/17/2025

This meeting was clearly shaped by one underlying reality: water and wastewater costs are no longer abstract. They are real, rising, and increasingly contested in the community.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

The meeting opened with procedural confirmations and the formal adoption of minutes from May. Notably, this was the first meeting to be live streamed and recorded, following a request at the previous session. That change alone reflected growing public attention and pressure.

Financial Strategy Versus Financial Risk

The first major moment came during public comment, with a deputation from Dorothy Bothwell, who delivered a direct and sharply framed critique of the County’s water and wastewater debt strategy. She argued that the County has already incurred approximately $61 million in water and wastewater debt, largely financed through borrowing that is now accruing interest, and that growth projections used to justify this debt have not materialized.

Her central argument was simple and pointed. Growth only pays for growth if growth actually happens. She warned that existing ratepayers are now absorbing far more of the debt burden than originally forecast, and she questioned the wisdom of committing to another $200 million or more for future infrastructure without a clear, public-facing risk assessment.

She asked the committee to press Council for transparent answers, including what water rates will look like over the next 10 to 20 years under different scenarios, including doing nothing. The committee received the deputation without questions, but the themes Dorothy raised echoed throughout the rest of the meeting.

The next major agenda item was a Finance Department report presented by Director of Finance and IT Aaron McNichol, providing an overview of water and wastewater debt, reserves, and grants. Aaron emphasized that the report was a snapshot in time, not a comparison against previous rate studies or forecasts.

He confirmed that the County currently carries about $20.35 million in long-term water and wastewater debt, plus approximately $40 million in construction loans tied to projects nearing completion. Once rolled into long-term debt, total water and wastewater debt will sit at roughly $61 million, consistent with what the deputation raised earlier.

Aaron characterized this as strategic debt, invested in infrastructure with long service lives and added growth capacity. He also stressed that existing debt is already built into current rates, while the construction loans will only affect future rates once growth-related and non-growth-related portions are determined through the upcoming Development Charge Background Study and Water and Wastewater Rate Study.

How Much Is Too Much? Debating Debt Limits

A key point of discussion was uncertainty. Growth projections are still being adjusted. Developer submissions are still being reviewed. Sensitivity modeling is underway but not complete. As a result, Aaron was careful not to commit to firm upper or lower debt limits beyond referencing the Annual Repayment Limit, which caps debt servicing at roughly 25 percent of own-source revenues unless provincial approval is granted.

The committee also spent time unpacking reserves, which currently total about $27 million, split between capital and development charge reserves. Aaron explained that stronger-than-expected reserves could help offset future capital costs and potentially soften future rate increases, depending on how the next rate study is structured.

The second major portion of the meeting focused on communications and public engagement, led by Emily Cowan and Mark Kerr. They walked the committee through what was done during the 2021 rate study, including online engagement through Have Your Say, pop-ups, surveys, and media outreach.

While the engagement numbers were presented, it was clear the committee was not satisfied with them. Only about 130 people actively engaged in a process affecting more than 6,000 ratepayers.

Communication as a Governance Responsibility

The discussion quickly turned to how engagement needs to change. Committee members stressed the need for earlier, clearer, and more repeated communication. Ideas included ongoing storytelling instead of one-off notices, using water bills as an information channel, partnering with local media, holding in-person engagement sessions, and working with community groups who already draw large audiences.

The meeting closed with agreement to receive the communications discussion, confirmation of a November 6 meeting with Watson to present the rate study roadmap, and openness to calling a special meeting in September focused on communications or smaller systems if materials are ready.

Key Takeaways for Locals

1. Water and wastewater debt currently sits around $61 million. County staff confirmed that long-term debt and construction loans tied to water infrastructure projects total roughly $61 million, much of which is already incorporated into current water rates.

2. Future infrastructure decisions could significantly affect rates. Large future projects, potentially costing hundreds of millions, are still under review, and upcoming studies will determine how costs are shared between growth and existing ratepayers.

3. The County plans to increase public communication on water costs. Committee members emphasized the need for earlier and clearer engagement with residents, including more accessible explanations of water infrastructure costs and potential rate impacts.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:06:027. 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.