Comment
Bad luck
It reads like a cry for help. It may look like a proposal to rebuild waterworks infrastructure in the Wellington/Bloomfield/Picton corridor, but it comes across more as the rantings of a struggling friend with a gambling addiction— desperate to change their luck. “Please, please lend me $300 million, just this one last time. I promise I’m gonna get clean. And I’ll pay you back.”
It is both pathetic and obviously deluded. Worse, it’s your home that is now at risk.
Let’s start with the top line—the latest estimate to rebuild all this infrastructure is no longer $100 million. It is not $200 million. As of this week, Shire Hall’s best guess at the cost of waterworks upgrades from Wellington, Bloomfield and Picton has risen to $300 million. (See story Page 3). The estimates are still mostly just scratching on paper, which means the eventual cost of this plan will certainly be much higher than the current guess.
But let us imagine, for discussion purposes, the costs don’t rise beyond the $300 million range. The ask on the table remains the ravings of a wild-eyed gambler desperate to end their losing streak.
We simply don’t have this kind of money. Only 6,000 waterworks customers are on the Prince Edward County waterworks utility (77 per cent are residential customers). If this plan were approved, each one of these customers would be on the hook to fund $50,000 of this ambition. Each. That’s a big ask.
To be crystal clear on this point, only existing waterworks customers are responsible for this debt. Not developers. Not general property taxpayers. Not other levels of government. Only existing waterworks customers. Residents living in Picton, Rossmore, Ameliasburgh, Consecon, Carrying Place and Wellington are entirely on the hook to pay this $300 million back.
Interest costs alone will add $416 dollars to your bi-monthly bill, about $2,500 to your annual water costs. That’s if things work out really well for Shire Hall. If their luck turns and a few morsels of development charges are thrown Shire Hall’s way upfront, maybe, just maybe, they can avoid paying the principal on this debt for a decade or so.
But if development doesn’t happen at the scale and pace anticipated, existing customers will pay back this debt. That means about $6,500 more for the average annual water bill (interest plus principal) in Prince Edward County. Does that work for you?
Is that manageable? Will you be able to continue to live here when your water bills are $9,000 (debt repayment plus your current water bill) per year?
Here is where it gets truly sad. And dangerous.
Shire Hall’s plan rests entirely on one or more of 21 lottery tickets paying off. It is betting everything you have on the prospect that developers will soon produce thousands of new homes in Picton and Wellington. And will do so for decades. Until the population doubles. This is what it means when Shire Hall talks about growth paying for growth: new homes producing development charges to pay back existing waterworks customers for the infrastructure they fronted. It’s a big gamble. Getting bigger with every estimate.
But increasingly, Shire Hall speaks about tracts of new homes rising out of the fields around Picton and Wellington the way a compulsive punter assures you their luck is about to turn. Experience and their own eyes should tell them otherwise.
But bad luck. So much bad luck that good luck must be right around the corner, right? Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Perhaps they even believe it. But it doesn’t make it sensible. Or rational. Nor should it be enabled. Shire Hall is rolling dice with your home.
For Shire Hall, it’s their only play. They’re out of options. So they double down. And double down again. Until desperation makes the numbers meaningless. The hole gets deeper until the bottom is no longer visible.
But somewhere along the way, the game changes. With each big bet chasing an elusive jackpot, the game turns in favour of developers.
For the moment, Shire Hall retains the levers to control and manage development—where it goes, what it looks like, density and other mundane items such as development charges and when they get paid. But when Shire Hall owes $300 million, power shifts inexorably, utterly, overwhelmingly toward the developer. Neither Shire Hall nor Council will be able to say no. Or too much. Or too fast. Too ugly. Too dense. Not dense enough.
Developers will dictate when, where and how much. Because the weight of our debt will give them this power. Developers will set the terms. They will hold all the levers to shape our community. Neither Shire Hall nor Council will be able to turn down any development proposal, no matter how ludicrous or damaging to the environment or community, because they need the money—or the whisper of money. “Is your subdivision on protected land? Sure, go right ahead. Forty-storey tower? Please and thank you. You don’t have the cash to pay your DCs today? We can talk about that, too.”
Shire Hall is in crisis.
A 7-6 vote in favour with one Councilor absent leaves this decision tainted. An issue as important as this should require a full Council. The residents were not fully represented.
i expect every member to be present and have the vote registered for the Ward they represent. Every single time. If for any reason that is not possible, in any way, shape or form, then the vote should rightfully be rescheduled. They are representing the Residents. All of them. For all of us. Quit playing around.
So if 1, 2 or 3 Councilors are sick or unable to attend to vote the taxpayer wears the outcome., not neccessarily the way the decision would have been made. This does not represent the Public well.
Why would Councilor Roberts be absent for a very crucial vote ????
Ask him directly. His email is on the website for Shire Hall.
He bailed!
Enlighten me, please…
My opinion. Pretty clear to me when missing a key vote. Sick, travelling, etc always virtual options now. Dissapointing circumstance.
One would think that this crucial vote would have prompted the Sophiasburgh Councilor Roberts to be present or at the very least be virtual. Impacts on Sophiasburgh and Cty Rd 49 were significant. A no show when the rubber hits the road!
Something seems wrong when major decisions for this community can be determined with “One” Councilor absent that could have changed the outcome. For one Councilor to be absent can affect taxpayers for a lifetime. This scenario is not effective or appropriate representation.
Our current Council system is so failed. We all know we do not require a 14 member Council. It’s ridiculous. But no one will run for leadership to correct this wrong. Premier Ford (warts or not) cut Toronto’s Council size in half. They have a handfull more than little PEC! That’s hilarious in substance. As example we just had an important PT Terminals agreement approved by a vote of 7-6. But one Councilor was absent, so if he had attended would it have passed or failed on a tie vote. Bottom line our current system is not serving us well in any manner,
Why would Council even entertain the thought of holding a vote on any contentious matters so many residents have given their voice against, when all Members of Council FAIL to be present and accounted for? Delay the meetings until the vote can be done properly by the Council the Residents have elected to do this on THEIR behalf.
Can this Council create anymore controversey or diilussion for the taxpayer. It’s all Arts, Wineries , Visions and celebrations and a never ending “thanking” staff at every item presented. Folks trying to feed their kids just want a local Represention to assist. It’s called basic core services for the residents, not visitors. In my opinion we have too many staff, too many bylaws forced upon us, too many vehicles driving around, too many user pays, too many historical sites removed ie, Little Bluff, boat launches , etc. The important “core services” for taxes being paid has been forgotten. This little County of 25,000 residents that has been that number for countless years requires some sober reasonableness. Stop the frills and just deliver the core services we can afford!
If you ask the Clerks department for a copy of the Organizational Chart for staff in Shire Hall, there are twelve pages of Staff members (no names, but that’s fair). Many positions under each heading – I am assuming some are full-time and others part-time, but no designation assigned on this chart. A Mayor who hails from Toronto (and that’s absolutely our fault) and accepted five election campaign donations from active developers in PEC (Off-County, I believe, is where all but one developer is from), whose “voice in Council” I am no longer able to trust – and he refuses to Declare Conflict of Interest when sitting in Council as well as when sitting in the Planning and Development Meetings (as ALL of Council does, by the way. Simply because he “doesn’t have to, if he doesn’t see a Conflict”). Councillor Phil St-Jean is also not declaring COI in any meetings for the same reason (he accepted a campaign donation from developer Cleave as well, in 2022 [a developer who is very active in Picton], and yet he’s one of the Councillors for Picton. I have to seriously question who these two gentlemen think they are representing. You can check the Conflict of Interest Registry 2022-2024 on Shire Hall’s website under Transparency and Accountability for yourself, and I suggest you keep an eye on it). I’m so done with this Council and their Closed Meetings and their lip-service to Residents, then doing what they planned on doing regardless of the multitude of in-depth researched Deputations presented to them. These developer donations should be a very real wake-up call to the Residents of PEC. Years ago I had a Councillor in Toronto who represented over 100,000 residents – one of the smallest areas being represented. I once called with an issue and it was resolved in less than three days. The staffing and Council in PEC are tripping over their own feet and is over-bloated for the number of Residents they are representing. Even if “the Hoards from Outside” come here as the developers are convincing our Council of, there are still far too many of them. The new hospital that we’ve worked hard to get off the ground is going to be ineffectual if the developers and Council do turn out to be right – so will we then be faced with campaigning yet again for a new hospital? Then there’s the number of First Responders who will need to be increased, but is that even being thought of? And yes, election campaign donations from Developers, and anyone associated with them, is a very real sore spot with me. This is not a large community, we have two local newspapers and a radio station so why does our Council require campaign donations at all? Council can find money for all manner of esoteric projects, so I’m quite sure they could set up a “single campaign fund” to cover the advertising budget with PEC for the PEC elections, with the amount being the same for ALL members of Council, and omit the public donation aspect entirely.
Starting to make one wonder about the legalities taking place with Council. With the PT Terminals agreement approved at Council Tuesday evening by a vote of 7-6 with one absent. There were no pecuinary interests declared! The problem being the Councilor that presented this original motion for approval was priorly contracted by Picton Terminals.
Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary (Conflict of) Interest: The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) states, in layman’s terms (which, by the way, had been brutally confirmed directly to me by PEC’s Integrity Commissioner and one Councillor this year), that:
A member of Council is not required to declare a Conflict of Interest (ie COI / Pecuniary and/or Non-Pecuniary Interest) if they do not feel they have a Conflict. However, if the member of Council is in any doubt about a potential COI, they are encouraged to ask the Integrity Commissioner for an opinion. But … they are under no obligation to take said advice (which we as taxpayers are obliged to pay for, by the way), and can still refuse to declare a COI, if they still believe they are not in Conflict. As PEC’s Integrity Commissioner pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms – he reports to Council.
All perfectly Legal, Folks. It’s in the MCIA for all Municipal Councils.
Self-regulating. Nice “gig” if you can get it, eh?
And I would still like to know the name of that Councillor who was previously contracted by Picton Terminals. Sounds like at least one person is keeping an eye on that one, anyway. At least give me a hint on where to look up said Councillor on my own. Pretty Please?
Who introduced the origianal motion is your answer!
Who is pushing this agenda? What is the logic? Is there no debate on the dangers posed to water/wastewater users?
Who? I’d be looking at the proposal for water being directed from Wellington/Bloomfield/Picton and the developers and Council. I sincerely doubt it’s the Ratepayers pushing for this, who are already being skinned alive for their water rates. Highest in Ontario? If that water line goes through, then could Picton Terminals do whatever it wants anyway, and wait for the noise of the Residents to just go away? After all, the Residents would have their clean water, so who would be left to care.