County News
Ballot question
Is Council too big?
Slipping under the radar in this election cycle is the question on the ballot. With infrastructure spending, soaring property taxes, crumbling roads, and strong mayor powers dominating the conversation, the issue of council governance lurks beneath the surface. For the second time since amalgamation forged the County of Prince Edward’s current configuration, voters will be asked how the place ought to be governed.
Councillor Chris Braney has long argued that bureaucratic organizations need regular renewal and reform to function well. He maintains that complacency and unchecked bloat result from an institution that fails to rigorously and regularly examine its purpose and performance.
He goes further, suggesting that such examination must go beyond asking questions— to actual mechanisms and processes to ensure organizations remain lean and focused on their role.
Councillor Braney led the council initiative to examine the County’s business, starting with a review of the Planning Department and then expanding to a broader look at the organization.
“The County’s trajectory is unsustainable,” reported Andrea Clemencio bluntly. Clemencio is a principal at Municipal VU, a municipal governance consultancy. “Your ambitions are not aligned with operations; demands to do more are increasing, but there is no corresponding action to do less elsewhere, and strategy gives way to expediency.”
It was a particularly stark assessment of Shire Hall and how far it has drifted from its core mandate. It was evidence, if more was needed, that the municipality is in dire need of reform.
The size of Council is just one part of the question, of course, but it’s an important part.
Almost half of Ontario municipalities manage with just five councillors. Even after including large urban centres, one councillor represents about 4,000 residents across the province on average. In Prince Edward County, each councillor represents an average of 1,800 residents.
This councillor-heavy municipality struggles to make decisions efficiently and properly scrutinise finances and operations. Fourteen members deliberating every matter of County business—one question and a follow-up from each member—is an arduous, inefficient and ultimately unfair way to make decisions.
ONE MORE TIME
Councillor Braney first tabled his proposals for governance review in February 2024. While his initiative failed to gain traction that year, the need for renewal became increasingly evident. By the following spring, governance was back on the table.
“This ballot question supports an overwhelming interest across the County,” said Braney. “County residents expressed their views and instilled their faith that we, as a new council, would undertake a governance review of our current structure with a fresh approach and perspective.”
This time around, Braney’s resolution gained the support of the majority of Council. Public meetings were held during the summer. By the fall of last year, the question had been finalized.
THE QUESTION
“Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundaries?” Only a yes or no answer is permitted.
The outcome will be binding on Council only if 50 per cent or more of eligible voters exercise their right.
In 2010, the last time the size of Council question was on the ballot, 81 per cent of respondents chose to review council size. Alas, just 44.1 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot. Council initially resisted making any change, but relented two years later, dropping two council members to the current 14.
@Fred makes a valid point, to be sure, as does @My Aching Head.
County Staff have been asked to provide the numbers on exactly how many taxpayers live in each Ward. They have not provided these numbers.
However, the audited turnout and vote numbers for the 2022 Election 4 years ago are public. Have a look for yourself:
WARD NAME COUNCIL REGISTERED WARD % OF TOTAL TOTAL BALLOTS TURNOUT
SEATS VOTERS REGISTERED VOTERS CAST PERCENT
Ward 1: Picton 2 3,562 14.9% 1,795 50.4%
Ward 2: Bloomfield/Hallowell 2 4,028 16.8% 2,025 50.3%
Ward 3: Wellington 1 2,059 8.6% 1,219 59.2%
Ward 4: Ameliasburgh 3 5,351 22.4% 1,978 37.0%
Ward 5: Athol 1 1,728 7.2% 774 44.8%
Ward 6: Sophiasburgh 1 2,334 9.8% 1,010 43.3%
Ward 7: Hillier 1 2,023 8.5% 844 41.7%
Ward 8: North Marysburgh 1 1,679 7.0% 947 56.4%
Ward 9: South Marysburgh 1 1,171 4.9% 670 57.2%
OVERALL TOTALS –> 13 23,935 11,262 47.1%
—–
So, what do you conclude from these numbers? Here’s what I see:
1) The overall turnout rate was a dismal 47.1%. (I you look back at previous elections, you will see that the turnout rate never reached 50% in any election this century.)
2) The average % of Registered Voters for each of the Wards that has 1 seat was 7.7%, and the average voter turnout for those wards was just barely over half at 50.4%.
3) The average % of Registered Voters for each of the Wards that has 2 seats was 15.9% (not too far from double the average for the single-seat wards), and the average voter turnout for those wards was also just barely over half at 50.3%
4) The % of Registered Voters for the Ward with the 3 seats was 22.4% (not terribly far from triple the average for the single-seat wards). BUT: the voter turnout for that Ward was an even more dismal 37%.
Not once during any of the discussions about Ward boundaries or number of Council Seats have I ever seen any mention of these facts, which are readily available publicly with a relatively simple Google search.
Make no mistake: what is driving these discussions is NOT about representation.
If the elected Councillors actually made decisions in the best interests of the taxpayers, we would not be in the awful financial situation we are in. Their decisions have been made in the interests of outside consultants and developers.
Follow the money as it is raked into the Treasury through ever-increasing property taxes, and spent on expensive consultants, zoning and sewer and water infrastructure for fantastical projected futures that are completely unrealistic. Meanwhile the roads continue to be in terrible shape and getting worse all the time.
And as a side note, spare a thought for little South Marysburgh, which had the second highest voter turnout rate at 57.2%, and yet whose Councillor (who was re-elected this election by acclamation) does not even live in the Ward. His qualifying address at 2084 County Rd 1, Bloomfield, Prince Edward County, ON, K0K 1G0 per the County’s Web site is in Ward 2, Bloomfield / Hallowell.
This is allowed under the rules, because Councillors represent specific wards but are elected to a single composite council. So, John Hirsch is legally qualified to represent Ward 9 (South Marysburgh) because he owns or rents property (or resides) within the broader boundaries of Prince Edward County. He is the elected official for Ward 9, even though the qualifying address he used on his official paperwork points to Ward 2. Whether his voting record on Motions was based on the best interests of South Marysburgh taxpayers and residents is for those taxpayers and residents to judge. But in a Ward with only 1,171 registered voters, maybe no one in that Ward had the time or the inclination to run against him this time.
As long as the Council continues to favour the interests of outside consultants and developers over the interests of County residents and taxpayers, the Council size is irrelevant, and an unfortunate distraction that is taking up way more oxygen than more important matters, like whether or not the County can afford to continue as an entity, or will continue to pursue a vision to re-make the County in the image of Toronto suburbia.
Quite simply put, the County does not in any way have ” Equal Representation”. A resident in Ameliasburgh has 3 voices at the Council table while residents in Athol, South Marysburgh, North Marysburgh, Sophiasburgh, Hillier, Wellington have 1 elected voice. That is not fair or equitable. It is the Ward system that is severely flawed!
A question for everyone:
How many residents have had regular updates with the elected representative for their Ward? Here in my Ward we have had zero contact during the entire term of our Councillor’s office. No Town Halls, no newsletters in our mailbox – despite the promise to directly engage with concerns of those in this Ward during the 2022 election campaign. What has our Councillor been doing for us? And I do mean contact with the entire Ward. Anyone can see what a Councillor is doing on behalf of the County – that part is readily accessible. But pertinent information for the people in the Ward they represent? Not in this Ward. How about the other Wards? Is it the same, is your Councillor doing the whole job? According to the bumpf on what a Councillors responsibilities are, while it is “encouraged” for a Councillor to keep in touch with the Ward residents, it is not mandatory they do so. The residents, apparently, have to demand it and there is no guarantee that they will comply.
County voters have never reached a 50% turnout in this century.
No reason to think they will this time, either.
The question “Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundaries?” is cleverly worded to restrict the scope to only tinkering around the edges.
It completely avoids any suggestion that Staff are managing Council, rather than the other way around, and building a massive, $102+ MILLION per year spending and taxing machine.
Compare the County against its neighbours:
Municipality Annual Operating Budget Population Operating Spend per Resident
——————————– ——————————– ———– ————————————
Prince Edward County ~$87M – $90M ~25,700 ~$3,400
Belleville ~$145M ~55,000 ~$2,635
Quinte West ~$92.5M ~46,500 ~$2,000
Lennox & Addington ~$60.1M ~67,600 ~$887
Greater Napanee ~$13.5M ~16,879 ~$800
But how about Net Debt?
Municipality Net Debt / (Net Financial Assets) Population Net Debt per Resident
——————————– —————————————- ———- ———————
Prince Edward County $80.7M ~25,700 $3,142
Quinte West (Includes Water/Sewer) $102.3M ~46,500 $2,200
Belleville ~$55.0M ~55,000 ~$1,000
Lennox & Addington (Upper-Tier) ~$18.5M ~67,600 ~$274
Greater Napanee (Lower-Tier) ($6.3M surplus) ~16,879 ($373 surplus)
So here’s the questions that I’d like to see the answers to:
1) This election, will County voters actually take the time to vote? It certainly doesn’t take much time, and the County even offers rides now if you don’t want to vote online.
2) Regardless of the actual turnout, and regardless of who is elected to join the three acclaimed Councillors, will County residents actually care about these numbers?
3) And when County taxpayers are asked to cough up double-digit annual property tax increases to fund the wealth of outside consultants, developers and the Provincial government, will they actually care?
4) And if they do, what will they do about it, other than point fingers in all sorts of directions?
Thanks for the numbers. Interesting.
Not sure all the comparisons are fair — for example, comparing to Belleville and Quinte West. The comparisons with Greater Napanee and L&A are perhaps more pertinent to the PEC situation.
The problem with PEC seems to be, at least in part, the length of County roads per population, as well as the number of municipal water supply and sewage treatment systems. And there has not been a very good asset management program in place over the years, so now no money to help fix what has worn out.
Yes, perhaps Council and staff are too reliant on and too quick to hire outside consultants, and too quick to believe the pitches and promises of outside property developers. Perhaps a smaller Council would help focus thinking and actions. But ultimately Council must place fairly heavy reliance on staff to do the analysis of needs and financing options, so the expertise and experience of staff is very important. We need staff who take a dispassionate approach to determining what is best path to meet the County’s mandate, and not staff who take on a pro-development agenda. Council must rely on staff, and staff must dutifully serve Council… not the other way around.
Hopefully County residents are paying attention and will come out to vote… and thereby make Council and staff aware that we are watching.