Comment
Failure to communicate
Two dozen folks came to Shire Hall last week—worried about the impact of construction on Main Street in Bloomfield this year. (See story here). In a pair of project information centre (PIC) sessions held in the village earlier this year, residents and business owners were presented with three options to consider—as if their opinion mattered
As such, twenty-one folks came to the podiums at Shire Hall last week. They urged Council to choose Option 3. This option proposes working until the end of May and resuming in September. This would allow the key summer months to be free from potentially ruinous disruption.
Most of those who spoke up last week understand that construction work is necessary and beneficial. But they also know—and they let council members know— that the earning window in a seasonal community is short and sometimes fleeting, especially for retail trade in Bloomfield’s Main Street.
So they pressed Council to choose Option 3.
But there was no Option 3. It was no longer on the table. Shire Hall had already made the decision, and it wasn’t Option 3.
By the time the folks were speaking to Council last week, the work had already been contracted. The project was already in motion. What appeared to be an exercise in consultative decision-making was merely a façade—giving folks a false sense that their voices mattered.
Did Shire Hall intend for this to play out this way? I doubt it. Did it intentionally dupe folks and members of council? Unlikely. But we don’t need to strain to see intrigue when the banal or plain vanilla ignorance explains the situation better.
The truth is that the County is terrible at communicating with its residents and businesses. It’s not new. It’s a long-standing problem—back, at least, to amalgamation.
The County never developed the skills or expertise to talk about what it does, or explain why. For the first couple of decades, Shire Hall hated the idea that it had to talk to residents at all— that it had to answer to taxpayers. That’s what elections were for.
Later on, Shire Hall picked up techniques used in big urban centres. But they did so without ever understanding how they should be used or what to do when/if the overwhelming feedback suggested an alternative to the “preferred option”, to Shire Hall’s option.
Shire Hall staff are the experts after all. Or, at a minimum, they are informed by experts. Public feedback is mostly ill-informed and self-interested. Something to be managed rather than factored into decisionmaking.
As such, communication tools like PICs have been used in Prince Edward County mostly as one-way communication—a bullhorn to broadcast its message to a dull populace. “This is what Shire Hall is doing. This is how much it will cost. Get over it.”
Public comments are noted. Occasionally, a response is prepared. But it is all performative. Turn to tab 3 in the Municipal Communications for Dummies manual.
PICs permit folks to ventilate grievances or reveal their NIMBY motivations. No one takes them seriously. They certainly don’t drive real planning.
Shire Hall’s misstep in Bloomfield was in presenting three options as if it cared what these folks thought. Residents, on the other hand, believed these were real options. Real choices. It was possible, they imagined, that they might influence decision-making at Shire Hall.
It was never on. Shire Hall was always going to make the decision. And it did.
There may be solid engineering, project management and financial arguments that make Option 1 the best way forward. With luck, the work will be completed before the end of May. And it does appear that Shire Hall has learned some lessons from the disaster on Main Street in Wellington last year.
In any event, the decision is made—made before the two dozen folks came out and spoke up at Shire Hall last week.
Shire Hall must do better. Proper communications isn’t a frilly afterthought. Shire Hall must anticipate and understand the concerns and issues inherent in its big capital works. A communications plan must be hammered out alongside the engineers, the financing folks and the planners at the front end. It can’t continue to be a tick-the-box exercise tacked on after every other decision has been made.
Shire Hall must be prepared to listen. The institution’s credibility is at stake.
For now, Shire Hall owes some folks from Bloomfield an apology.
Looks like we have a lot of Candidates that know the best way forward. Looking forward to their campaigns unless they are just social media complainers!
@chuck it would be nice if everyone who complained actually did something. However, evidence over many years suggests that’s not the case.
There are many narratives that circulate around, on what the Pros and Cons of being a Councillor are, and specifically, the Pros and Cons of being a Councillor in Prince Edward County, Ontario.
If anyone is interested, asking the following in Google (AI mode) produces quite an interesting answer:
“what are the Pros and Cons of being a municipal Councillor, and specifically, the Pros and Cons of being a Councillor in Prince Edward County, Ontario.”
One of the things that I have repeatedly suggested to one Councillor, is to table a Motion to change the salary of a Councillor to a “Living Wage” based on a 40-hour work week. At present, the salary is between $25000 and $27000 a year — the exact amount is in the 2026 Budget documents.
To inform the Motion, Google AI is helpful.
I asked Google AI the question: “What would be a reasonable “living wage” for a 40 hour work week in Prince Edward County, Ontario in April 2026?” (If you ask Google AI a good question, you usually get a pretty good answer). Below is the result:
Based on projected trends from the Ontario Living Wage Network (OLWN) and rising rental costs in the area, a reasonable living wage for a 40-hour work week in Prince Edward County in April 2026 is expected to be well above $22–$23 per hour.Given that the nearby Hastings-Prince Edward region was already at $17.75 in late 2024 and with 2025 living wages in similar Ontario regions rising by 5–8%, the 2026 rate will likely be significantly higher, driven largely by high rent prices in the County, which average over $2,200 for a two-bedroom apartment as of March 2026. Ontario Living Wage Network +2
Key Factors for April 2026:
– Rental Pressure: Average rent for a 2-bedroom in Prince Edward County is reported around $2,200, which heavily drives the need for a higher wage, higher than many other parts of rural Ontario.
– Regional Trends: In 2025, neighboring areas saw living wages above $21-$22 per hour, and Ontario’s overall average living wage increased by 5.3%.
– Minimum Wage vs. Living Wage: While Ontario’s minimum wage is projected to rise to roughly $18.00/hour by October 2026, it is not considered a living wage.
– Daily Expenses: A single adult in Ontario in 2025 needed roughly $3,200–$3,800 monthly to cover basic living expenses (before savings), a figure expected to increase by 2.5–2.7% in 2026. SPRC Hamilton +5
A “living wage” allows for more than just survival, covering essentials like rent, food, transportation, and limited social participation, whereas the minimum wage does not.
If you then choose to “Dive deeper in AI mode”, you can see this:
Based on current economic trends and cost-of-living data, a reasonable living wage for a 40-hour work week in Prince Edward County as of April 2026 is projected to be approximately $22.65 to $23.35 per hour.
This estimate is based on the following data points:
– 2025 Regional Benchmark: The Ontario Living Wage Network (OLWN) calculated the living wage for the East Region (which includes Prince Edward County) at $22.20 per hour for 2025.
– Inflation Adjustment: Ontario’s annual inflation rate for 2025 averaged 1.9%. Applying a similar projected increase for the first part of 2026 brings the hourly rate into the $22.65+ range.
– Comparison to Minimum Wage: Ontario’s general minimum wage is currently $17.60 per hour (effective October 1, 2025) and is projected to rise to approximately $18.00 by late 2026. A living wage in this region typically remains $4.50 to $5.00 higher than the provincial minimum. Ontario Living Wage Network +5
Monthly and Annual Estimates (at $23.00/hr)
For a standard 40-hour work week, these earnings break down as follows:
– Weekly Gross: $920.00
– Monthly Gross: ~$3,986.00
– Annual Gross: $47,840.00
Note that a “living wage” is calculated to cover basic expenses—including housing, food, and transportation—while allowing for modest participation in community life. In Prince Edward County, shelter costs remain the primary driver of wage requirements due to the competitive local housing and rental market.
This took me approximately 10 minutes to do.
But thee will be those that howl in protest at this massive increase in salary.
Before you howl, consider this. The increase in salary over current payroll for all 13 Councillors in total would be approximately $271,000.
Have a look at the list of individuals on County Staff that were paid more than $100,000 annually in 2025. It is publicly available on the County’s CivicWeb site:
https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/FileStorage/673C0E1857C9469C87091AC472A47935-Att%201%20-%202025%20Public%20Sector%20Salary%20Disclosure%20Listi.pdf
There are 92 individuals on this list, 4 of which are no longer employed at the County. The remain 88 individuals receive over $11.2 MILLION in annual salaries and benefits. This is purely their compensation, not the overhead costs associated with doing their jobs.
Of course, this does not include the Staff that are paid less than $100,000 annually, as at Dec 31, 2025. When you add all them in, ask yourself what the impact would be of adding $271,000 to that, and comparing that impact with the benefit of attracting a far bigger pool of candidates for the job than just the privileged few who can afford to do the job for the current wage.
Food for thought.
The Sunshine List has just come out, and the County of Prince Edward features 62 individuals on it, totalling over $8.1 million in annual salaries. Astounding, for a County of 25,000 souls, give or take. And the total annual County payroll is much more. It includes a few individuals who are no longer County staff, but we can probably expect more to be added by the time 2026 is over. (Not to mention the likely huge severance payments that will not show up in the books until the Audited financials are tabled in August or September).
Raising Councillor salaries to a living wage based on a 40 hour work week (which it surely is, at a minimum, if the job is done in a diligent way), would amount to tiny fraction of the total County payroll — and the benefit of this would be to extend the possible universe of candidates to a much bigger pool of residents.
I have heard that this idea of paying Councillors a living wage (based on a 40 hour week, which it surely is, at a minimum) has come up before.
But there was apparently some reluctance around the horseshoe to be perceived by the public as self-serving via such a measure.
Surely that cannot be a perception now, this close to the next election, especially when the County payroll is so bloated with non-elected employees. Doubling the Councillor’s salaries would be an increase of less than the top 3 or 4 Sunshine List people that are still here. This Council could at least move, second and pass a Motion to enact this, as something good to enable the pool of possible replacements to be larger.
Of course, 7 votes would be needed to pass this. And of course, the Mayor could override with his “strong mayor” powers.
Link to the 2025 Sunshine List –> https://www.sunshinelist.ca — see for yourselves.
Jane, I hope you will consider running. You would have my support, and I daresay many others.
It would take 8 votes. A 7 – 7 tie fails.
“Strong Mayor Powers” – Ontario government resource: 10. Strong mayor powers and duties | The Ontario municipal councillor’s guide | ontario.ca. The information appears to be under the section titled “By-law power related to provincial priorities.” In that section, it states:
“When proposing the by-law, the head of council must provide a copy of the proposed by-law and their reasons for the proposal to the clerk and each member of council. The head of council can require council to consider and vote on the proposed by-law at a meeting (despite any rules in a local procedure by-law). By-laws proposed by the head of council using this power are passed if more than one-third of all council members vote in favour of the by-law. The head of council is also able to vote on passing the by-law.”
Also something to keep in mind (at least from my understanding) is that the Sunshine List disclosure numbers tend omit,
1. The economic and psychological value of consistency of cash flow. People in these positions NEVER miss a (indexed) pay cheque, good times or bad; and
2. The economic value of the Defined Benefit Pension (I suggest you google that one), which also allows ongoing life choices not available to anyone working in the private sector.
Remember, most working in PEC are on low wages. Our roads are a mess and our community town halls are in need of serious repair. But we’re contributing to this?
Where were the councillors representing these people? Too many members of councils see their role as rubber stamping whatever staff recommends. The argument for “economics” is ignoring the economics of all these businesses being forced to struggle during their key earnings months. This is sloppy analysis.
So, Staff chose this.
Not Council.
Not Residents.
Quote:
“It took just seven members of council to vote in favour of proceeding with this option, namely, mayor Steve Ferguson, and councillors John Hirsch, Bill Roberts, Phil St-Jean, Brad Nieman, Janice Maynard and Sam Grosso (with Chris Braney and Corey Engelsdorfer opposed). Councillors Kate MacNaughton and David Harrison excused themselves from the vote due to pecuniary interest. (Councillors Sam Branderhorst, Phil Prinzen and Roy Pennell were absent).
Engelsdorfer questioned why Option 3 wasn’t selected by staff, to which project manager Garrett Osborne said Option 1 was the more efficient option.
“April to June is the most economically responsible option,” Osborne said, adding that delays due to weather have been factored into the schedule.
A motion put forward by Engelsdorfer to go instead with Option 3 (a split schedule with no summer construction) failed with only three votes (Engelsdorfer, Braney and Grosso). Osborne explained that a change of such magnitude with rescheduling the works to Option 3, would be a significant change involving the need to cancel the tender and reissue a new tender.”
So. Cancel the damned tender and reissue. Problem solved.
https://www.countylive.ca/tender-awarded-for-disputed-bloomfield-main-construction/
I have to add a qualifier to my previous comment regarding “All of the existing representatives have shown disregard for residents and taxpayers, in varying degrees.”
There are a small minority of Councillors who I cannot recall any specific instance of showing explicit disregard for residents and taxpayers.
However, they have been unable to overcome the culture of Council which is dismissive at best, and contemptuous at worst, of residents and taxpayers.
14 rookies at the horseshoe would be a best case, in my opinion. Fresh start. But there are a small minority of existing Councillors that I would consider supporting for re-election for either Mayor or Council. Particularly Councillors Engelsdorfer and Pennell.
I’ll second that nomination, Hopeful.
Without reserve.
@Angel, you stop it by electing a completely new Council and Mayor.
All of the existing representatives have shown disregard for residents and taxpayers, in varying degrees.
With a re-election of even one incumbent, the infection will grow back again.
No guarantee of no new infection with a new crowd, but at least decisions about digging deeper into debt and massive spending increases would be delayed, while the new crowd gets a proper understanding of the true picture of how bad things are.
That true picture will emerge in August or September when the Audited Financial Statements for the year ended Dec 31, 2025 are finally available for the public to see.
By then, there will be only a few weeks before the election, and if there are insufficient candidates to allow a possible clean sweep of “out with the old, in with the new”, then the incumbents will continue to say “there, there, all will be well, you cannot afford to change council and mayor in this time of turmoil”.
I am hopeful that many readers and supporters of the Times will consider registering as candidates. Not necessarily optimistic, but hopeful all the same.
Cleaning out the entire Council would be a foolish action. Could you just imagine 14 rookies at the horseshoe!
I would rather “14 rookies at the horseshoe” than what we have now. We really do need to start over.
Presently, it appears we have a good old fashioned “Old Boy’s Club” thing going on with many having been around our “horseshoe” for anywhere from 8-12 years. Now I admit, appearances can be deceiving, but it’s time for a change. However, that also means it’s well past time for the residents to step up, pay attention and engage. Have Your Say is, for some, great. For others it is too impersonal – so use Emails, phone calls, letters and Deputations and make a noise. Our Council needs our input as well, but to do that, we have to understand what we are asking of them.
Remember. Incoming members of Council are trained by Staff on the rules and regulations set down by the Federal and Provincial governments. That is one of the many necessary and critical functions of Staff – senior and lower tier. And there are a LOT of rules, mostly in posh parliamentary speak. It’s an immense responsibility and a great deal to remember. This is not written in layman’s terms, and I think that Staff do their best with incoming Council. Then there are the Agenda and Agenda Packages for each meeting. Make no mistake – these are two very different animals. Pick one and have a look at the difference between them.
Go ahead – here’s an example:
https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=3071
Have a look at the Agenda. Then the Agenda Package. Then the Minutes.
Then explain how any four year, part-time, Council can make an informed decision on anything. With more than one meeting a week. The “Buck Stops Here” – with the Mayor, who’s position is the sole full-time one. With our Councillors who probably put in more hours than we know about – and by the way, how many hours are they supposed to put do in a week? But Senior Staff should be held accountable to the Residents for their recommendations to our Council as well. Not sure I’m seeing that, but I could be wrong.
And still, we expect and we demand that those we elected do not vote until they understand what they are voting for. Wouldn’t you think that is a reasonable expectation? Check those Agendas again. There is nothing reasonable about expecting people who only work part time to wade through that morass – hence the well-educated opinions, recommendations and advice from Staff who are permanent and full-time. We do need them.
But we also need to understand what it is they are recommending to our elected officials, because at the end of the day, it is the Council who has to make the decisions, and whose neck is on the line. Not Staff.
The problem is councillors treating this as a part time job when in fact it is not. You have rightly flagged the number of meetings, size of agenda packages etc.
I’m tempted to ask “how would we know it was worse”. There are dedicated people with decades of experience in every field of what governance, finance, and engineering could do for the County and some who could be recruited to assist and ultimately result in better decisions around the horseshoe
Don’t think it could get much worse [she said hopefully].
A Council who doesn’t appear to have a clue about the difference between “Right and Wrong”; nor any clue about what a “Council Code of Conduct” means or that what we have in place is unenforceable (or a “Conflict of Interest” for that matter – with a “gee, I don’t see a problem so I don’t have to declare it” attitude); or how about knowingly accepting campaign donations when you have a reasonable expectation that said donor will come before you, and then not declaring a Conflict when the donor decides to approach the Planning/Development Committee and/or Council meetings. How bad did you want that donation, that you would put your reputation on the line with the people in your Ward who elected you to represent them? Lot’s of that happening around here. Clean sweep? Yes please.
I agree that Council seeking and accepting advice from those residents with experience would go a long way to better decisions. We’ll see.
I hope those people you are mentioning are listening. We need them.
Yes. There are a great many dedicated, knowledgeable and experienced people here, but I do recall our previous CAO brushing one particular resident off, in spectacular and dismissive fashion, for offering his extensive knowledge and services. And not having the decency to talk to him herself, but assign a councillor to deliver her message.
Decisions are consistently being made by Council ahead of Deputations. How do we stop this?
Class A gong show