County News
Groundhog day
Council size is back
‘Good morning, Prince Edward County, it’s 6 degrees and partly cloudy in Milford, traffic on the Baitley Crossroad is light, and leading the news this morning is a public meeting looking at the size of council.’
It’s a newscast that could have been delivered this morning and a hundred other mornings over the past 18 years. Never far from public consciousness, the matter of how County council is formed, who they represent and how many representatives are needed to make a decision, has risen once again.
On Thursday evening council members outnumbered residents at the first of four public meetings to consider the wording of a question to be posed on the ballot in the 2026 municipal election. Just five residents showed up to fill the 45 chairs set up at the Ameliasburgh hall. Nine council members and three Shire Hall staff were there to restart the discussion about reforming and reorganizing council.
Councillor Chris Braney had gotten the ball rolling earlier this year by persuading his colleagues to reopen the decades-old debate about how the County is governed. Councillor Braney suggested it was healthy and indeed necessary to examine from time to time how Shire Hall works to ensure it continues to serve residents effectively and efficiently.
But the issue is never as simple as that. Some folks fear the issue intensely, worrying that their voice will be diminished in favour of certain parts of the County. This sense is particularly acute in Ameliasburgh, where the most populous ward is represented by three council members (all but Picton and Hallowell, with two members each, are represented by a single council member).
“When rural gets lumped into urban, rural always loses,” said Brian Montgomery, one of the five residents to show up at the meeting. He pointed to the reorganization of the fire department several years ago that, in his view, centralized firefighting resources in Picton. But others suggest that trust in the institution of council is crumbling as the issue continually gets kicked down the road. In an earlier ballot question in 2010, 81 per cent of those who responded said they wanted change. But because the result wasn’t binding upon the then council (because fewer than 50 per cent of eligible voters participated in that election), it was punted down the road.
Citizens’ Assembly was formed. Its result, too, was ignored by the council. An Ontario Municipal Board challenge was launched. Sensing the decision might see an adjudicator redraw the County’s electoral boundaries, council hastily agreed to a plan to reduce its number by two members (from 16 to 14). It worked. The OMB agreed that council was working toward fixing the problem.
But it didn’t. It only served to push suppress the issue for a few years. Now it’s back. Sophiasburgh resident Dennis Fox urged the council members gathered on Thursday to take the matter seriously.
“Council is losing respect from the public because of this issue,” said Fox.
But Fox was in the minority on Thursday night.
Others praised the council’s efforts and worried about their workload being spread across fewer members. Some feared that if the County’s population grew, the issue would return over and over again.
Dale Woods figures council is wasting time.
“Let them do their job,” urged Woods. “ Rehashing this is stupid. It was dead.”
Mayor Steve Ferguson repeatedly tried to guide the discussion back to the matter at hand, specifically the wording of the ballot question. But tempers were already simmering—even among this small turnout.
Soon enough, the origin of Ameliasburgh’s three-member representation was being reinterpreted, and decisions made in 1997 were being analyzed and critiqued.
County clerk Victoria Leskie, a decorated veteran of the size-of-council wars, attempted to turn down the temperature, noting that electoral districts change and evolve but don’t define, or redefine, a historic community.
But councillor Janice Maynard interjected, saying that even electoral wards ought to represent a community of interest.
The meeting had strayed far from its stated purpose. Staff recommended the following wording for the 2026 ballot. Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundary changes? The meeting got stuck on ‘third-party’ and never really moved beyond.
An hour into the special council meeting, Mayor Ferguson gavelled a recess. The meeting will reconvene in Wellington on Tuesday evening at the Wellington and District Community Centre. Future meetings are set for Cherry Valley on Nov. 3 and Picton on Nov. 18. Do you ever have déjà vu?
Well something better change whether it’s Council or having High paid staff smart enough to know how to secure funding! Provincial Gov’t just handed out Infrastructue Funding;
Quinte West $7,000,000
Bellville $6,000,000
And Prince Edward County, wait for it! $1,000,000!!
The driving force behind the size of Council may be the desire by the urbanization crowd to be able to overcome County resident objections more easily.
After all, with a Council size of, say, 6 Councilor + the Mayor, the Agendas of only 3 Councilors would be easily pushed through. Three + the Mayor would be a majority. In today’s world, 8 Councilors are required for a majority, assuming they all show up (which of course is not always the case). Setting aside the fact that the “Strong Mayor” now has the power to push through initiatives without the consent of Council, in many cases.
Presently, there are more than 3 Councilors who have consistently supported developer led initiatives over the objections of their constituents. If they are re-elected, and the size of Council is reduced, then the urbanization agenda will be free to plow ahead even more quickly, transferring more and more taxpayer money into developer assets.
Some people say that reducing Council size is about saving money. That’s laughable, because the total annual spend on all 13 Councilors and the Mayor Salaries and Expenses is less than 0.5% of the spending of Shire Hall, even before it breaches the $100 MILLION annual mark, which it is certain to do this year, if it has not already breached that run rate.
This is yet another defection / distraction issue, designed to deflect attention from the real issues facing the County, which is runaway spending and out of control borrowing.
You are correct, of course. Another deflection and distraction…absolutely. Runaway spending and out of control borrowing…definitely. I have requested a public response on this article and the ensuing comments from our local MPP, Tyler Allsopp. – four times now since this was published on the 24th. So far, no response. Possibly time we took this discussion elsewhere. The denizens of Shire Hall are ignoring these two very important issues, and providing us with no answers. What will it take for those higher up in the political realm to actually do something before we go bankrupt?
“50% of the voters will never show up to make it legally binding anyways”…
Perhaps more would show up, or make their voices heard directly by email/phone contact, if Shire Hall would inform ALL Voters about this proposed Ballot Question. We have many property owners in PEC who do NOT have their principal residence here, and who do NOT know they have a voice in this issue as well. In my latest Action Request, I’d asked how (or indeed “if”) Shire Hall notified off-county owners about this ballot question. Short response is, they do not. At all. And yet they DO use Canada Post to send those same voters their property tax bill. Sort of puts this whole voting thing into perspective doesn’t it? – it’s damned well one-sided.
Well to put it bluntly, 50% of the voters will never show up to make it legally binding anyways. If Council was at all serious about this issue, they could correct it themselves with a Bylaw to reduce Council size and remove Wards that used to be Townships. It’s 1 Tier County government, Stop protecting the Council positions, and historic Townships that no longer exist. Time to move on!!
All of these meetings are being held at 6pm. How many people work off the County and couldn’t possibly get to these meetings in time. What about others with young children – dinner time, homework then bedtime? Retirees would be fine, I think. But the rest? Or, it could just be apathy – I don’t hear a lot of confidence on the street that this council will accept any changes at all.