Comment
How?
The runaway train of waterworks infrastructure spending has, for now, been slowed. In this lull, we need to understand the foundational mistakes made and how a bad premise cascaded into years of poor infrastructure planning. How was it permitted to get so close to a catastrophe?
To be clear, the municipality has spent $50 million in aid of a single developer in Wellington. That money is gone. Water customers are paying most of this bill. The developer paid $12 million, in exchange for control of the remaining capacity in the village’s waterworks system. Damage has been done in the name of a grand, deluded vision.
But it could have been much, much worse. Until last month, Shire Hall was still planning to spend seven times that amount—all on the backs of 5,200 water customers. It would have been ruinous. We can see that now. Predicted it much earlier. But how did we get here? And why did it take so long to bring this train under control? And critically, has the threat really subsided? Or can it roll to life again?
We now know that Shire Hall based its big spending on wildly unrealistic population growth. Its forecasts contradicted the history of this place, government population trends and expert opinions. But even after Shire Hall’s growth projections were debunked, its spending plans remained intact. Only the pace of construction changed. How could this be?
Long after the senior leadership who promoted the defunct growth figures left, Shire Hall kept pushing the super regional water plan. $360 million. Over eight years. About $70,000 per household served by municipal water. Development charges would soar, meaning builders would abandon the County for lower-cost neighbouring jurisdictions.
The foundation for Shire Hall’s plan kept falling apart— yet municipal staff continued to promote the doomed regional water system. We need answers.
To understand how badly it fell apart, you need to know the difference between a one per cent growth rate and a population growing at 2.4 per cent (this was Shire Hall’s made-up growth figure used to support a regional water plan) as measured by actual humans.
If the County’s population were to grow at 2.4 per cent, starting from 25,000 people, it would add 15,173 after 20 years (a widely used timeline to guide infrastructure plans). If true, it would prompt a proper review of system capacities.
But if the population grew at just one per cent—the dialled-down rate that Council agreed to in January for planning purposes— it would add only 5,500 residents over two decades. It’s a big difference.
Inexplicably, however, the preferred solution produced in 2024 using 2.4 per cent growth remained unchanged in 2026 at the more realistic prediction of one per cent population growth. It wasn’t credible. (The costs, the debt and charges, however, would be shared across a much smaller number of heavily burdened residents.) Yet the regional water plan dragged out an expensive financial modelling exercise all summer. Unsurprisingly, the result was unaffordable and unworkable. So Council rejected it.
But the risk is even greater: While a one per cent growth rate may serve as a reasonable planning number, it is most certainly overstating the County’s growth prospects. Remember that the County’s population has remained stubbornly flat for 150 years.
Moreover, Shire Hall’s demographic consultant, the province’s ministry of finance and others currently peg Prince Edward County’s growth rate at 0.7 per cent per year. If that holds up, that’s just 3,750 more folks after 20 years, for a total population of 28,750-ish.
These are radically different prospects. They require different plans.
Consider one more trend. In 2026, just seven per cent of new homes are being built in municipally serviced areas (urban areas with water and wastewater services). Most new homes are being built in the countryside. The implication is that 93 per cent of the new folks—at least in 2026—aren’t waterworks customers and never will be.
The gravity shaping the County’s table-top flat population is abundantly evident. The premise of rapid growth must be discarded as the fantasy it always was. Always has been.
Lingering questions remain: How did a plan that imagined hundreds of millions of dollars in spending based on unrealistic growth projections survive for five years? How did it threaten the financial viability of this community until last month?
Michelle.
I agree with you, and it was uncalled for.
I apologize.
Just facts, please. From all of us.
Word on the street is Base 31 is quietly fiinancing Margetson. Hope we can get the donation data prior than after the Election.
Have you asked him, Fred? Sounds unsubstantiated to me. Just ask.
Fred, I have been in touch with Ernie Margetson directly, and he has assured me that:
He will not take, and has not taken, any financial donations from developers including Base 31. I intend on holding him to his promise. He is having his donations carefully vetted.
I don’t know where you got this from, but it has to stop. Right here. Right now.
Told you where I got it from if you read and absorbed content. “Word on the Street”! There is a lot of chatter. Hope this helps you understand. Some believe where there is smoke there is fire. No need to be defensive of your Mayoral candidate. Your demand for stoppage only increases curiosity.
OK. How about “a lot of chatter” going around the County since early July about where our current Mayor is going to be employed after November 15th? If there is any basis in fact regarding these rumours, then he would clearly be in Conflict over any decisions or input he has made since employment negotiations began, that would benefit his next employer. He refuses to answer questions on this to settle the matter – I’ve asked him. So, it’s still just a rumour. Unsubstantiated. Not fact based.
And, for the record, I DID NOT say Ernie Margetson was my “Mayoral candidate”. There are voting booths and online voting for a reason. Privacy. I simply detest rumours and innuendo. “Word on the Street” are NOT facts. Spreading this excrement immediately before voting doesn’t help. So, deliver Facts. Or nothing.
While you cleverly drop chatter going on about our Mayor. Facts or nothing!
I am a resident of Wellington and the Treasurer of Ernie Margetson’s Mayoral Campaign and can state categorically that we have received no donations from Base 31, or anybody we could identify as a developer or connected to a developer. We have specifically looked into the background of any larger donors not known to us to ensure they were were not connected to any development in PEC. And, in accordance with regulations related to campaign financing, we have not accepted any donations from any corporations; a few did come in, none from developers, and in every case were returned immediately to the corporation.
Well the acclaimed Councilor in South Marysburgh (who doesn’t reside there) has chosen to publically criticise a Majority of his Council members as dysfunctional and not reading reports. Precipitated because the Majority voted down the 250 Million Water boondoggle. And now he automatically sits on a new Council with 2 other Acclaimed that reject his stance. Not a good start and his position deserves sanctions upon his devisive comments!!
I’d like to see all of the “Acclaimed” Candidates back on the ballot. I won’t change the outcome, of course, but those Candidates, as well as the Residents, should know exactly how much support they have from the Ward they will be representing.
Just because nobody wants to run against you, doesn’t mean you have the Residents support.
October 26th!
Nice catch, Chuck!
Hopeful is spot on, however.
JUST VOTE!
Or it will definitely be the old adage: “Same Shite, Different Shovel”
Apologies, @Chuck, got out over my skis there 🙂 Great to see someone read this :-).
Election Day is Oct 26, but Advance voting is Saturday, Oct 17.
Q: How did a plan that imagined hundreds of millions of dollars in spending based on unrealistic growth projections survive for five years?
A: A number of reasons:
1) The narrative of “Growth pays for growth” (which is, and always was, a fallacy) was pushed onto Staff by smooth-talking outside developers and their consultants. Staff then, pushed that narrative to Council and the Mayor. Not everyone on Council believed that narrative, but they were in the minority, as a sub-group of Councillors, together with the Mayor, and egged on by Staff, used it as the basis to approve plans and Motions that required ever-increasing spending and borrowing. The excuse Staff used, and will always continue to use, was “You, Council, approved this, so it’s not our fault.”
2) Together with this, the narrative of “We have to trust our Staff” began to be proclaimed by some members of Council, and that began to take hold within Council, probably because no one wanted to question the opposite — i.e. “We don’t trust our Staff.” It’s OK to question Staff, and it ought to be OK to listen to your constituents, many of whom are more knowledgeable than Staff, or even the consultants hired by the developers. But Council steadfastly ignored deputation after deputation, and the direct and indirect feedback they were getting from their constituents.
Some of the Councillors who parroted these narratives are returning for sure to the new Council, because they have been acclaimed (no one ran against them). And they may still believe these things, despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.
Other Councillors who echoed these narratives are running for re-election, although they have competition.
With the abysmal voter turnout here in the County (never reached 50% in any election in this century), incumbents have a natural advantage. In situations where voter turnout is so low, over 80% of the time in Ontario municipalities, the incumbents are re-elected.
It remains to be seen whether or not:
1) The eligible voters in the County actually care sufficiently to get out and vote; and
2) They are sufficiently in the mood for change, to vote for a challenger rather than the people who surrounded the horseshoe while we got into this mess.
Those are the questions I’d like to see the answers to. We’ll know in 11 days. Advance voting is this Saturday, day after tomorrow, and election day is Oct 16. No excuses. Vote!
Part of problem is not only what has been put forward by developers’ consultants, but also what has come from consultants hired by the county… who perhaps have too quickly dismissed the idea of maintain and improving the Picton water plant and dealing with some of the hypothetical risks posed by drawing water from Picton bay by extending the intake pipe northward… an option that I believe both Terry Shortt and Ernie Margetson have mentioned at times during campaign.
Staff must rely to some degree on outside consultants, and council in turn needs to rely on staff to explain recommendations from technical consultants hired by county. But yes councillors need to dig in, closely review the staff reports, listen to what they’re hearing from informed constituents, and then closely interrogate staff on these big ticket issues.