County News

What was said

Posted: Feb 5, 2026 at 9:28 am   /   by   /   comments (6)

Developers

A mix of new and established entrants represented the development sector. Chris Marchese, representing Base31 and PEC Community Partners, told the council committee that he and his team remain confident in the prospects for new homebuilding in Prince Edward County, despite a dismal few years for the sector in Ontario and beyond.

He encouraged Council not to look at the market today or tomorrow—but to plan for 30 years from now.

Councillor Brad Nieman challenged Marchese to describe who are the new home buyers that Base31 hopes to attract. Councillor Nieman suggested the work-from-home trend has reversed, and that the price difference that once attracted city homeowners to the County has mostly disappeared. Besides, he said, there are no jobs.

“Who are you building these homes for?” pressed Nieman.

Marchese doubled down on his confidence in the County market.

“We are building homes for all—for everybody,” said Marchese. “As for jobs? People would work here, but they can’t find homes.”

(According to HouseSigma, there are currently 352 homes for sale across the County.)

Marchese added that Base31 partners would be prepared to pay—or at least consider paying— some infrastructure costs upfront.

There were introductions and reintroductions by various other developers seeking to keep their foot in the County’s door.

Ruth Estwick, representing the Quinte Home Builders’ Association, described Council’s reconsideration of growth as “an important moment”.

The QHBA rep appeared to soften comments made in a letter to Mayor Ferguson and Members of Council sent earlier last week, in which she wrote to express QHBA’s “ support for maintaining the 2.4 per cent population growth assumption as the most appropriate planning figure to ensure Prince Edward County is positioned to deliver housing, infrastructure, and economic growth when market conditions align.”

Her comments took a more conciliatory tone and didn’t mention the County’s growth expectations.

“Infrastructure readiness, financing capacity and public confidence must move together,” said Estwick. “Clarity is needed not just on how much growth is possible, but on realistic timing and phasing. We must work together to get this right.”

Another developer managed to stir the imagination of several council members.

Paul Mondell represents Sterling Homes. His company is promoting a plan to build 200 homes—many of them townhomes—on either side of Cleminson Drive, just north of the Legion and south of the Millennium Trail.

Mondell offered no opinion on a reduced-growth-rate assumption—the subject on the table. Instead, he explained his project remains blocked by an agreement Shire Hall made with another developer in Wellington. That agreement has effectively locked up the remaining capacity in the village’s waterworks plants—even though that developer has shown no inclination to build homes in Wellington.

Mondell urged Council to consider a modular wastewater treatment solution as a workaround to break the logjam in Wellington, so to speak. He mentioned that he had led a site visit to Quinte West last summer, joined by municipal staff. The group had toured a facility that is successfully employing modular treatment technology.

Councillor Nieman was peeved that he—and other members of Council—were excluded from the site visit. He also wanted to know who would pay for such a solution.

Mondell said either his firm would pay or the municipality could—that the details would be worked out in the currency of development charges. He added that his project isn’t reliant upon the completion of the trunkline project. He further suggested that the waste treatment system was compact enough that it could be installed on Sterling’s site, if the County deemed this preferable.

Councillor Phil St-Jean suggested, without evidence, that a modular solution might be more challenging to obtain provincial approval for.

Mondell disagreed. He pointed again to the Quinte West experience.

“It is used today all across Ontario,” said Mondell. “It will likely require a shorter approval time frame [than a large, fixed plant]”.

 

Residents

Each of the public comments—those from residents—urged Council to support the investigation of a lower growth rate and its impact on waterworks capital spending.

Some worried that a regional water plant in Wellington remained the “preferred solution.”

“The regional plant is not a viable option,” said Tim Good, water ratepayer and chair of the Wellington Community Association. “Not now, maybe never.”

Good noted that housing starts are down and that housing prices are falling, and that in such an economic climate, builders are likely to stay firmly on the sidelines.

But he emphasized that as many as 14 per cent of Prince Edward County’s existing population is living in poverty.

“You must listen to the needs of your residents,” said Good. “Developers will come and go. Provincial requirements will change. But Council must always represent the people in this community.”

Kevin Hanbury observed that the world has changed since 2021. And in Prince Edward County, the promise of “exponential growth” has proved empty.

“It’s a different picture,” said Hanbury, a resident of Wellington on the Lake. “The mushroom plant has closed, wineries are for sale, while stores and restaurants in Wellington are struggling. There is no boom. It’s time to face facts.”

Jane Lesslie is a Picton resident and vice-chair of the County’s audit committee. She, too, said that growth assumptions underlying massive infrastructure expenditures have “changed dramatically.”

She explained that the trend toward work-from-home has ended. Rapid population growth from immigration has largely dried up.

“Canada’s population actually decreased last year,” noted Lesslie.

She added that near-zero mortgage interest rates are also gone.

Lesslie cited one housing data aggregator, Zolo, which is reporting that five months of housing inventory are currently languishing in the local market.

“New homes standing empty means no water revenue, no property tax revenue,” said Lesslie. “We are seeing our financial flexibility to respond to sudden negative events steadily erode. This is not prudent.

“When the facts change, your expectations have to change.”

According to Gary Mooney, an actuary trained to measure risks of uncertain financial events, predicting the future must always begin by looking at past experience to project trends.

He noted that for the 150 years since its first census, the County’s population has grown by a meagre 0.16 per cent annually—one-sixth of a percentage point per year.

“Surprisingly, over the recent 20-year period, from 2001 to 2021, the County’s population grew at the same rate—0.16 per year,” said Mooney. “I see no justification for expecting more than an average of one per cent annual population growth rate long term.”

Comments (6)

write a reply to Emily Cancel reply

Comment
Name E-mail Website

  • Feb 7, 2026 at 10:36 am Teena

    Thanks, Emily. If only I were 20 years younger… but I encourage any non-conflicted, civic-minded County residents to get themselves elected to cleanse our beautiful county.

    Reply
  • Feb 6, 2026 at 11:18 am Susan

    Campaign donations are an important piece of our electoral system. They assist candidates in promoting their message for election. They are governed by election rules so it is regulated and fair.

    Reply
    • Feb 6, 2026 at 2:15 pm Teena

      I don’t buy that. There isn’t a massive voter base in PEC – we’re not Toronto or Ottawa. Until the mythical influx of new homeowners arrive here, we have local media who are quite capable of promoting our municipal candidates with interviews – online, radio, and print. Shire Hall has its very own budget line for advertising – how about setting it up so a portion of this can be used to promote all candidates once every four years, evenly, through our local media.

      As for the election rules being regulated, how about this one – the recent question put to PEC residents about including a new question on our ballot regarding size of council had NOT been sent to the property taxpaying owners who live off-County. I asked Shire Hall – they had absolutely no intention of contacting every taxpayer. At all. If a property tax bill is being sent to owners off-County, then they could have done this easily. This was strictly an on-County question. If you live off-County, the only way you were going to know about this ballot is if you signed in for the News/Notices, kept up with Council activities, or checked the online local media. Not many do that. I know of a few people who weren’t aware of that proposed ballot question. At all. And they live here full time. So, how about respectfully declining donations where the optics may be questionable, albeit well within the legal framework? How about actually knowing the people personally who are making donations to your campaign? We don’t know who is backing our prospective local municipal council members before we vote. We won’t know about it until about six months after the election, when Shire Hall is legally obligated to publish those audited financial statements for the residents, if we think to look into it at all (after six months, who would think to do that?). Regulated and fair? Accountability and Transparency? If you can run without donations, please consider doing so. You represent the residents of your Ward. The Mayor represents us all, as do the entire Council when gathered together. Think about it.

      Reply
      • Feb 6, 2026 at 7:27 pm Emily

        Teena needs to consider running for Council to direct all of her concerns where it matters.

        Reply
  • Feb 5, 2026 at 12:54 pm Chuck

    I hope that Ms. Lesslie once again runs for Council in Picton Ward and is successful. She brings a freshness of common sense which is very much in need.

    Reply
    • Feb 6, 2026 at 10:04 am Teena

      It would be great if she could do it without accepting campaign donations!

      Reply