Resolving council size and preserving County wards
Administrator | Apr 06, 2015 | Comments 52
The size of council is to be addressed again (at a special committee of the whole meeting set for April 16).
I would like to draw attention to the N.E.W. Plan, which I proposed to the previous council in 2013. It was not formally considered, because council was committed to responding to the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly.
The N.E.W. Plan has attracted a lot of interest, having been accessed more than 1,100 times on the County’s website. See www.bit.do/new-plan for a concise but complete description. I will present this plan to the new council.
Personally, I don’t have an opinion on the most appropriate number of councillors. My main objective in proposing the N.E.W. Plan is to ensure preservation of the County’s 10 historic wards, with no boundary changes, regardless of the size of council. The plan keeps the 10 historic wards intact, while accommodating several possible council sizes – a mayor plus 15, or 12, or 9, or even six councillors.
Under this plan, three electoral wards are established, covering two, four and four existing historic wards respectively, with no boundary changes.
North Electoral Ward includes Ameliasburgh and Sophiasburgh; East includes Picton, North Marysburgh, South Marysburgh and Athol; West includes Hallowell, Bloomfield, Wellington and Hillier.
Each Electoral Ward elects a team of councillors, the same number for each. There could be as many as five councillors for each Electoral Ward (total of 15), or as few as two each (total of six).
Except for councillor representation, the County continues to operate as at present with its 10 historic wards, maintaining existing road signage, town halls, libraries and rec committees, and with each historic ward retaining focus on its own issues and interests. The only difference is that there are three teams of councillors, each with the responsibility of representing more than one historic ward.
In addition to preserving the 10 historic wards, the N.E.W. Plan offers other important benefits, including equitable representation by population, access by all residents to more than one councillor representative, and recognition of three development areas in the County – north, east and west. These benefits will be realized even if council decides to continue with 15 councillors.
The N.E.W. Plan is simple, and inexpensive to implement. It will work if councillors are up to the challenge of representing more than one historic ward, and are willing to work as part of a team, as is now the case in Ameliasburgh (three councillors) and Hallowell, Picton and Sophiasburgh (two each).
The issue of council size has been, and continues to be, divisive in our community – especially when ward boundary changes are contemplated. The N.E.W. Plan preserves the 10 historic wards intact and improves representation, while affording council the opportunity to deal with the size issue, free of other complications.
If you like this plan, please let your councillor know.
Gary Mooney
Hillier
Filed Under: Letters and Opinion • News from Everywhere Else
Why is the Mayor who is leading Council only presenting one 2 ward system for consideration. Why is the at large option not presented. Should not all options be open for discussion? Who’s driving the historic township plan? Can we not have alternative options on the table?
The mayor is elected from the whole county
No reason the councillors can not be the same way
Elect 5or 6 councillors from the whole county–let it go at that and lets move on and work on something else
As for the question about the CAO
We extended his contract rightly or wrongly
We cannot afford to have cancelledit so we should have stuck with it.
We have some good new councillors so why are we stuck with doing what a couple of the former councillors think is right.
Why did we hire someone who fixed up Napanee–Picton has lost
it stores –our main street cannot look like Napanee and never will–what a waste of money
Any ward system that provides a resident to elect 2 or 3 representatives while another resident can only elect 1 is not representative or fair. While an at large system may have some pitfalls (all seem to have some) it does provide equal voting weight for all residents. It also moves us progressively away from protecting small former townships and places the focus of councillors on the County.
One of the former CAO’s work goals was to review the water & wastewater crisis and make recommendations for long term sustainability. Where that is now I do not know. I would hope that any review would include public input.
Debbie says: “Mayor Quaiff stated that he is working on his campaign promises but I believe he needs to get his priorities right and look at the things that could save the taxpayers/municipality money. People are scratching their heads as to why councils priorities are all over the map. Lets clean up some of these other messes before we start a new one.”
Spot on Debbie ! Makes you wonder what principles this Council and Mayor are following.
John Thomnpson: “In total agreement with Gary as to why an at large system would not be appropriate. I see the same problems with a 2 or 3 ward system, albeit to a lesser extent.
Most candidates now are able to stop in at virtually every household during a campaign.”
How can you be in ‘total’ agreement and at the same time suggest that candidates can stop in at virtually every household during a campaign? Are you suggesting this can be done face-to-face or using an alternate means such as the internet?
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”
― John Lydgate
Not that long ago it was stated that the water/wastewater dept. was going to be looked at. If you were to talk with anyone here in the County their biggest concern is THAT dept. So, why are we concentrating so much on the size of council right now when there is so much overspending in that dept.? I understand that the size of council needs to be put to bed but why not fix the things that are costing the taxpayers so much grief? Mayor Quaiff stated that he is working on his campaign promises but I believe he needs to get his priorities right and look at the things that could save the taxpayers/municipality money. People are scratching their heads as to why councils priorities are all over the map. Lets clean up some of these other messes before we start a new one.
In total agreement with Gary as to why an at large system would not be appropriate. I see the same problems with a 2 or 3 ward system, albeit to a lesser extent.
Most candidates now are able to stop in at virtually every household during a campaign.
Emily has it right. We are the Community of PEC. Let’s behave like 1 (one).
* Each candidate for municipal office would have to cover the costs of campaigning to the whole County, which would give an advantage to wealthy or well-connected candidates.
* Visiting each household during an election campaign would be impossible.
That’s already true for all wards. Name a Candidate who has done this already. This is the 21st century. Technology has solved this problem. Along with more public meetings.
* Following election, Councillors would have to travel the whole County to meet with constituents.
Again technology can and has already made it possible to overcome this.
* Candidates / Councillors might opt to build their support base in the highest density areas, starting with Picton, where maintaining contact with a large number of people is easiest.
That’s an assumption. Can you prove this might happen? Candidates for Picton already have this edge.
* People living in the more remote areas of the County might have difficulty in convincing any Councillor to pay attention to their needs and interests.
People in remote areas are really not that remote if they wish to speak to a Councilor they can 1. pick up the phone and call. Or 2. write. Or 3, email. Or 4. arrange an appointment for a Councilor to visit them.
Emily, you said: “It is difficult to argue against an at large system where everyone elects 8 or 10 representatives.”
I think that an at-large system be a disaster, for reasons including the following:
* Each candidate for municipal office would have to cover the costs of campaigning to the whole County, which would give an advantage to wealthy or well-connected candidates.
* Visiting each household during an election campaign would be impossible.
* Following election, Councillors would have to travel the whole County to meet with constituents.
* Candidates / Councillors might opt to build their support base in the highest density areas, starting with Picton, where maintaining contact with a large number of people is easiest.
* People living in the more remote areas of the County might have difficulty in convincing any Councillor to pay attention to their needs and interests.
If we, do not use the water, We still have to pay the base rate.
which is over 121.00 on my bill.
that’s with NO water or sewage.
so for people going away for winters. they will still pay.
if you do use your water. expect to pay double to triple that. or more. (single people and 2 person families pay over 250 and that’s trying to conserve too)
they said it would be approx. 12.00 increase
but many are paying more.
I think we are paying for the golden handshakes of employees that are being fired (cao, McFarland)……..just an opinion
When Council size is considered it requires deep thought and consideration. Maintaining old townships as wards is counter productive and prevents us moving forward as a County with County Councilors. The days of protecting little township turfs should be gone. We need smart dedicated people representing the County and the betterment of all. I don’t want one voter in Ameliasburgh voting to elect 3 councilors while I get to elect one! That is not representative.Every councilor’s decision affects us all not just where they are from. It is difficult to argue against an at large system where everyone elects 8 or 10 representatives.
We are talking more than businesses i.e. public services, bulk water, tourism that supposedly benefits all. All users.
Lots of comments but the simple truth is the urban people cannot afford the water/sewer charges and we cannot disconnect or can we drill wells or dig a septic tank
I live in a one person house and my water/sewer rates are high
I have pity for large families living in town and as I said previously the town water is not fit to drink.
Susan – my final comment. Every business includes ALL their costs in the price of their goods or services or they would be bankrupt. These is passed on to me in the prices I pay as a diner or customer – as they are to you. This is NOT an urban versus rural issue. We all pay one way or another.
Are the public using your system Chris? I suspect not but if they were it would put stress on your infrastructure. Picton taxpayers are on the hook for the outrageous waste plant but others are using their services and the return in any fashion is not revenue neutral. There lies the issue without being wrongheaded! Revenue neutral costs are not in the price of goods and services or retailers would have no customers.
Susan: I am not using any service that I do not pay for. I do not use town water or sewage, therefore I do not pay for it. I’m trying to make the point that only “users” of sewage and water are on the hook for the costs not “taxpayers” which would include all County taxpayers. There is no service provided by “Urbania” (as you put it) that I can think of that I do not pay for.
My second point is that it is clear that small municipalities cannot afford the provincially mandated water/sewage systems. Council should be making the case for provincial support. Asking people who do not use the system to pay for is no solution.
As someone who pays outrageous electricity costs no matter how much I conserve, I understand the burden of the additional costs for water and sewage. I too have those costs, as a user of “my” system, and I would not expect anyone else to pay for my use.
Chris I don’t think wrong headedly is a fair comment. Some have made some valid points here. Those outside of Urbania are using services but whatever they pay if any does not cover the load on infrastructure. They are using services that urban taxpayers are on the hook for. It’s not that difficult to understand.
Further to Gilbert’s excellent points, some commentators seem to feel that property tax and service charges levied by the County are the same thing; they are not.
A property valued at $200,000 by MPAC will be charged the exact same amount of property tax by the County whether it is located in Picton or in the middle of South Marysburgh. The owners of both properties receive exactly the same services from the County: education, a library card, police and fire, roads etc…as mandated under the Ontario Municipal Act.
Water and sewage charges are service charges based upon use. Period. Just like cable, telephone, electricity or gas – only those who use the service pay for it.
Any business, whether urban or rural, includes not only their taxes but the cost of any services they use when they are deciding what to charge for something – cost of goods sold.
Rather than wrong-headedly trying to convince rural property owners that they should pay for a service they do not use, commentators should be urging their councillors to lobby the Ontario government for financial aid for water and sewage as it is clear that, because of Ontario Government regulations, this is a service small municipalities like ours simply cannot sustain. I am sure ours is not the only municipality with this predicament.
Good points Gilbert. This makes me thinks of Council’s recent “doings” (pun intended). You state that council are policy makers. E mailing county staff saying “who’s next” is not policy. Interfering in administration’s managing of employee’s is not policy.
Council has not operated effectively under amalgamation. It is time to reduce the size and elect those that truly will represent the County as a whole.
It’s sad this has turned into an us vs them argument. Regardless of whether you live in a rural or urban part of Prince Edward County, this is one municipality. It’s been that way for 20 years now, and that was a decision of the province. Councillors are policy makers. They can bring forward the concerns of the residents they represent, but when those concerns are tabled, each councillor is just once voice in a discussion and a vote. The people sitting around the table in council chambers do represent the whole County, whether you like it or not, because they all make decisions together.
At issue here is not whether the system is unfair to either rural or urban residents of Prince Edward County, but whether a 15-member council is capable of having a single vision and making clear-headed decisions that are fair to all residents of Prince Edward County.
We have young families having to leave urban areas due to water & wastewater costs. These on top of ridiculous electricity costs to support wind and solar projects we do not need. It is a system gone mad! We have so much energy in this province that we give it away or even pay others to take it! Where has common sense gone. When water & waste water equal taxes it is time to shut the town down. Gladly welcome a well and septic! Do we hear from Council? No! Do they plan an open meeting to resolve these costs as part of their goals? I don’t know. What I do know is that they found $300 – $400 thousand dollars to remove a CAO that was just doing the job he was brought here to do!
Agreed Sam. When all users pay proportiantely for urban services I am in. A tax base that is equal and fair to all ratepayers is the ultimate goal.
Mark, “reasonable decisions that are fair to all.” Finally something that we can agree upon.
I will pay for the water and sewer services that I use. I will pay my taxes to pay for my portion the water that is used by the municipality. When I shop in town, the stores that I shop at will pay for the water services that they use. When my water and sewer services need repair then I will even pay for that too.
I will pay for my water. If you pay for yours then that sounds “reasonable” and “fair” to me.
Stay thirsty my friends.
Sam; that is not correct. Below capacity does not equate to no additional costs on infrastructure due to usage. You can shop outside the County as your right but if you desire an urban commercial hub close by, you should recognize that benefit and share in those extreme costs. I don’t think we need to continue as you fail to grasp the issues. When $$ are involved persons can look at things quite differently and usually to their benefit. Back on topic we need a County Council that can recognize the water crisis and make reasonable decisions that are fair to all.
Mark..When the County puts sewer and water lines past my house on Ct Rd. 13 and mounts a meter to my house then I’ll pay my share on my water usage. The store/shops owner in Picton might consider installing a pay toilet door if his customers(who may or may not be in store shopping)are abusing the “system” by using the facilities then walking out. lol Years ago the Royal Hotel had pay toilets.
I recognized quickly four of your “short list” items can be done on the old Interweb right here..no need to drive to Picton. Added to that Belleville shopping is only 15 min. away. The rurals did not in any way create the debt caused by the new water plant and we can’t blame the urbans completely either. If the water/sewer fees are becoming that severe then look for another solution…drill a well,,put in your own septic or holding tank system. It ain’t cheap but with permits allowed I guess it could be done.
The current water and sewer systems are operating below capacity. The system is not being stressed by rural users or tourists. It has been stated on this site in the past that when users started conserving water that the price per unit was increased to cover operating costs at a reduced demand. Therefore, I would suggest that the additional use of the system by the rural residents and tourists is contributing to lower costs to the urban users. If everybody except the urban users stopped using the system and did all of their shopping in Belleville, Trenton or Napanee then the household rates would have to increase again to compensate for the reduced demand. You’re welcome.
Sam; the fees paid by all do not in anyway meet the debt costs. They should be significantly higher. To think that all the rural use and tourist use does not place additional burden, stress and resulting costs on the urban taxpayer is not correct. How would rural users like the public using their well and septic but not covering the cost? Everyone wants services in an urban hub but they want nothing to do with sharing those costs even in a small way.
Mark, on what basis do you claim that “those fees paid by all do not meet the cost of providing the services” used by all? How are the rural folks using services that they are not paying for? What “additional stress on the infrastructure”? Everybody is paying for the services that they use. The truly simplistic response is the incessant claims that the rural people are using services that they are not paying for without providing any specific examples of how this is actually happening. The urban people are paying directly for the quantity of water and sewer services that they are using. That is all.
You’re response is the typical simplistic one. Those fees paid by all does not meet the cost of providing the services. And you failed to address how an urban area providing services for rural folks is supposed to tolerate the additional stress on the infrastructure. Many no longer want to pay for that infrastructure that is used by others who are not paying.
Whether rural or urban, we all pay the same amount for the water and waste water services that we use while outside of our own homes. The water used by the municipality at Shire Hall, the arenas, the libraries, etc is paid by all residents in our taxes. The water used by the businesses, grocery stores, hardware stores, theatre, gift shops, etc is paid by the owners of those establishments and is passed along to the users. The only water and waste water services that rural residents are not paying a portion of is that which is used in the private houses of the people who are connected to those services. A rural resident does not pay directly for water and sewer because they do not directly use the water and sewer services. If an urban dweller stopped using the water and sewer services directly then they would not be expected to pay either.
It sounds like some people would like to have all of the advantages of living in town with none of the additional costs.
If country living is so cheap and free of worries then move to the country and find out of the grass is really greener (over the septic tank).
Omg. Did anyone in town pay for the digging of my well? Or my septic..no I paid money in the county offices in Picton to have the pleasure to do so! Honestly I didn’t use the washroom either. I get to pay the huge delivery charge to hydro for the thrill of living out here. So folks do you want to off set those for your water? Pretty petty folks! Sorry Doris can’t buy into this one!
Sorry about the typo–it said “sue” instead of “use”
Mark you are absolutely correct about the water usage in Picton
We the rate payers of Picton shoulder the cost of water and sewer.
I realize the rural people have there own water system and sewer system
BUT when
they come to picton they can take advantage of our water and sewer–if this system did not exist there would be no stores or restaurants in Picton
Sure the owners of the stores pay the water bills. but they would not have the advantage of being able to sue the water/sewer system if we the ratepayers of Picton did not pay for it
How about the residents of Hallowell who are on Town Water and there own sewer systems they do not pay nearly as much as we do as the sewer rates are very high
Where are their septic tanks emptied–sure the septic people pay a flat rate but it is not nesarly as high as pay, when we use a cup of water we pay sewer rates on about 2 cps.
A lot of people come to picton and buy water at McFarland drive–they do not pay sewer rates–I hope the owner of the water company pays sewer rates on the water he takes.
Another thing is that the water that comes out of our tapes is not safe to drink–so we buy bottled water.
A friend of mine says his dogs will not drink tap water he has to buy bottled water for them and some people cannot take a bath in our tap water they have to pay for expensive equipment in their house to take the chorine out
and what about that floride that is put in Picton water–it is poison.
In conclusion a lot of Picton people tried to cut back on their water usage and what happened they raised the price.
Note: How the hospital is funded has no bearing on the discussion. A hospital located in an urban area serving all residents of the County places additional stress and resulting costs on the infrastructure. It is unreasonable to expect the urban residents to pay those entire costs when it is a use for everyone and the common good. I recognize that rural residents have to pay for wells & septic however the general public is not placing stress and costs on their systems. These are the differences and why currently living in an urban area that provides services to the rural areas places them at a disadvantage. This is a difficult concept for many to grasp either from not fully understanding or a reluctance to pay their fair share. In simple terms it can be best explained in that Urban areas water & sewers are used by all to some degree, while rural areas wells & septic are private and do not endure uses by others unless invited to do so.This is further complicated by the fact that many rural residents purchase bulk water from the Urban system which adds additional costs and stress to that infrastructure. If an urban user takes a pail of water to use in their garden they pay for the water and sewage costs for that even though it does not go back into the treatment process. Bulk water users only pay for the cost of water. I believe that in a fair tax system a defined percentage should be spread among the general tax base for infrastructure that benefits all.
Garry Do they urban residents never leave Picton? I live in their country and there seams to be a lot of urban residents going by my door.
Oops. The special meeting is on Thursday, April 16 at 10 am at Shire Hall, not on April 10.
APRIL 10 COUNCIL MEETING (10 AM) ON SIZE OF COUNCIL
There will be a special meeting of Committee of the Whole (i.e. all of Council) on Thursday, April 10 from 10:00 to noon to receive a report from the Mayor on the size of Council and how existing Wards will be affected.
The Mayor proposes downsizing to 10 Councillors split evenly between 2 Electoral Wards, comprised of:
* 4 existing Wards — Sophiasburgh, Ameliasburgh, Hillier and Wellington.
* 6 existing Wards — Picton, North Marysburgh, South Marysburgh, Athol, Hallowell and Bloomfield.
The rationale given for this configuration is:
* A recommendation of 10 Councillors by the Citizens’ Assembly;
* A previous motion of Committee of the Whole; and
* The same configuration as used by the Public School Board Board for allocation of the two County Trustees.
The draft motion shown in the agenda is simply to receive the Mayor’s Report, and not to approve anything. However, I believe that it is possible for any Councillor to move a motion for additional action.
While the date and time of the special meeting is shown on the County’s meetings calendar, there was no indication of its purpose. I found out about it from CountyLive. For any special meeting of Council, it would seem appropriate to indicate the purpose.
I don’t agree that the urban centres GIVE the rural areas anything, but the rural areas do access services in the closest urban centre — hence my reference to reliance.
Note: The hospital is not funded out of County taxes but via a grant from the province.
It is the intention of the province that the cost of water and sewer services be paid by users, not by all taxpayers. The reason for this is that those on wells and septic tanks have to cover the original construction and ongoing maintenance.
Whenever rural residents complain about paying for services and facilities that are located in an urban centre, the urban residents can complain right back about paying for maintenance of rural roads that they don’t use.
An “urban area” is a location characterized by high human population density and vast human-built features in comparison to the areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets.
Short list of what it gives to rurals;
– health care and hospital
– accommodations, including those specialized for seniors
– municipal offices
– recreation facilities
– library
– banking
– commercial establishments
– entertainment
– food, clothing and booze
Some would say that they pay for the infrastructure costs through the cost of services. That is not accurate or reflective of the costs or there would not be such a burden of debt. If there was not an urban area that required huge infrastructure and the incurring costs where would everyone access those services?
Gary can speak for himself but councillors from all wards have much more influence on the County overall than their individual little pieces of the puzzle.
I’m trying to keep an open mind about this topic but,I do have questions.
@ Mark: what exactly is an “urban centre”and give me a short list of what it gives to us rurals.Blame previous and present day Council for sewage and water costs,what say did the taxpayer of any Ward have in their decision of size and cost?
Sorry Gary I’m not understanding…how are SM, NM, and Athol relying on Picton for their services? Does my councillor not have enough to do without including Picton and two other Wards?
Still on the fence over this discussion. I want representation for my Ward first and foremost. All other Wards can make their own decisions about their own issues.. I don’t think a rural resident/taxpayer needs to be making choices about who gets street lighting or sewage/water rate issues. I don’t remember voting for a mega sewage plant installation (in the wrong place in my estimation)Why should these concerns be suddenly loaded onto the rural taxpayer?
Same story for the urban resident/taxpayer. Do they really care about the cost of brushing or culvert replacement in the rural wards as an example?
Please explain clearly what your last entry was meant to say.
I disagreed with our previous councillor who stated she represented ALL of PEC. To my knowledge all of PEC did not vote her in!
I have yet to hear a rural based councilor speak to or recognize the services that Picton provides to the rural population. They are quite comfortable taking and allowing urban taxpayers to flounder in water & wastewater debt out of control. They do not see the importance of an urban centre and what it provides the community. Are we to believe that under the New Plan they would suddenly take notice and care?
So, Mark and others, if you don’t like the N.E.W. Plan, how about suggesting an alternative?
Re grouping Picton with three rural Wards, these three Wards depend heavily on Picton for services, so it’s reasonable to suggest grouping them together for representation.
The Councillors for the East Electoral Ward would have to consider the needs of Picton “urban” residents AND those of the three rural Wards that rely on Picton for their services.
The weakness begins with an absence of PURPOSE & PRINCIPLE at all 3 levels of government.
I challenge ‘all’ elected councilors and his worship to each write independently, concisely (concise means short – one sentence) what they believe is the purpose of why they are on council. As well I’d like to see them independently write a set of principles AND then compare and discuss both and then drop anchor on an agreement on both.
I would bet that none of them would/could write anything that resembles what the others write.
Without that we have elected people going off in different directions. Very few taxpayers ever bother to ask candidates what principles (of those running for office) would follow when making tough decisions on our behalf.
I challenged each of the candidates running for mayor to share their principles. Only one managed to provide something that made sense. He didn’t win. 🙂
Well the New Plan has been dusted off and being pumped again. If we are to be stuck in a Ward system as opposed to an at large system it has weaknesses. Most notable is throwing Picton the largest urban centre in with 3 rural wards. That is a flaw. If wards are to be grouped Picton needs to be with it’s bordering Hallowell. That is where growth and expansion will or needs to ocurr. Personally I think continuing to concentrate on preserving former townships as electoral wards is like being stuck in time. It is time to move on and represent the County as a whole rather than the protectionism of small pieces of turf.
If you read my post again you’ll see that I’ve made no suggestion to remove wards or to rewrite the Municipal Act.
Revisiting the MA might not be a bad idea. BUT, only after people have decided on the PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES of Municipal, provincial and federal governments. I think you might (or not) agree that with all the changes in governments at all 3 levels over the last 20+ years a revisit is long overdue.
All Cities/Town Councils are run using a Ward system Wolf are you saying Prince Edward County re invent the Municipal Corporations Act ? If so under what principles and guidelines ? 😉
Since we are officially incorporated as the City of Prince Edward County it seems logical that the number of councilors be reduced BUT represent ALL of the county not just a particular ward. My 2 cents.