To the Editor,
I am writing in response to the February 18 editorial, “Hawkesbury’s hydro rumour.” It is important that residents read the piece carefully — not only for what is written, but also for what is not written.
The Mayor has stated twice that Hydro Hawkesbury “has not been sold.” That is a factual statement about the present moment. However, it does not address whether discussions, valuations, non-disclosure agreements, exploratory negotiations, or alternative transaction structures may be occurring. In municipal governance, wording matters. “Has not been sold” is not the same as “is not being explored.”
The editorial suggests that because no revenue from a sale appears in the 2026 budget, a sale is unlikely. Respectfully, that conclusion may be premature. Asset transactions are typically recorded when finalized, not anticipated. Conditional negotiations — particularly those subject to regulatory approval — would not necessarily appear in draft budget projections. The absence of a line item does not conclusively prove the absence of discussions.
The explanation of closed session rules under the Ontario Municipal Act is accurate. Matters involving the acquisition or disposition of property must be discussed in camera before public debate. However, while final approval must occur in public, the Act does not require broad public consultation beforehand. Procedural transparency and meaningful public engagement are not the same thing.
The editorial also raises operational questions about Hydro Hawkesbury’s sustainability. Those questions deserve answers supported by financial data — audited revenue figures, dividend history, capital replacement forecasts, and long-term return projections. Without that information, public debate remains incomplete.
It is also worth noting that many residents have approached the LLRC expressing interest in helping manage Hydro Hawkesbury on behalf of the town should restructuring be required. Others have expressed interest in partnership or ownership alternatives. If discussions are occurring, how is fair market value being determined? Has an independent valuation been completed? Has there been any structured solicitation of interest to ensure the municipality receives full value? These are governance questions, not rumours.
We have learned from past infrastructure decisions that accepting short-term solutions can produce long-term capital challenges. The road repair scenario — where a limited financial contribution was accepted and we now face significantly larger infrastructure obligations — reminds us that thorough due diligence and long-term financial modeling must precede decisions of this magnitude.
Another issue not fully addressed in the editorial is timing. If several members of council, including the Mayor, do not intend to seek re-election, is this the appropriate moment to advance a decision involving a multi-million-dollar public asset? Legality and legitimacy are not always identical.
No one is alleging misconduct.
No one is seeking panic.
What residents are asking for is clarity.
Hydro Hawkesbury is not simply an asset on paper. It represents long-term revenue stability, local control, and public trust.
In matters of this magnitude, transparency should be expansive — not minimal.
Respectfully,
Michael MacDonald
Hawkesbury
