Making Ends Meet in Prince Edward County: What Would the Candidates Change?

A property-tax credit can create breathing room. Help with a water bill can prevent one difficult month from becoming several. Neither necessarily closes the gap between a household’s income and the cost of living here.

That was the challenge behind Question 11 at the mayoral debate: how would the next mayor support residents struggling to meet basic needs?

Ernie Margetson, Brad Nieman, and Terry Shortt all supported continuing existing assistance. Their answers differed in emphasis, but left a shared question: what would they improve, and how would residents know it was working?

This is a community article, intended to grow through informed discussion. Residents, service providers, municipal staff, and candidates are invited to share information, corrections, and experiences through public comments or private messages to PEC Connect. We will update it as additional information is verified.

What the candidates offered

Margetson gave the most specific account of current municipal assistance, identifying relief for property taxes and water bills, alongside support for community programs through the County Foundation.

“So continue that program is important, I believe,” Ernie Margetson said.

He also expressed frustration with the provincial government leaving municipalities to “pick up the slack.” That deserves examination, including clarification of the responsibilities and funding gaps he meant.

Nieman emphasized the distinction between immediate assistance and lasting improvement.

“We can give them support to help them get by, but we need to find out why they are having that problem,” Brad Nieman said.

He identified high water and wastewater bills as one cause. That is a concrete municipal expense, although his answer did not specify whether he favoured targeted relief, changing rates, securing infrastructure funding, or another approach.

Shortt pointed toward jobs, minimum wages, and rising living costs. He supported existing programs and said increasing them would require a council decision. His response suggested willingness to consider expansion, rather than a definite funding commitment.

These were brief debate answers, not detailed platforms. Still, they give voters a reasonable basis for asking what each candidate would change.

How many households are struggling?

The moderator said 25% of PEC households had difficulty meeting basic needs, including food and housing. We have not independently confirmed the exact source or definition behind that statement.

The regional evidence is serious, but requires careful attribution. Southeast Public Health reports that about one in four households in its region experienced food insecurity in 2024. Its territory extends beyond PEC into several other counties. 

Food insecurity refers to inadequate or insecure access to food because of financial constraints. It is not interchangeable with a poverty rate, or a measure covering every essential household expense.

We invite the debate organizers or others with the original source to share it so this distinction can be clarified. Accurate geography and definitions help us understand the problem we are asking municipal leaders to address.

What existing relief actually provides

Council allocated $473,000 to the Municipal Financial Relief Grant program for 2026. 

Administered by the County Foundation, it supports eligible households through credits toward particular municipal bills. The 2026 program rules provide two support levels:

Support level	Property-tax credit	Municipal-water credit
Enhanced	$1,000	$500
Standard	Up to $750	Up to $350

Applicants choose one category. Standard amounts depend on available funding and eligible demand. Some income thresholds increased in 2026, including standard eligibility for a one-person household to $38,000 gross income.

This can be meaningful assistance, but it is a targeted bill-relief program. Renters whose water is included in fixed rent cannot receive the water credit, while households must meet income and other eligibility requirements.

Annual applications and documentation are required. The 2026 deadline was July 15. Those conditions are relevant to access, even where eligibility checks serve a legitimate purpose.

The program also describes a separate, last-resort process for qualifying households facing imminent water disconnection, accessed through municipal staff and a community partner.

An important gap: eligible residents who do not apply

The municipality’s November 2025 staff report said the program supported 506 households that year, but estimated that only about one-third of eligible households applied. That estimate used available census data; it was not a direct count of everyone entitled to assistance.

Why might residents miss out? Awareness, paperwork, deadlines, or uncertainty about eligibility are possibilities requiring further evidence.

Local stigma is another concern. In the Picton Gazette, PEC Food Collective volunteer Tara Wood described people questioning whether their circumstances warranted help:

“I think a lot of people assume, ‘I’m not impacted enough, I’m not hungry enough.’”

Her observation about seeking food assistance does not establish why residents miss municipal grants, but it suggests a useful question for outreach. 

The funding discussion therefore needs two parts. How can assistance reach more eligible people, and what funding would be necessary if participation increased?

Employment is only part of the answer

The County Foundation’s community dashboard describes lower-than-provincial earnings and a seasonal economy contributing to fewer full-time jobs.

Having employment can still mean unpredictable hours or an income that does not cover housing, transportation, and other essentials. A job opening also

offers limited immediate help to someone unable to work or living on retirement income.

Ontario’s general minimum wage rose to $17.95 on October 1, 2026. At 40 hours weekly for 52 weeks, that produces $37,336 gross annually: our calculation, assuming uninterrupted work and before deductions.

For comparison, Ontario lists maximum basic-needs and shelter support for a single person of up to $733 monthly through Ontario Works, or up to $1,436 through ODSP, depending on circumstances. Other benefits may also be available.

Municipal leaders cannot set all these incomes. They can explain how their housing, transportation, economic-development, and assistance decisions respond to them.

The County is also not starting its investigation from scratch. Municipal staff documented consultations in which residents discussed transportation, services, housing, disconnection, and support networks. The practical question is how that knowledge becomes action.

What would make support effective?

Our research question was whether public money is being used well. Answering it requires looking beyond the number of recipients.

The municipality’s published 2025 program accounts show $377,950 in grants and a $37,795 administration fee. Approximately 96% of grant dollars went toward property taxes, with 4% toward water bills. 

Those figures describe spending, not whether the balance matches need or what assistance achieved. What work does administration cover? How many recipients reduced arrears or avoided a crisis? What circumstances remained unresolved?

Benefits navigation offers another useful example. The municipality reports an $80,000 annual commitment through 2026 to PELC’s Financial Empowerment program. 

PELC reports that people filing through its service in 2025 received an average $4,361 in tax refunds and credits per person. That does not mean every dollar was newly obtained because of the service, but it demonstrates the value of examining access to existing entitlements.

Different interventions accomplish different things. A bill credit, help securing benefits, and support preventing eviction should be assessed against their purposes, rather than ranked solely by cost per recipient.

Who else needs consideration?

Renters, rural households, and people just outside eligibility thresholds deserve attention without assuming they all face identical circumstances.

For rural residents, essential water costs may involve private equipment and maintenance rather than a municipal bill. For renters, housing pressure can persist regardless of how utilities are charged.

These questions warrant a deeper follow-up article about coverage gaps. Here, the immediate request is for candidates to explain whether they consider current assistance sufficiently inclusive, and how any proposed expansion would be funded.

Which government should do what?

Margetson’s provincial concern has supporting context. Municipal staff reported that the province required Community Safety and Well-being planning without providing a funding source.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is seeking a review of provincial–municipal financial arrangements. That is municipal-sector advocacy, reflecting concerns about responsibilities and resources.

It does not identify every program Margetson meant. We invite him to clarify the changes he would pursue.

Voters can reasonably ask all three candidates both what they would seek from other governments and what they would deliver locally while those conversations continue.

A starting point for finding help

The municipal grant’s 2026 application window has closed, but other assistance may be available:

• Prince Edward Learning Centre provides tax-filing and financial-empowerment assistance; contact 613-476-1811 or info@pelc.ca.

• PELASS emergency support may help eligible households with rent or utility arrears and other essential needs; call 613-354-0957.

• Picton Food Bank lists Friday opening hours of 9 a.m.–noon at 12 Chapel Street; call 613-476-8516.

Please check eligibility and availability with each provider. This is an initial list; share additional resources for inclusion and a future article focused on finding assistance.

Help us improve this picture

Candidates: what would you change, fund, and measure? Municipal staff and organizations: can you share current participation, unmet demand, and outcomes? Residents: did you know assistance existed, and what helped or hindered access?

Please contribute through public comments or private messages to PEC Connect. Financial circumstances do not have to be discussed publicly to inform this conversation. Sending a private account does not itself authorize publication; we will discuss permission and attribution first.

We will update the article as information is verified. Continuing assistance matters. Understanding whom it reaches, what it accomplishes, and where it falls short can help the community ask more useful questions of the people seeking to lead it.