Part 2: PEC Council Cuts Long-Term Care Levy to 1% as 2025 Budget Part 2 - 12/06/2024

The second half of the meeting focused heavily on councillor debate, recorded votes, and the political balancing act required to finalize Prince Edward County’s 2025 budget. While much of the earlier discussion centered on budget numbers and technical calculations, this portion of the meeting revealed where councillors stood on affordability, long-term debt, and how aggressively the County should fund major obligations like the long-term care rebuild.

The most significant decision of the meeting and arguably of the entire budget process was Council’s vote to reduce the proposed long-term care levy from 2 percent to 1 percent. That single amendment reshaped the final tax increase residents will face in 2025 and became the defining compromise that ultimately allowed the budget to pass with a strong majority.

Phil Prinzen Leads the Push for a Lower Levy

Phil Prinzen played the central role in changing the direction of the budget debate. During discussions, he made it clear that he could not support the originally proposed 2 percent levy increase for long-term care debt servicing, arguing that the financial pressure on residents was already too high.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

At the same time, Prinzen acknowledged the importance of funding the long-term care rebuild and signaled that he was willing to support a reduced levy as a compromise solution. He formally introduced the amendment to lower the levy from 2 percent to 1 percent, framing it as a more balanced approach that would still contribute toward long-term obligations while easing immediate pressure on taxpayers. The amendment became the turning point of the meeting and ultimately reshaped the final budget numbers moving forward.

Councillor Nyman Supports the Compromise Approach

Councillor Nyman seconded Prinzen’s amendment and supported the revised levy approach throughout the debate. His support aligned with councillors seeking a more moderate path between long-term fiscal planning and affordability concerns facing residents.

Nyman ultimately voted in favor of both the amendment and the final amended budget package. His support helped solidify momentum behind the compromise and contributed to the strong majority that later approved the full budget. The discussion reflected a broader effort by some councillors to demonstrate fiscal caution while still moving essential infrastructure and healthcare-related projects forward.

Councillor Maynard Raises Concerns About Budget Messaging

Councillor Maynard opposed the amendment reducing the levy to 1 percent, signaling concern that lowering contributions could create future financial challenges for the municipality. However, after the amendment passed, she later voted in support of the final amended budget.

One of her more notable contributions involved how tax increases are communicated publicly. Maynard argued that the after-growth tax increase figure provides a more realistic and meaningful comparison for residents because it reflects assessment growth and aligns more closely with how taxpayers experience year-over-year changes on their bills.

Her comments highlighted an issue that often frustrates residents during municipal budget season: the difference between headline tax levy figures and the actual changes homeowners ultimately see once growth and assessment factors are included.

Harrison and Roy Pennell Continue to Oppose Spending Levels

Councillor Harrison and Councillor Roy Pennell consistently expressed concerns about overall spending levels and tax impacts throughout the budget process. Both councillors opposed portions of the budget debate and ultimately voted against the final amended budget.

Their opposition reflected a more cautious approach toward municipal spending and long-term tax increases. While they did not prevent the budget from passing, their votes demonstrated that concerns about affordability and government spending remain significant issues within council discussions.

For residents critical of rising taxes, their opposition signaled that at least some members of council remain uncomfortable with the pace of municipal spending growth and long-term financial commitments.

Councillor Hirsch Signals Concern but Accepts the Final Compromise

Councillor Hirsch opposed the amendment lowering the levy from 2 percent to 1 percent, suggesting concern about reducing contributions toward the long-term care debt. However, after the amendment passed, he later voted in favor of the overall amended budget package.

His voting pattern reflected a distinction between disagreement with the amendment itself and acceptance of the final compromise once council had reached a decision. Hirsch’s support for the final budget helped reinforce the broader sense that, despite disagreements during debate, most councillors ultimately wanted to bring the lengthy budget process to a conclusion.

Majority of Council Supports the Final Budget

Councillors McNaughton, Branderhorst, Grosso, St-Jean, and Braney all voted in favor of the amended budget package, helping deliver a decisive 11–2 final vote approving the 2025 budget.

The strong majority demonstrated that while council remained divided on specific levy details, most members ultimately supported the broader financial direction of the budget after the compromise was reached.

The final approval officially confirmed the County’s operating budgets, capital spending plans, long-term care funding strategy, and overall tax framework for the year ahead.

Mayor Steve Ferguson Defends Staff and Reinforces Confidence

Mayor Steve Ferguson voted in favor of the amendment and the final budget throughout the meeting while also taking a visible leadership role in defending municipal staff following criticism that had emerged earlier in the budget process.

Near the end of the meeting, Ferguson delivered one of the most emotional comments of the session, stating that criticism directed toward finance staff had been unfair and inappropriate. He publicly reaffirmed confidence in the County’s finance department and praised staff for managing a difficult and highly scrutinized budget process.

His comments mattered because they directly addressed growing tension surrounding staff morale and public criticism during weeks of budget deliberations. The mayor’s remarks appeared intended to close the process on a more supportive and unified note after an often difficult and politically charged budget season.

What the Final Budget Means for Residents

For Prince Edward County residents, the final budget outcome means the long-term care rebuild project will still move forward, but with a slower funding timeline than originally proposed.

Reducing the levy from 2 percent to 1 percent lowers the immediate tax burden facing households while still maintaining contributions toward the County’s long-term debt obligations. The final after-growth tax increase of approximately 3.79 percent places the County closer to regional municipal averages while still supporting major infrastructure and operating commitments.

For many residents, the compromise may be viewed as an attempt to balance fiscal responsibility with recognition of the financial pressures already affecting households across the County.

Overall Takeaway From the Meeting

Overall, the meeting demonstrated a council willing to debate difficult financial decisions openly, adjust positions during negotiations, and ultimately compromise in order to finalize the 2025 budget.

While councillors clearly disagreed on how aggressively the County should fund long-term care debt and manage tax increases, the final result reflected an effort to balance infrastructure obligations, healthcare commitments, and taxpayer affordability.

The meeting ultimately set the financial direction for Prince Edward County in 2025 while revealing the growing challenge municipalities face in funding major projects during a period of economic uncertainty and rising public concern over affordability.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 21:010. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.