PART 2: Council Accepts the Cost of Doing Nothing Is No Longer an Option - 08/28/2025

This meeting revealed a clear split between urgency and caution, but not along simple political lines.

Mayor Steve Ferguson strongly supported moving forward. He emphasized that this process is provincially mandated, not optional, and that every municipality in Ontario is facing the same reckoning. He repeatedly stressed the need for a clear public communications plan, noting that a roughly $198 increase in 2026, or about $16.50 per month, needs to be explained in plain terms.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Councillor Phil St-Jean, as Chair, pushed Council to stop circling and start deciding. He repeatedly referenced Belleville and Quinte West as examples of municipalities that faced the same choices and made them. His focus was on giving staff clear direction now, rather than deferring hard decisions into the budget process.

Councillor Janice Maynard was the most openly uncomfortable with the pace. She supported higher investment in roads but repeatedly asked for more time to digest the full package. Her concern was not about denying the problem, but about making a decision that residents could understand and support without feeling rushed.

Councillor Chris Braney framed the issue around fairness and economic reality. He pointed out that Prince Edward County lacks the commercial and industrial tax base of comparator municipalities and warned that selling the plan to residents will be harder here. He repeatedly returned to the question of what can be cut or sold, especially buildings, before taxes are raised further.

Councillor Hirsch and Councillor McNaughton focused heavily on communications and social impact. Both emphasized that Council must speak with one voice and flagged the importance of tools like the municipal relief program to protect vulnerable residents as costs rise.

On substance, Council’s votes created a mixed picture.

Residents across the County will see that roads were prioritized, with Council explicitly choosing the higher service level. This matters most in rural wards where road condition is a daily issue and where residents have been vocal about deterioration. Fleet users and taxpayers will see restraint, with Council choosing to extend vehicle life cycles rather than replace on shorter schedules.

Facilities remain unresolved in practice. While Council adopted a reduced footprint assumption, multiple councillors made it clear that no actual building closures or sales were approved. Those decisions are still coming and will likely be contentious, especially in communities attached to legacy buildings.

Parks users can expect stability. Council chose to maintain park assets rather than let them slide, signaling that recreation and public spaces remain a priority even under financial pressure.

The most important takeaway is procedural. Council did not set a tax rate, but it did set expectations. Staff now have a defined funding envelope to build the 2026 budget around. Deviating from it later will be possible, but doing so will openly reopen the infrastructure deficit.

In short, this meeting marked a turning point. Council accepted that doing nothing is no longer an option, even if the path forward will be politically difficult. The next test will not be technical. It will be whether Council can explain these choices clearly and consistently to residents who are already feeling stretched.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:30:053. 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.