Can Cooperation Help Prince Edward County Protect Local Control?

Prince Edward County’s three mayoral candidates agree that the County should retain control of its own affairs. The harder question is how they would make that independence work.

Asked at an all-candidates debate how they would respond to renewed amalgamation discussions with Quinte neighbours, Terry Shortt promised resistance, Ernie Margetson favoured cooperation without amalgamation, and Brad Nieman proposed a more cohesive municipal organization and potentially a smaller council.

Those answers deserve consideration beyond whether a candidate would fight a merger. What services could the County deliver better with its neighbours? What should remain under local control? And what evidence would justify changing the arrangement?

What the candidates promised

Shortt offered the most direct commitment:

“Well, regionalization is a real threat, and it is a threat that encompasses all. And as mayor, I would stand up against it.”

He identified infrastructure and water supply as reasons to remain separate municipalities, concluding that he would fight regionalization.

That establishes his position. It leaves the practical argument to be developed: which infrastructure arrangements would be threatened, what would residents stand to lose, and how would he persuade the province that maintaining the County’s government produces better outcomes?

Margetson also opposed amalgamation, while identifying room for closer working relationships:

“But there are things perhaps that we could cooperate better on.”

He cited water purchased from neighbouring municpalities as an example. His position was unequivocal:

“But as far as us amalgamating, I don’t support it. I think we should maintain our sovereignty. I think we can solve our own problems, and I think that is the trajectory we should plan for in the future.”

The distinction matters. Cooperation can involve a service agreement or access to specialized expertise while elected councils retain responsibility for their municipalities. Margetson’s answer opens that door, although voters still need to know which agreements he would pursue.

Nieman’s concern was that provincial intervention was already happening:

“So regional government is not really a threat because they are putting that in place right now.”

He referred to appointed regional chairs and strong mayor powers, then warned that the consequences could be worse than the earlier amalgamation.

His proposed response began inside municipal government:

“One thing we could do is unite the council and staff, and by doing that it will show cohesion within that unit.”

He also suggested further reducing council size might help stave off regional government. Cohesion may strengthen a municipality’s ability to deliver services and make its case. Whether it would influence provincial restructuring decisions requires a separate explanation.

What Ontario is actually changing

Ontario’s Better Regional Governance Act, 2026 received royal assent on May 7. Its provisions for appointing heads of council apply to eight existing upper-tier municipalities: Durham, Halton, Muskoka, Niagara, Peel, Simcoe, Waterloo and York. Prince Edward County, Belleville and Quinte West are outside that list. 

This is a substantial change to governance in the municipalities named. It is not, in itself, a proposal to amalgamate the County with its neighbours.

The debate’s hypothetical question remains legitimate. Candidates should explain how they would respond to a future proposal. But residents need to distinguish changes to an existing regional government from the creation of a new one, and both from amalgamation into a single municipality.

Likewise, “sovereignty” expresses a desire for local control. It should not be understood as a legal guarantee that the County can veto any provincial change. Ontario’s restructuring framework provides for municipal proposals and ministerial orders, while some changes require special legislation.

The strongest defence of local government would therefore combine political advocacy with evidence that the arrangement serves residents well.

The pressures independence must accommodate

The County has substantial infrastructure obligations.

Its October 2025 asset management report valued tax-supported assets at more than $1.3 billion. It identified an annual lifecycle funding target of approximately $35.7 million, compared with about $11.5 million in existing annual capital-related funding: a gap of roughly $24.2 million.

That figure is an estimate of the funding needed to sustain assets over their lifecycles. It is not a $24.2-million unpaid operating bill. It nevertheless describes a serious challenge involving the roads, facilities and other infrastructure residents rely on.

The financial picture also warrants care. Provincial indicators based on the County’s 2024 financial reporting classified tax receivables and net financial assets or debt relative to own-source revenue as moderate risk. Debt servicing, cash coverage of current liabilities and the aggregate reserve measure were classified as low risk. These indicators provide context, rather than a complete assessment of financial health.

Together, the evidence supports scrutiny of the County’s long-term capacity. It does not establish that amalgamation is necessary for survival.

For a mayor promising independence, the task is to explain how the County will maintain services, fund infrastructure and secure expertise. Cooperation deserves evaluation as one possible part of that plan.

Cooperation already helps deliver County services

Working with neighbours is already part of municipal service delivery.

The County’s 2024 Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan documents water supplied from Belleville to Rossmore and from Quinte West to Consecon and Carrying Place.

Margetson’s example therefore builds on an existing relationship. A useful next step would be to identify what could improve: capacity, reliability, costs, planning for growth, or the terms governing future investment.

Such agreements can preserve separate governments while connecting essential services. They also create responsibilities that need to be clear. Who pays for upgrades? How are service standards enforced? What happens when one municipality’s priorities change?

Those are manageable questions when agreements specify authority, costs and accountability. They become harder when cooperation rests on goodwill alone.

Shared expertise could make cooperation tangible

Specialized staffing offers another practical place to examine the benefits.

A municipality may need an ecologist, engineer or other specialist without having enough consistent work to support a full-time position. Purchasing consultant services can provide expertise and flexibility. Sharing a position could offer continuity and predictable access, provided the workload and costs justify it.

Grey County offers a relevant example. In February 2023, its council directed staff to hire an additional employee for natural heritage review after provincial changes removed conservation authorities’ ability to provide those planning comments. Its meeting summary also contemplated providing the service to interested member municipalities. 

Huron County publishes fees for natural heritage review by its County Biologist: $520 for comments on a planning application and $61 per hour for reviewing terms of reference and environmental impact studies.

These are examples of regional expertise, rather than proof that PEC could reproduce the same costs. Grey and Huron operate within upper-tier structures. A partnership among separate municipalities would require its own agreement, workload assessment and governance arrangements.

Still, they make the question concrete: could neighbouring municipalities share specialist capacity that each struggles to justify independently?

The County’s own fees show why residents might care. Its 2026 schedule charges $500 per report for staff administration of consultant peer reviews, plus peer review costs and applicable HST, in addition to application fees. Environmental studies are among the reports covered.

An administration charge does not establish that the municipality profits from outsourcing. Answering that requires evidence about staff time, procurement costs and the work covered by the fee.

It does justify asking for a comparison of the current model with shared staffing: annual review volumes, consultant expenditure, turnaround times, administrative costs and the likely cost of a shared position. Independent external reviews may still be needed for complex cases or conflicts of interest.

Wetland requirements illustrate why the staffing discussion also needs regulatory clarity. Ontario’s April 2024 conservation authority regulation reduced the surrounding area requiring a wetland development permit from 120 metres to 30 metres. That change concerns conservation authority permitting; it does not automatically change a municipality’s environmental study requirements under its planning policies.

County staff should explain which current policy triggers a study, when a review can be scoped, and why outside expertise is required. Clear explanations and proportionate reviews matter alongside the final bill.

What a larger government might solve or complicate

Amalgamation deserves the same scrutiny as the status quo.

Research does not support assuming that a larger municipality automatically costs less. Enid Slack and Richard Bird’s study of Toronto’s 1998 amalgamation found that its cost-saving objective was not achieved in the services examined. It also identified concerns about residents’ access to local decision-making, while recognizing benefits from spreading resources across a larger tax base.

A 2015 study by Lydia Miljan and Zachary Spicer, published by the Fraser Institute, likewise challenged claims of savings in several smaller Ontario amalgamations. Those findings should be read within the study’s methods and cases, rather than treated as a prediction for PEC.

A credible local assessment would examine transition costs, staffing, service standards, debt, infrastructure obligations and representation. A larger tax base could broaden capacity, but a merger would also combine responsibilities. Neither benefit nor harm can be calculated from population alone.

The County’s own 1998 amalgamation should invite questions about what improved, what became harder and what financial evidence supports either conclusion. Residents having adapted to the arrangement does not, by itself, settle its merits.

What residents should expect next

Council size will receive fuller attention in a future article. For this discussion, the ballot question asks about a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries. It does not directly ask voters to approve a reduction.

Nieman should explain the link between a smaller council and avoiding regionalization. Shortt should identify the infrastructure and water arguments behind his promised resistance. Margetson should name the cooperation agreements he would prioritize and the improvements residents could expect.

All three could commit to publishing a comparison of services suitable for sharing, their costs, the protections for local accountability and a timetable for decisions.

There is room here for residents who value the County’s identity and residents who are open to change when the benefits are demonstrated. Both deserve a government willing to examine its performance.

The useful test for the next mayor is whether the promise of local control comes with a workable plan for services, expertise and infrastructure. Deliberate cooperation could help strengthen that plan before financial or political pressure narrows the choices.

---

PEC Connect welcomes clarification from the candidates and County staff on these questions, including current environmental review policies and the costs of consultant peer review. Responses can help inform updates to this article.

Candidate quotations are from the supplied all-candidates debate transcript. The responses begin at 00:30:19 (Terry Shortt), 00:31:02 (Ernie Margetson) and 00:32:11 (Brad Nieman).