Part 2: PEC Council Approves 1% Long-Term Care Levy as Budget Debate Reveals Infrastructure Risks - 12/06/2024

The second half of the meeting focused on some of the most politically sensitive parts of the 2025 budget debate, including long-term care funding, reserve contributions, staffing changes, tourism-related infrastructure funding, and community heritage investments.

While councillors ultimately approved the budget, the discussions revealed deep divisions over how aggressively the County should save for future infrastructure needs versus how much additional financial pressure residents can realistically absorb right now.

The meeting also highlighted competing priorities facing Prince Edward County as councillors tried to balance affordability concerns, long-term infrastructure planning, tourism growth, staffing pressures, and community investment projects all within the same budget framework.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Phil Prinzen Leads the Push to Lower the Long-Term Care Levy

One of the most important moments of the meeting involved the debate over the long-term care levy tied to future debt servicing for the County’s long-term care rebuild project.

Phil Prinzen took a firm position early in the discussion, stating clearly that he could not support the originally proposed 2 percent levy increase. He argued that while the long-term care rebuild remains necessary, the financial pressure on residents has already reached a difficult point, particularly for households facing inflation, rising utility bills, and broader affordability concerns.

Prinzen made it clear he would support a 1 percent levy as a compromise, but not the full 2 percent originally proposed by staff. His amendment ultimately became the defining turning point of the meeting and significantly changed the final tax impact residents will experience in 2025.

Councillor Nyman supported the amendment, helping build momentum behind the compromise approach. After a recorded vote, the amendment passed, officially lowering the levy from 2 percent to 1 percent.

For residents, the decision provides immediate relief by reducing short-term tax pressure while still allowing the County to continue contributing toward future long-term care obligations. The issue was particularly important for seniors, retirees, and fixed-income households who may be more vulnerable to large annual tax increases.

Mayor Steve Ferguson Focuses on the Real Tax Impact

Throughout the budget debate, Mayor Steve Ferguson repeatedly emphasized the importance of how the final tax increase is communicated publicly.

Ferguson clarified several times that the most meaningful figure for residents is the after-growth increase of approximately 3.79 percent rather than the higher before-growth percentage often referenced during budget discussions. He argued that the after-growth number more accurately reflects what residents will actually experience on their tax bills and aligns with how many other municipalities present budget information.

This distinction became especially important as councillors attempted to explain the relationship between assessment growth, municipal levies, and actual household tax impacts.

For residents following the budget process, Ferguson’s comments were aimed at reducing confusion around the County’s final tax numbers and providing a clearer understanding of how the approved budget will affect taxpayers in practical terms.

Reserve Funding Debate Reveals Long-Term Financial Concerns

Another major point of division involved reserve funding and whether the County should contribute additional money toward future infrastructure repairs and replacement costs.

Janice Maynard, John Hirsch, and Albert Paschkowiak strongly supported increasing reserve contributions, arguing that underfunded reserves create long-term financial risk for the municipality. They warned that roads, bridges, water systems, and other aging infrastructure will eventually require major repairs or replacement, and delaying reserve funding today could result in significantly larger tax increases later.

Supporters of stronger reserve funding stressed that infrastructure failures

become far more expensive when municipalities postpone investments or emergency repairs become unavoidable. However, not all councillors agreed that residents could handle additional financial pressure in the current economic climate.

Sam Branderhorst and Phil Harrison opposed further reserve increases, arguing that affordability concerns must remain the immediate priority. They stressed that many households are already struggling with rising living costs and that adding further tax pressure now could create additional hardship for residents.

Ultimately, a motion to add additional reserve funding failed in an 8-to-5 vote.

While the outcome may provide short-term financial relief for taxpayers, several councillors acknowledged that reserve levels remain relatively thin heading into 2025. For residents, this means future councils could face more difficult financial decisions later if major infrastructure repairs emerge before reserves are adequately rebuilt.

Tourism Funding Discussion Focuses on County Road 49

Tourism funding and Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) revenue also became part of the budget discussion as councillors explored whether tourism-related funds could help support infrastructure projects connected to visitor activity. Sam Branderhorst, Phil St-Jean, and Sam Grosso discussed the possibility of using MAT revenues for road-related work tied to tourism, particularly improvements connected to County Road 49, one of the County’s busiest tourism corridors.

Staff explained that while MAT funds could potentially support certain tourism-related infrastructure projects, restrictions prevent the funds from being used for equipment purchases. However, some forms of road construction or infrastructure investment could still qualify under provincial guidelines.

No formal vote was taken on redirecting MAT funds during the meeting, meaning the money remains untouched for now while future discussions continue. For residents and tourism operators, this leaves open the possibility that tourism-generated revenues could eventually help offset some infrastructure pressures connected to visitor traffic and economic activity.

Staffing Changes Approved Following Closed Session Discussions

Council also dealt with staffing-related decisions that emerged from earlier closed session discussions.

Sam Branderhorst and Roy Pennell brought forward motions aimed at combining certain duties and eliminating two proposed staff positions. Most councillors supported the changes, although Mayor Steve Ferguson voted against the motions.

Supporters argued that reducing staffing costs would help limit budget growth and reduce operational spending pressures. Opponents raised concerns that removing positions could increase workloads for existing staff and potentially strain municipal operations moving forward. The approved changes will reduce some operating costs in the short term, but councillors acknowledged there may be organizational impacts as remaining staff absorb additional responsibilities.

Picton Fairgrounds Restoration Receives Unanimous Support

One of the more broadly supported discussions involved heritage and community investment funding tied to the Picton Fairgrounds restoration project.

Janice Maynard brought forward a motion connected to restoration efforts at the fairgrounds, with strong support from John Hirsch, Phil St-Jean, and Sam Branderhorst.

Councillors emphasized the importance of preserving the historic community building while also improving accessibility and supporting veterans’ programming connected to the site. The restoration project was also framed as an opportunity to encourage future community fundraising and strengthen long-term public use of the facility.

The motion ultimately passed unanimously.

For Picton residents and community organizations, the approval represents continued support for preserving an important local heritage asset while improving accessibility and future usability.

Council Balances Immediate Affordability With Long-Term Financial Risk

By the end of the meeting, the broader challenge facing Council had become increasingly clear. Many councillors acknowledged that residents are struggling with affordability pressures today, while the municipality simultaneously faces growing long-term obligations tied to infrastructure, healthcare, staffing, and community services.

The final decisions reflected a council attempting to balance those competing realities through compromise rather than dramatic financial shifts in either direction.

Reducing the long-term care levy eased immediate tax pressure, while decisions around reserve funding showed continued tension between short-term affordability and long-term infrastructure preparedness.

Overall Takeaway From the Meeting

Overall, the meeting demonstrated how difficult municipal budgeting has become as councils attempt to manage rising infrastructure costs, long-term debt obligations, staffing pressures, and community expectations all at once.

While councillors disagreed on several major issues, the final outcomes reflected a willingness to compromise in order to move the 2025 budget process forward.

For residents, the meeting means somewhat lower immediate tax pressure than originally proposed, continued investment in long-term care and community infrastructure, and ongoing debates about how aggressively the County should prepare financially for future infrastructure challenges.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 5:59:017. 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.