There is a number in Prince Edward County’s own asset-management work that should change how residents read the budget.
Not because it is dramatic on its face.
Because of what it implies.
The County’s Asset Management Plan says its tax-supported assets have an annual lifecycle funding target of about $35.7 million, while the 2025 Council-approved capital funding for those same tax-supported assets was about $11.5 million. The difference is an annual infrastructure funding gap of about $24.2 million. The plan says the County intends to eliminate that gap gradually over ten years, by 2035.¹
That is the core story.
Not a one-year budget pressure. A structural one.
What makes the number more unsettling is the financing path attached to it. The same plan says that, of the $11.5 million budgeted in 2025 for tax-supported capital needs, about $8.1 million came directly from the general tax levy, with the remainder coming from transfer-payment revenues such as OCIF and CCBF. To eliminate the funding gap by 2035, the County’s general tax levy would need to rise by about 7.28% annually under the plan’s assumptions. The document goes further: it models the general tax levy rising from about $54.0 million in 2025 to about $109.0 million by 2035, while the capital portion of the levy rises from about $8.1 million to about $52.0 million over the same period.²
That last figure needs to be read carefully. It is not an approved future budget. It is a modeled requirement if the County follows the financial strategy set out in its own plan. But it is still the County’s own modeling, and it still shows the scale of the hole.
This matters because residents are already living with the consequences of deferred investment. The same asset plan shows that for hard-top and low-class bituminous roads, 17% are in “Poor” condition and 24% are in “Very Poor” condition – roughly 41% combined. Gravel roads have an average PCI of 53, which the report classifies as “Poor.” Concrete roads average 21.6, which the report classifies as “Very Poor.”³ These are not abstract ratings. They are what people feel in potholes, suspension damage, slower drives, and road edges that seem to give up a little more each year.
And yet the County’s 2026 tax-supported capital budget is not limited to roads and bridges. It does include about $14.06 million for roads and about $2.79 million for bridges. But it also includes $620,000 for Wellington Beach and Beach Street improvements, $500,000 for Crystal Palace Phase 3 revitalization, and $140,000 for boat launch improvements, among other non-core or lower-priority items.⁴ Any one of those items can be defended. The issue is sequencing. When a municipality’s own plan says it faces a $24.2 million annual infrastructure gap and needs a decade of sustained levy growth to catch up, residents are entitled to ask why amenity and enhancement projects continue moving in the same budget cycle as visibly deteriorating core assets.
The operating side reinforces the point. The County’s 2026 tax operating budget shows Total To Be Raised increasing from $54.0 million in the 2025 budget to $56.87 million in the 2026 budget – an increase of about $2.86 million, or 5.3% on that line item in the operating book.⁵ Meanwhile, the asset plan’s long-run scenario says the capital burden alone would need to scale far beyond current levels if the County is serious about closing the backlog. In other words, current pressures are not the whole story. They are the early stage of a much longer fiscal climb.
There are smaller line items in the 2026 operating budget that are not large enough to drive the overall crisis but are large enough to sharpen public frustration. The CAO operating statement shows “Advertising, Marketing, Promotion” rising from a 2025 budget of $9,500 to a 2026 budget of $9,900, while “Professional & Contracted Services” rises from $250,000 to $365,000.⁶ The Council & Mayor operating statement shows “Advertising, Marketing & Promotion” rising from $21,800 to $39,300.⁷ On their own, these are not budget-busters. In context, though, they become symbols of a larger question: when residents are told there is not enough money for basics, they start noticing everything that does not look like a basic.
The budget also shows Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues budgeted at $1.1 million in 2026, with an equal $1.1 million in MAT expenditures.⁸ Again, the issue is not whether MAT should exist. It is whether too much public energy is still being directed toward visitor-facing priorities while the road network and tax burden tell a different story about what the County actually needs.
What makes this especially difficult politically is that the County is not merely funding normal infrastructure renewal. It is catching up on a backlog that has already accumulated. That changes the character of every budget debate. Residents are not just being asked to maintain the system they have. They are being asked to repair the consequences of years in which the system was not funded at the level the County now says was necessary.
That is the number beneath the budget. About $24.2 million a year. Not as a slogan, but as a gap between what the County says its infrastructure needs and what it has actually been putting in.
Once you see that number, the rest of the conversation changes. The issue is no longer whether a single budget increase is justified. The issue is whether the County has a credible, publicly defensible plan for deciding what gets funded first, what gets deferred, and how much pressure residents can reasonably be expected to absorb along the way.
Simple chart: the gap, the roads, the tax pressure
| Measure | County document says |
|---|---|
| Annual lifecycle funding target for tax-supported assets | $35.678 million¹ |
| 2025 approved capital funding for tax-supported assets | $11.508 million¹ |
| Annual infrastructure funding gap | $24.2 million¹ |
| General tax levy in 2025 | $54.0 million² |
| Modeled general tax levy in 2035 | $109.0 million² |
| Capital portion of levy in 2025 | $8.1 million² |
| Modeled capital portion of levy in 2035 | $52.0 million² |
| Roads in poor condition | 17%³ |
| Roads in very poor condition | 24%³ |
| Roads in poor + very poor condition | ~41%³ |
| 2026 roads capital budget | $14.059 million⁴ |
| 2026 bridges capital budget | $2.790 million⁴ |
Questions residents should ask Council
What capital projects are being treated as essential, and what projects could be deferred until core infrastructure is stabilized?
If the County’s own plan models 7.28% annual levy growth to close the funding gap, what is the realistic tax path residents should expect over the next five years?
How much of the current pressure comes from historic underfunding versus new spending commitments?
What public dashboard will Council provide so residents can track whether the infrastructure gap is actually shrinking?
Footnotes and sources
- Prince Edward County, Asset Management Plan for Tax-supported Assets: annual lifecycle funding target $35.678M; 2025 approved capital funding $11.508M; annual tax-based infrastructure funding gap $24.2M. (Prince Edward County Municipal Services)
- Prince Edward County, Asset Management Plan for Tax-supported Assets: approximately $8.1M of 2025 capital funding came from the general tax levy; modeled levy increases of about 7.28% annually; general tax levy projected from $54.0M in 2025 to $109.0M in 2035; capital portion projected from $8.1M to $52.0M. (Prince Edward County Municipal Services)
- Prince Edward County, Asset Management Plan for Tax-supported Assets: 17% of hard-top and low-class bituminous roads in Poor condition and 24% in Very Poor condition; gravel roads average PCI 53; concrete roads average PCI 21.6. (Prince Edward County Municipal Services)
- Prince Edward County, 2026 Tax Supported Capital Budget: roads $14.059M; bridges $2.790M; Wellington Beach and Beach Street improvements $620K; Crystal Palace Phase 3 revitalization $500K; boat launch improvements $140K. (Prince Edward County Municipal Services)
- Prince Edward County, 2026 Tax Operating Budget: Total To Be Raised rises from $54.011M in the 2025 budget to $56.868M in the 2026 budget.
- Prince Edward County, 2026 Tax Operating Budget, CAO operating statement: Advertising, Marketing, Promotion rises from $9,500 to $9,900; Professional & Contracted Services rises from $250,000 to $365,000.
- Prince Edward County, 2026 Tax Operating Budget, Council & Mayor operating statement: Advertising, Marketing & Promotion rises from $21,800 to $39,300.
- Prince Edward County, 2026 Tax Operating Budget, General Government Summary: MAT revenues budgeted at $1.1M; MAT expenditures budgeted at $1.1M.