Why the Numbers No Longer Add Up
Prince Edward County residents are not frustrated because they oppose public services. They are frustrated because the numbers no longer align with lived reality.
According to Statistics Canada Census data, Prince Edward County’s permanent population grew from approximately 24,000 residents in 2016 to 25,700 residents in 2021—an increase of about 6 percent. Growth since then has remained modest, with the population estimated at roughly 26,000 residents in 2026. Over roughly the same period, median household income in Prince Edward County rose by approximately 15–18 percent in nominal terms, based on Statistics Canada data for Ontario census divisions. However, much of that increase has been absorbed by inflation, housing costs, food prices, fuel, and rising interest rates, leaving many households with little or no real increase in purchasing power.
Municipal spending tells a very different story.
Prince Edward County’s tax-supported operating budget has grown from roughly $62 million in 2015 to approximately $88 million in 2026—an increase of more than 40 percent. That growth far outpaces population growth and significantly exceeds real (inflation-adjusted) income growth for residents. This widening gap is the source of growing public anger and anxiety.
Property taxes are not abstract accounting entries. They come directly out of household budgets—money not spent on children’s hockey or soccer, music lessons, family dinners, local businesses, or saving for emergencies in a period of already high inflation. When municipal budgets grow much faster than the population and much faster than residents’ ability to pay, scrutiny is not ideological. It is necessary.
This article examines whether Prince Edward County’s 2026 budget meets not only the technical requirements of Ontario’s Municipal Act, but its intent: transparency, proportionality, financial stewardship, and long-term sustainability.
Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 sets out more than procedural requirements for municipal budgeting. It establishes expectations for transparency, accountability, financial stewardship, and meaningful public engagement. A municipality can technically comply with the Act and still fail to meet its underlying intent. Prince Edward County’s 2026 budget highlights that gap. This article does not allege illegality. Rather, it examines where the budget appears inconsistent with the spirit and governance objectives of the Municipal Act — and why that matters for public trust.
The gap between compliance and good governance
A municipality can comply procedurally with the Municipal Act while still failing to meet its core governance objectives. The concern raised by the 2026 budget is not an obvious legal breach, but a pattern of:
• minimal challenge to internal cost growth
• insufficient public justification for major expenditures
• weak linkage between spending and outcomes
• erosion of public confidence in fiscal stewardship
That gap — between what is legally permissible and what is democratically responsible — is where trust is lost.
Questions to Ask Your Councillor (With Act References)
Contact information of Councillors: https://www.thecounty.ca/government/council/
Residents attending Council meetings or writing to councillors may wish to ask:
• How does this budget decision demonstrate Council’s duty to maintain financial integrity? (s. 224(c))
• What alternatives were considered before approving this expenditure? (s. 224(b))
• What measurable outcomes justify this increase in administrative spending? (ss. 224(a), 224(b))
• Where can residents see the major contracts and vendors tied to this budget line? (s. 224(d))
• How was public input incorporated before decisions were finalized? (ss. 224(d), 270(1))
• What safeguards exist to prevent these costs from becoming permanent structural burdens? (s. 224(c))
If your councillor is unresponsive, dismissive or does not provide a satisfactory response, share your experience!
Where the 2026 Budget Falls Short of the Municipal Act’s Intent
Ontario’s Municipal Act does not require municipalities to run the cheapest possible government. It does, however, impose clear statutory duties related to transparency, accountability, financial stewardship, and long-term sustainability. On several fronts, Prince Edward County’s 2026 budget appears to fall short of the intent of those provisions.
Transparency and openness
Municipal Act, ss. 224(d), 270(1)
Section 224(d) assigns Council responsibility for ensuring transparency and accountability in municipal governance. Section 270(1) requires municipalities to adopt and maintain policies governing accountability, transparency, and public engagement.
While the County publishes budget documents, the 2026 budget relies heavily on aggregated categories and technical language that make it difficult for residents to understand major cost drivers. In particular:
• large corporate and IT expenditures lack plain-language explanations of scope, outcomes, or value
• major vendors, contracts, and multi-year commitments are not disclosed in a consolidated, public-facing way
• discretionary spending such as consulting, software licensing, and professional services is difficult to isolate or track
Transparency is not achieved by disclosure alone. Information must be intelligible and usable by the public.
Accountability for stewardship of public funds
Municipal Act, ss. 224(a), 224(b)
Section 224(a) establishes Council’s role in representing the public and considering the well-being of the municipality. Section 224(b) assigns responsibility for developing and evaluating municipal policies and programs.
In the 2026 budget:
• growth in corporate and administrative overhead is not clearly tied to measurable service improvements
• no formal performance benchmarks accompany expanded internal spending
• Council approval appears to rely heavily on staff recommendations, with limited evidence of alternatives analysis or value-for-money review
This weakens Council’s ability to demonstrate active stewardship rather than passive ratification.
Financial sustainability and long-term planning
Municipal Act, ss. 224(c), 290, 291
Sections 290 and 291 require municipalities to adopt balanced budgets and govern the annual budget process. These provisions operate alongside Council’s broader duty under section 224(c) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality.
While Prince Edward County references asset management planning elsewhere, the 2026 operating budget:
• absorbs rising debt servicing costs without a stated affordability guardrail or reduction target
• adds fixed administrative costs that will persist regardless of economic conditions
• does not clearly demonstrate how operating growth aligns with long-term fiscal capacity
Balancing the budget year-by-year meets the letter of the Act. Locking in structurally higher costs without long-term controls runs counter to its intent.
Public engagement in financial decision-making
Municipal Act, ss. 224(d), 270(1)
The Act contemplates meaningful public engagement as part of accountable governance. Section 270(1) explicitly requires municipalities to maintain policies governing public engagement.
In practice, the 2026 budget process:
• offered limited opportunity for residents to understand trade-offs before key decisions were finalized
• did not present clear alternative budget scenarios for public consideration
• relied on highly technical documentation that discourages informed participation
Engagement after decisions are effectively locked in does not meet the spirit of participatory governance envisioned by the Act.
What Residents Can Request Under the Municipal Act
Residents are not required to accept budget decisions on faith. The Municipal Act and related legislation provide concrete tools for accountability.
Residents may request or reasonably expect access to:
• Council-approved accountability and transparency policies (s. 270(1))
• budget documents, schedules, and supporting materials considered by Council (ss. 290–291)
• explanations of how spending decisions maintain financial integrity (s. 224(c))
• information on how Council evaluated alternatives and exercised oversight (s. 224(b))
• clarification of how public engagement requirements were met during budget development (ss. 224(d), 270(1))
Residents may also submit written questions or deputations, request clearer reporting or benchmarking, and ask councillors to explain how specific expenditures meet statutory stewardship duties.
Companion Explainer: Compliance Is Not the Same as Good Governance
Prince Edward County’s 2026 budget illustrates a common municipal problem: technical compliance without substantive accountability. The Municipal Act establishes minimum legal standards, but its purpose is broader — to ensure municipalities govern in a transparent, responsible, and publicly defensible manner.
When budgets grow internally without clear links to service improvement, when residents struggle to understand what they are paying for, and when Council does not visibly challenge staff recommendations, trust erodes even if procedural boxes are checked.
Good governance requires more than balanced numbers. It requires visible stewardship.
Statutory References
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25:
• s. 224(a) – Council’s role in representing the public
• s. 224(b) – Council’s role in developing and evaluating policies and programs
• s. 224(c) – Council’s duty to maintain financial integrity
• s. 224(d) – Council’s responsibility for transparency and accountability
• s. 270(1) – Requirement for policies on accountability, transparency, and public engagement
• s. 290 – Requirement to adopt a balanced budget
• s. 291 – Annual budget process
Notes, Clarifications, and Disclaimer
Purpose of this article
This article examines the distinction between technical compliance with Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 and the intent of the Act as a governance framework. It focuses on transparency, accountability, financial stewardship, and public engagement — not on alleging wrongdoing or legal violations.
The analysis is offered in the public interest to support informed civic discussion and democratic accountability.
No allegation of illegality or misconduct
Nothing in this article alleges that Prince Edward County, Council, staff, or any individual has acted unlawfully, improperly, or in breach of statute.
References to the Municipal Act are included solely to:
• explain the governance principles embedded in the legislation
• assess whether current practices align with those principles
• distinguish between procedural compliance and good governance
A municipality may comply with the letter of the law while still falling short of its broader objectives. This article addresses that distinction.
Interpretation of the Municipal Act
Citations to specific sections of the Municipal Act (including sections 224, 270, 290, and 291) are provided for contextual and educational purposes only. This article does not offer legal advice, statutory interpretation, or conclusions regarding enforceability.
For authoritative interpretation of the Act, readers should consult:
• the statute itself
• municipal legal counsel
• official Ministry of Municipal Affairs guidance
Use of public information
All observations in this article are based on:
• publicly available municipal budget documents
• publicly accessible council reports and policies
• statutory text of the Municipal Act
• standard municipal governance practices
Where conclusions are drawn, they represent analytical opinion, not statements of fact about intent or conduct.
Compliance vs. governance framing
The article deliberately distinguishes between:
• legal compliance — meeting minimum statutory requirements
• governance quality — how transparently, responsibly, and defensibly decisions are made
Critique of governance practices, budgeting processes, or public engagement methods does not imply non-compliance or wrongdoing.
Public engagement and accountability
Discussion of public engagement reflects whether opportunities for meaningful participation were available before key decisions were finalized, not whether formal notice or procedural steps were followed.
Engagement that is technically compliant but substantively limited is a governance concern, not a legal allegation.
Reader responsibility
Readers are encouraged to:
• review original municipal documents directly
• consider multiple sources of information
• ask councillors for clarification or explanation
• form their own conclusions
This article is intended to inform public dialogue, not replace independent judgment.
No legal, financial, or professional advice
County First is a grassroots civic initiative and is not a legal entity or professional advisory service. Content on this site, including this article, does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Freedom of expression and public interest
This article constitutes expression on matters of public interest, including municipal governance, budgeting, and accountability. It is published in good faith to support open civic debate and democratic participation.