Prince Edward County Council: Jan-March, 2026 Highlights

If the first quarter established the machinery of municipal government for 2026, the second quarter began asking what that machinery costs, whether it is organized efficiently and how Prince Edward County intends to pay for its future.

Between April and June, Council dealt with taxation, debt disclosure, financial-reporting systems, organizational structure, consultant recommendations, water and wastewater rates, population growth, development charges, infrastructure financing, Council compensation and the continuing tension between growth and affordability.

Several decisions made during these three months could affect taxpayers well beyond the current Council term.

Taxes, Debt and a Push for Greater Financial Transparency

April opened with several decisions that deserve more attention than their technical language might suggest.

Council maintained the 2025 tax ratios and subclass reductions for 2026 and approved the methodology used to show the municipal levy change on property-tax notices. Council also received the 2025 Municipal Accommodation Tax financial report.

More significantly, recommendations from the Audit Committee resulted in Council directing staff to prepare an analysis and forecast of the County’s debt position for presentation in July.

Council also ordered that the previous five years of BMA Consulting reports be published on the municipal website and asked the Director of Finance and IT to explain improvements being made to financial reporting systems, with the stated objective of improving the visibility, transparency and timeliness of municipal financial reporting.

That direction was noteworthy because benchmarking reports are most useful when residents can see not only how Prince Edward County compares with other municipalities but also why those comparisons matter.

A municipality can have a higher cost than its peers for entirely legitimate reasons. Geography, tourism, road networks, demographics and service levels all matter. But when a municipality is more expensive, taxpayers should be able to understand the difference.

The Organizational Review: How Much Government Does the County Need?

Perhaps the most important internal-management exercise of the quarter was the Service Delivery and Organizational Review.

Consultants Andrea Clemencio and Lena Dianda presented an interim update to Council on April 23 and returned in June with the final review.

The review examined how municipal services are organized and delivered, placing staffing structures, departmental responsibilities and organizational capacity before Council.

Such reviews can be valuable because organizations evolve incrementally. Positions are added, responsibilities migrate between departments and structures designed for one period can persist long after circumstances change.

They also raise an important accountability question.

Prince Edward County already employs a CAO, department directors, managers, supervisors and professional administrative staff whose responsibilities include managing operations and improving service delivery. External expertise can provide independence and comparative information, but Council should also ask which organizational improvements ought reasonably to be identified and implemented internally as part of normal management.

The relevant test is not whether consultants are good or bad. It is whether external advice produces measurable improvements exceeding its cost and whether municipal management develops the internal capacity to continue those improvements after the consultant leaves.

Benchmarking Moves From Information to Policy

The publication of BMA reports and the organizational review coincided with another important discussion: how Prince Edward County uses other municipalities to determine what it should pay.

This became particularly visible in the Council remuneration debate.

Earlier comparator work examined remuneration in other Ontario municipalities. By June 23, Council ultimately decided to align remuneration with the average of six comparable single-tier municipalities, effective January 1, 2027.

The resulting remuneration will be:

• Mayor: $96,590
• Councillors: $40,422

The importance of the decision extends beyond whether those particular amounts are appropriate.

It demonstrates how municipal benchmarking can become an active policy mechanism. Once the compensation paid elsewhere becomes the reference point for what Prince Edward County should pay, increases in comparator municipalities can influence the County, just as a Prince Edward County increase may eventually enter another municipality’s comparator study.

That does not make benchmarking improper. It does mean residents should understand the methodology and ask whether affordability, performance and taxpayer capacity receive the same weight as market positioning.

Water and Wastewater: Affordability Meets Infrastructure Reality

Water and wastewater remained among the County’s most difficult financial issues.

On June 9, Council adopted a one-year interim Water and Wastewater Rates By-law for 2027 and directed staff to undertake a new Water and Wastewater Rate Study, by-law review and Development Charges Background Study in 2027 after Council determines its direction on long-term servicing, affordability and growth.

The sequencing matters.

Water and wastewater systems must recover enormous capital and operating costs from a comparatively limited number of connected customers. Growth can bring new users and development-charge revenue, but it can also require expensive new capacity before those users arrive.

That creates one of the County’s central fiscal dilemmas: how much of tomorrow’s infrastructure should today’s residents finance?

The issue cannot be resolved simply by raising rates indefinitely. Excessive water and wastewater costs themselves affect housing affordability, business competitiveness and the feasibility of new development.

The 1% Growth Decision

The scale of that infrastructure challenge became clearer on June 25.

Council adopted a County-wide annual growth assumption of 1.0 per cent for capital infrastructure planning, based on the 2025 Growth Analysis Study. It then directed staff to advance Scenario 2B through a detailed financial strategy, public engagement, potential developer pre-payment agreements in Picton and Wellington, pursuit of grant funding and amendments to required environmental assessments.

A one-per-cent figure may sound modest.

Compounded over decades, however, even modest population growth can require substantial new water, wastewater, road and community infrastructure. The critical question is not simply whether growth occurs but whether the new assessment and revenues generated by growth ultimately exceed the capital and operating costs required to accommodate it.

That calculation should become one of the County’s most important long-term financial tests.

Development Charges and Who Pays for Growth

Council also considered the Province’s Development Charges Reduction Program and directed staff to submit feedback to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Development charges sit at the centre of a difficult policy conflict.

If charges are too low, existing taxpayers may subsidize infrastructure required for new development. If they are too high, the charges become embedded in the cost of new housing and can undermine the very growth municipalities need to expand their assessment base.

The County’s challenge is therefore not simply to maximize development-charge revenue. It is to identify the point at which growth pays an appropriate share of infrastructure without making new housing or investment economically uncompetitive.

Roads and the Infrastructure Residents Actually See

Infrastructure concerns were not confined to water systems.

In April, Council heard a deputation specifically addressing road maintenance and infrastructure investment, using rural roads as a case study.

Roads are particularly important in Prince Edward County because the municipality maintains an extensive network relative to its permanent population. Unlike administrative programs, deteriorating roads are immediately visible to residents.

This creates a useful accountability test for municipal spending. When operating budgets and taxes rise, residents reasonably expect to see improvements in the physical services they use most frequently.

A municipality can be financially compliant and administratively sophisticated while residents still experience deteriorating roads. The relationship between spending growth and observable service outcomes therefore deserves continued scrutiny.

Affordable Housing and the Disraeli Development

Council received another update on the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation’s Disraeli development in April.

The project reflects the County’s increasingly direct involvement in addressing housing affordability.

The broader policy question is how municipal intervention should be evaluated. Affordable housing projects should ultimately be measured not simply by announcements, plans or dollars committed but by units completed, rents achieved, residents housed and the ongoing subsidy required per household.

That same outcome-based approach should apply across municipal programs.

Public Health, Safety and Social Policy

Spring Council agendas also reflected responsibilities extending beyond traditional roads-and-pipes municipal government.

Council received a presentation on the Hoarding Action Response Team, linking fire prevention and affordable-housing staff through the County’s Community Safety and Well-being Plan.

Council dealt with noise regulation, heritage-property issues and a provincial tire-recycling system that prompted a request for action to the local MPP, the Environment Minister, AMO and municipalities across Ontario.

These issues demonstrate how the scope of municipal government has expanded. Modern municipalities are expected to address environmental protection, housing vulnerability, mental health-related community risks, climate planning, heritage, accessibility, economic development and social well-being in addition to traditional infrastructure and emergency services.

Many of those objectives are worthwhile.

Collectively, however, each additional responsibility requires staff time, administration and money, making prioritization increasingly important.

Council Compensation and the Question of Affordability

The quarter ended with one of Council’s most visible decisions.

On June 23, Council approved amendments to its remuneration policy and set compensation beginning January 1, 2027 at $96,590 for the Mayor and $40,422 for Councillors, aligning the amounts with the average of six comparable single-tier municipalities.

There are legitimate arguments for adequate compensation. Municipal elected office requires significant time, exposes representatives to substantial public scrutiny and should be accessible to people who cannot afford to serve for nominal pay.

There is an equally legitimate taxpayer question.

Should municipal compensation primarily be determined by what neighbouring governments pay, or should the analysis also explicitly consider local household income, tax burden, workload, measurable responsibilities and the municipality’s overall fiscal position?

The June decision brought the broader issue of benchmarking into sharp relief just months before voters elect the next Council.

Democratic Accountability and the Approaching Election

The June meetings also included the Integrity Commissioner’s 2025–26 annual report and a review of the Council Code of Conduct.

Council directed the Clerk’s Office to begin public education during the third quarter of 2026 on the Code of Conduct and the accountability and ethical standards applying to elected officials.

The timing is appropriate.

The October municipal election gives residents an opportunity to assess not simply individual decisions but Council’s broader record on taxation, infrastructure, service delivery, growth, organizational effectiveness and financial transparency.

County First’s role during that period should remain focused on evidence, records and questions that can be applied equally to everyone seeking municipal office.

What April–June 2026 Revealed

By the end of June, the County’s central challenges had become considerably clearer.

The municipality was simultaneously:

• examining its organizational structure;
• reviewing financial-reporting systems and debt;
• benchmarking itself against other municipalities;
• increasing Council remuneration for the next term;
• confronting expensive water and wastewater requirements;
• planning infrastructure around a 1% annual growth assumption;
• considering how development should contribute toward growth costs;
• maintaining a substantial rural road network;
• supporting affordable housing; and
• expanding or maintaining responsibilities across numerous social, environmental and community-service areas.

None of these decisions exists in isolation.

Together, they determine the size and cost of municipal government.

Conclusion

The first half of 2026 tells a more revealing story than any individual Council meeting.

January through March established leadership, election machinery and service priorities. April through June exposed the harder financial questions: how large the municipal organization should be, how much elected officials should be paid, how infrastructure growth will be financed, how transparent municipal finances should become and whether comparison with other municipalities is always the right measure of success.

The central issue facing Prince Edward County is therefore not simply whether taxes or fees rise in a particular year.

It is whether the cost of municipal government is growing in proportion to the value residents receive from it.

That is the question worth carrying into the second half of 2026.

Prince Edward County Council: Jan-March, 2026 Highlights

Prince Edward County Council began 2026 with a municipal organization in transition and a growing list of decisions that extended well beyond routine administration. During the first three months of the year, Council confirmed permanent leadership at the top of the organization, advanced a new transit strategy, dealt with affordable housing and homelessness, negotiated with volunteer firefighters, considered the future of Picton Marina, renewed ambulance arrangements, prepared for the October municipal election and received financial disclosures that provided residents with a clearer view of municipal compensation and operations.

The quarter was less dominated by a single major decision than by the architecture being put in place for the remainder of 2026. Several issues that would become much more consequential in the spring—including municipal organization, compensation, water and wastewater, infrastructure growth, fees and financial accountability—were already moving through the system.

Governance, Leadership and Municipal Administration

The most consequential governance decision of the quarter came on March 10, when Council appointed Adam Goheen as permanent Chief Administrative Officer. Goheen had served as interim CAO since May 2025 and brought more than 20 years of municipal leadership experience to the position. The County specifically cited progress under his interim leadership on the Asset Management Plan, the municipal budget process and long-range growth-related infrastructure planning.

The appointment mattered because the CAO is the municipality’s senior administrator, responsible for coordinating departments, implementing Council direction and overseeing the day-to-day operation of the corporation. With a municipal election scheduled for October 2026, Council effectively chose the administrator who would lead the County through the final months of the existing term and into the transition to the next Council.

Governance preparations for that election were also visible. Council appointed members to the Joint Election Compliance Audit Committee for the 2026–2030 term and amended its election-sign rules so that municipal election signs could not be erected until a candidate had formally filed a nomination with the Clerk.

For residents, the important governance developments were therefore broader than any single meeting:

• permanent administrative leadership was established before the municipal election;
• election oversight mechanisms were put in place;
• election-sign rules were clarified;
• Council continued to make extensive use of closed sessions for matters permitted under the Municipal Act, including employment, negotiations and litigation; and
• departmental reporting began providing Council with a more detailed picture of municipal operations.

The quarter established the administrative structure within which many of the year’s larger financial and service decisions would subsequently be made.

Transit: Recognizing the Rural Transportation Problem

One of the most significant service-policy decisions came in February, when Council endorsed the strategic direction and service recommendations contained in County Transit Strategy 2028.

Council directed staff to seek outside funding to implement the strategy on a prioritized and phased basis. It also exercised the one-year extension of its agreement with Quinte Access Transportation Company, securing transit services from April 1, 2026 through March 31, 2027.

The decision is particularly important in a municipality as geographically dispersed as Prince Edward County. Unlike a compact urban municipality, the County must serve residents distributed across villages, hamlets and rural roads while also accommodating substantial seasonal tourism.

The policy challenge is therefore not simply whether the County should “have transit.” It is whether a relatively small permanent population spread across a large territory can support transportation that is sufficiently frequent, affordable and geographically useful to change how people actually travel.

That question would become increasingly important later in 2026 as residents debated late-night transportation, impaired driving, access to employment and alternatives to private vehicles.

Housing, Homelessness and Seniors

Housing remained a recurring issue during the quarter.

In February, Prince Edward–Lennox and Addington Social Services provided Council with an update on its programs and Housing and Homelessness Services, reinforcing that housing insecurity remains a regional rather than exclusively municipal issue.

Council also considered a request involving Wellington Manor Corporation and financial relief for affordable seniors’ housing. Rather than immediately approving a new arrangement, Council directed staff to examine relief options within the existing Municipal Financial Relief Grant Program and deferred the broader matter to coincide with the program review.

The discussion illustrated a recurring municipal dilemma. Council can provide financial relief to support socially desirable development, but forgone municipal revenue ultimately has to be absorbed somewhere else within the municipal financial system.

For residents, the larger questions remained unresolved: how much financial assistance should municipalities provide to affordable housing projects, which developments should qualify, and how should the cost be distributed among other taxpayers?

Volunteer Firefighters and Labour Relations

Council also began formal negotiations with the Prince Edward County Volunteer Firefighters Association.

On February 24, Council approved terms of reference for a Negotiating Working Group involving the County and the Volunteer Firefighters Association and appointed Councillors Janice Maynard Branderhorst and John Nieman as Council representatives.

The negotiations were important in a rural municipality that depends substantially on volunteer firefighters to provide emergency coverage across a large territory.

The process would ultimately produce a Memorandum of Understanding approved by Council in June, after which the negotiating working group was dissolved.

Picton Marina: Municipality as Operator

Another revealing discussion concerned the first year of municipal operation of Picton Marina.

Council reviewed the experience of operating the marina and directed staff to negotiate with the owner of docks occupying Water Lot 1, with a draft operating arrangement to return for Council consideration.

By March, Council approved the terms of a draft lease arrangement and authorized staff to proceed toward a lease and operating agreement with Casa Dea Finance Limited. At the same time, amendments were prepared to the County’s Fees and Charges By-law to establish new seasonal and transient slip rates, including hydro and water services.

This was more than a marina-management issue. It illustrated the expanding range of activities in which municipalities can simultaneously act as regulator, property owner, service provider and commercial operator.

That makes transparent costing particularly important. Residents should be able to determine whether municipal commercial services recover their direct and indirect costs, generate surpluses, require tax support or provide broader public benefits that justify subsidy.

Economic Development

Council also advanced the Invest in Prince Edward County Community Improvement Plan through a Rural Ontario Development Fund contribution agreement.

In February, staff were directed to bring forward the necessary by-law authorizing the agreement with the Province.

The initiative reflected the County’s continuing effort to encourage investment and economic development, an increasingly important issue given the municipality’s dependence on tourism and smaller employers and the need for more year-round employment.

The ultimate measure of such initiatives, however, is not the number of programs created but the investment, businesses, employment and assessment growth they eventually produce.

Emergency Medical Services

On March 24, Council renewed the County’s Land Ambulance Service Agreement with Hastings County.

The agreement is an example of intermunicipal service delivery that is particularly important for smaller municipalities. Rather than independently constructing every municipal capacity, neighbouring governments can share specialized services and infrastructure.

That collaborative model would later raise a broader question relevant to other municipal functions: if municipalities can cooperate on something as consequential as ambulance services, are there administrative, technological and procurement functions that could also be shared more extensively?

Financial Transparency and Compensation Disclosure

The end of the quarter brought several financial accountability reports before Council.

On March 26, Council received the 2025 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses Paid to Members of Council and Municipal Appointees, the 2025 Public Sector Salary Disclosure, and an update from the Finance and IT Department.

These reports did not themselves change municipal spending, but their timing was significant. They placed compensation and financial administration on the public record immediately before the spring discussions about benchmarking, Council remuneration, organizational structure, debt and financial reporting.

By March, therefore, the question was beginning to shift from simply how much does the County spend? toward the more difficult question of what results does that spending produce?

What January–March 2026 Revealed

By the end of March, several themes had emerged:

• the County had established permanent senior administrative leadership;
• rural transportation had become a strategic service issue rather than a temporary pilot;
• housing affordability and homelessness remained persistent pressures;
• Council was increasingly involved in operating or structuring revenue-generating services such as Picton Marina;
• shared regional service delivery remained important for services such as ambulance and social services; and
• financial and compensation disclosure was setting the stage for a broader debate about municipal costs and value.

Winter 2026 was therefore best understood as a quarter of institutional positioning. The organizational, financial and policy groundwork was being laid for decisions that became considerably more consequential between April and June.

Prince Edward County Council: Winter 2025 Highlights

Governance, Administration, and Oversight

Throughout the fall, Council held multiple closed sessions under the Municipal Act provisions related to personnel, labour relations, and solicitor–client privilege. These sessions reflected continued sensitivity around senior administrative capacity and legal exposure during a period of budget development and organizational transition.

Council did not introduce major governance restructuring during this period. Instead, stability and continuity were prioritized as staff prepared detailed budget forecasts. This reliance on staff expertise was operationally necessary, but it also concentrated decision-shaping influence within administration at a time when Council oversight would later be questioned by residents.

Key factual context for residents:

• No changes were made to Council structure or committee systems in fall 2025.
• Oversight mechanisms such as performance dashboards or expenditure benchmarks were not introduced ahead of budget approval.
• Budget deliberations relied heavily on incremental adjustments rather than zero-based or program-by-program reviews.

Budget Development and Financial Pressures

Fall 2025 was dominated by early signals about the scale of the 2026 budget challenge.

Council received forecasts indicating:

• continued growth in the tax-supported operating budget, which by 2026 would approach $88 million, up from roughly $62 million in 2016;
• rising debt servicing costs, reflecting capital investment decisions made over the prior decade;
• increasing costs for provincially influenced services, including policing and public health; and
• limited discretionary room within departmental budgets once contractual and statutory obligations were met.

Population context mattered. Prince Edward County’s permanent population grew by approximately 6 percent between 2016 and 2021, while operating costs grew by more than 40 percent over roughly the same period. This divergence framed many of Council’s affordability discussions.

By late fall, it was clear that:

• maintaining existing service levels would require either a higher-than-average tax increase,
• cost restraint in internal and administrative functions, or
• the use of reserve funds to moderate the levy.

The groundwork for later reserve use decisions was laid during this period.

Infrastructure, Asset Management, and Capital Constraints

Infrastructure pressures remained a recurring theme across fall meetings.

Council discussions referenced:

• a growing backlog in road rehabilitation and bridge renewal;
• asset management plans indicating that replacement costs consistently exceed available capital funding;
• the challenge of funding infrastructure renewal while also servicing existing debt; and
• constraints on water and wastewater systems that limit growth in some settlement areas.

Residents may find it notable that:

• asset management planning increasingly shows long-term funding gaps, even when statutory requirements are met;
• deferring infrastructure investment reduces short-term costs but increases long-term risk and expense; and
• capital decisions made in earlier years are now driving operating costs through maintenance and debt servicing.

Fall 2025 discussions underscored that infrastructure is no longer a future issue — it is a present budget driver.

Community Services, Housing, and Demographic Pressures

Council continued to receive reports and correspondence highlighting the intersection of affordability, housing supply, and service access.

Issues raised included:

• limited availability of long-term rental housing;
• pressure on seniors’ services as the median age in the County remains well above the provincial average;
• workforce challenges affecting health, hospitality, and municipal services; and
• accessibility concerns for residents with disabilities.

While no single housing or social services policy was finalized during this period, Council discussions reflected recognition that:

• housing affordability affects labour supply and economic resilience;
• service delivery costs rise as population ages; and
• municipal tools to address these issues are constrained by funding and jurisdiction.

Intergovernmental Relations and External Cost Drivers

Fall 2025 also highlighted the extent to which Prince Edward County’s fiscal position is shaped by decisions made elsewhere.

Council discussions referenced:

• provincially mandated service costs with limited local control;
• uncertainty around long-term provincial and federal funding commitments;
• downloaded responsibilities that increase municipal operating pressure; and
• regulatory changes affecting planning, environmental oversight, and infrastructure approvals.

For residents, this context matters because it explains why:

• not all budget growth reflects local policy choices;
• some cost increases are effectively unavoidable in the short term; and
• local accountability still requires clear explanation of how external pressures are managed.

Public Engagement and Transparency

Public engagement during fall 2025 largely followed statutory requirements, with residents participating through deputations, correspondence, and attendance at Council meetings.

As budget discussions intensified, common public concerns included:

• the cumulative impact of annual tax increases;
• perceptions of growth in administrative and corporate costs;
• the long-term sustainability of reserve use; and
• difficulty understanding complex budget documents.

While Council complied with notice and consultation obligations, the technical nature of budget materials limited broader public comprehension. This gap between disclosure and understanding became more visible as budget approval approached.

What Fall 2025 Revealed

By the end of 2025, several realities were clear:

• Prince Edward County was facing structural cost pressures, not one-time anomalies.
• Budget decisions were increasingly about trade-offs, not expansion.
• Reserve funds were emerging as a key tool to manage short-term affordability.
• Governance questions were shifting from “are we compliant?” to “are we sustainable?”

These dynamics shaped the 2026 budget outcome and explain why residents would later scrutinize reserve use, administrative costs, and transparency so closely.

Conclusion

Council’s fall 2025 work reflects a municipality operating within tightening constraints. The period was defined less by bold new initiatives and more by the challenge of managing complexity: rising costs, aging infrastructure, demographic change, and limited fiscal room.

Decisions and assumptions made during these months directly influenced the 2026 budget and the public accountability debates that followed. For residents seeking to understand how Prince Edward County arrived at its current fiscal moment, fall 2025 is a critical chapter.

From June through August 2025, Prince Edward County Council addressed a wide range of priorities—from major infrastructure projects and land sales to governance reforms, accessibility, and community health initiatives. Regular and special meetings captured the Council’s focus on balancing fiscal responsibility, managing growth, and responding to pressing community concerns.

Infrastructure and Land Use

Infrastructure renewal dominated Council’s summer agenda. On August 26, Council awarded a $10.4 million contract to R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. for Phase 3 of the Picton Main Street reconstruction, part of a multi-year plan to upgrade East Picton’s water, sewer, and road systems. Provincial funding will cover up to half of the road costs, easing pressure on local taxpayers. Earlier, on June 24, Council approved expanding the asphalt spot repair program by an additional $201,000 while staying within budget.

Land sales also figured prominently. At the June 10 meeting, Council approved sales of parcels in the Picton Industrial Park, with one earmarked for Integrity Contractors and another—later finalized June 24—for Erin Richmond and Trevor Jones to establish a community health hub. The same meeting saw settlement of litigation with Daimler Retirement Parks Ltd., closing a long-running case.

Development pressures remain under scrutiny. On June 24, Council heard from the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association about the Cold Creek Subdivision, directing staff to tighten hydrogeological and cumulative impact studies before proceeding.

Governance and Accountability

Several decisions underscored Council’s commitment to transparency and democratic reform. On August 26, Council approved wording for a 2026 election ballot question: “Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundary changes?” This could reshape future representation in the County.

Council also updated its Video Surveillance Policy, delegating authority for new site approvals to the CAO, and adopted a comprehensive Traffic Calming Policy, giving residents a clear process to request safety measures on local roads. Earlier, on June 10, Council supported motions to improve the 2026 budget process and explore new approaches to road maintenance, although a proposed citizen–councillor roads working group was narrowly defeated.

Community Health, Safety, and Social Priorities

Public health and social issues were front and centre. On August 26, Council formally recognized International Overdose Awareness Day (August 31) and Childhood Cancer Awareness Month (September), after moving deputations outlined the toll of opioid-related deaths and the hardships families face with pediatric cancer.

On June 10, Council passed a resolution urging the federal government to make the new Canada Disability Benefit tax-exempt, part of a broader call to reduce poverty for residents with disabilities. Council also approved enhancements to the summer transit program and lifted a moratorium on public art installations, adopting a new Public Art Policy to guide future projects.

Heritage and Accessibility

Heritage and accessibility issues were threaded throughout the summer. Heritage permits were approved for several properties, including 192 and 375 Picton Main Street and 45 Picton Main Street. The Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended new accessible parking spaces, laneway improvements, and educational programming, with $7,500 allocated to accessibility outreach.

Special Meetings

Two special meetings were held in July. On July 2, Council met virtually to adopt closed session minutes and note a new motion supporting Halton Region’s “Elect Respect” campaign. On July 7, members attended a closed training session under the Municipal Act.

Conclusion

Council’s work this summer reflects the County’s dual priorities: building infrastructure for growth while protecting community well-being and accountability. From major capital works to ballot reform, from overdose awareness to public art, Council’s decisions point toward both immediate improvements and long-term planning for Prince Edward County’s future.

Prince Edward County Council: Spring 2025 Highlights

Prince Edward County Council’s meetings from April through May 2025 reveal a focus on governance reform, financial oversight, infrastructure priorities, and transitional personnel matters. Alongside regular meetings, several special sessions were convened to address legal, staffing, and training issues.

Governance and Integrity

On May 6, Council held a special meeting for Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest training with the newly appointed Integrity Commissioner, David Boghosian. Members received detailed guidance on their legal and ethical obligations, including conflict of interest disclosures, use of municipal property, and complaint protocols. This reinforced Council’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

The next day, on May 7, Council met in closed session to address transitional personnel matters, culminating in the appointment of Adam Goheen as Interim Chief Administrative Officer, effective immediately.

Earlier, on April 16, Council held a special session to receive solicitor-client privileged advice related to potential litigation. While no motions arose from closed session, directions were provided to legal counsel. On April 29, another special meeting focused on confidential staffing matters, underscoring ongoing transitions in municipal administration.

Policy and Advocacy

At the May 27 regular meeting, Council took strong stances on provincial legislation. It passed resolutions opposing both the Strong Mayor Powers legislation (recently applied to Prince Edward County) and Bill 5: Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025, citing threats to democratic governance, environmental protections, and Indigenous rights. These moves align PEC with other Ontario municipalities resisting provincial centralization of authority.

Councillor notices of motion also flagged upcoming priorities: creating a “foodbelt” to protect farmland from development, exploring a working group on road standards, and advocating for improvements to the Canada Disability Benefit for local residents.

Infrastructure and Services

Infrastructure remained high on the agenda. On May 27, Council received updates from the Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN) on the Cell Gap Project, highlighting rural connectivity improvements. A 2024 report on the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) was also presented, providing financial insights into tourism-related revenues.

Earlier, at the April 16 and April 29 special meetings, Council also addressed closed-session matters tied to legal risks and transitional administration, reflecting how governance capacity underpins infrastructure planning.

Community and Social Priorities

Council made several proclamations in May, recognizing Pride Month, Stroke and Aphasia Awareness Month, Seniors’ Month, National Indigenous Peoples Day, and 99.3 County FM Week. These declarations reinforced Council’s role in celebrating community diversity and resilience.

Conclusion

Council’s spring 2025 activity illustrates a municipality at a crossroads: defending local democracy and environmental protections, investing in infrastructure and connectivity, and strengthening its governance capacity through new leadership and integrity training. With foundational issues such as council powers, farmland protection, and accessibility of services on the table, Prince Edward County is actively shaping both its institutional framework and its future growth path.