Executive Summary
Details matter. You check your $100 grocery bill at checkout. Shouldn’t you be checking a property bill that’s over $2000 for value for money?
Prince Edward County Council’s approved 2026 budget reveals a growing disconnect between rising spending and visible service improvement. Residents are being asked to fund a tax-supported operating budget of approximately $88.25 million, with $56.87 million raised locally, yet internal and administrative costs continue to grow faster than accountability mechanisms.
PEC Budget Report
Corporate overhead, information technology spending, debt servicing, and election-year governance costs stand out when compared with peer municipalities. More concerning, the budget appears increasingly misaligned with the transparency, stewardship, and public-engagement principles embedded in Ontario’s Municipal Act.
The headline numbers residents should understand
The 2026 tax-supported operating budget totals approximately $88.25 million, with about $56.87 million to be raised from local taxation.
For a population of roughly 25,700 residents, this equates to more than $2,200 per person before water and wastewater charges are included.
Corporate overhead: where the budget quietly grows
Key tax-supported governance and corporate costs include:
• Council and Mayor: approximately $882,000
• CAO’s Office: approximately $755,000
• Human Resources: approximately $1.51 million
• Finance: approximately $2.15 million
• Information Technology: approximately $2.55 million
Information Technology alone works out to roughly $99 per resident — more than triple the per-capita level reported by some comparable Ontario municipalities.
A peer comparison that demands explanation
The Town of Cobourg budgets roughly one-third of Prince Edward County’s per-capita IT spending. Municipal budgets are not identical, but disparities of this magnitude warrant clear, public justification. To date, none has been meaningfully provided.
Debt: the silent program
The 2026 budget includes approximately $2.4 million in annual debt servicing costs. Debt payments do not deliver services. They reduce future flexibility and crowd out funding for roads, water, emergency services, and other core needs.
Despite this, Council has not articulated explicit affordability guardrails or a long-term plan to reduce debt exposure.
Election-year governance costs
The budget includes a net election cost of approximately $132,500. While elections carry unavoidable costs, Council has not clearly explained the drivers of this figure, how it compares with similar municipalities, or what steps are taken to control costs in an election year.
Where the budget falls short of the Municipal Act’s intent
The issue raised by the 2026 budget is not technical non-compliance. It is governance quality.
Under the Municipal Act:
• Council must ensure transparency and accountability (s. 224(d), s. 270(1))
• Council must actively steward public funds (ss. 224(a), 224(b))
• Council must maintain long-term financial integrity (s. 224(c))
• Public engagement must be meaningful, not symbolic (s. 270(1))
The 2026 budget falls short where:
• spending growth is not clearly tied to measurable outcomes
• major expenditures lack plain-language explanation
• alternatives and trade-offs are not publicly evaluated
• engagement occurs after key decisions are largely fixed
Compliance alone is not the same as good governance.
What’s missing: hard accountability rules
The budget contains no:
• cap on corporate or administrative overhead
• required benchmarking against peer municipalities
• public scorecard linking spending to service outcomes
• clear value-for-money justification for major contracts
Budgeting by drift is not financial discipline.
A short watch list for residents
Residents concerned about affordability and accountability should pay close attention to:
• IT licensing and managed services
• consulting without defined deliverables
• professional development, conferences, and travel
• communications spending spread across departments
• assumed “cost recoveries” that quietly revert to taxpayers
None of these categories are inherently inappropriate — but all require strong, visible oversight.
A call to action
Residents can, and should, ask their councillors:
• How does this budget decision protect long-term financial integrity?
• What alternatives were considered before approval?
• What outcomes justify this spending increase?
• Where can contracts and vendors be reviewed?
• How was public input incorporated before decisions were finalized?
Budgets reveal priorities. The 2026 budget prioritizes internal growth over visible accountability.
County First will continue to examine whether public dollars in Prince Edward County are being spent in a way residents can understand, justify, and trust.
Notes, Clarifications, and Methodology
To ensure accuracy and transparency, the following notes clarify how figures in this article were calculated and how comparisons should be interpreted.
Budget scope and definitions
All dollar figures cited refer to Prince Edward County’s 2026 tax-supported operating budget, as approved by Council. This excludes rate-supported programs such as water and wastewater unless otherwise noted.
Where budget lines include departmental revenues, recoveries, or internal chargebacks, figures are noted as either:
• gross expenditures, or
• net of recoveries, where explicitly stated
Unless otherwise specified, comparisons use gross operating expenditures to reflect the full scale of departmental spending.
Per-capita calculations
Per-capita figures are calculated using 2021 Statistics Canada Census population counts for consistency across municipalities. For Prince Edward County, this population is approximately 25,700 residents.
Two different per-capita figures appear in this analysis:
• Tax-supported operating spending per resident (total operating budget divided by population)
• Tax levy per resident (amount raised from taxation divided by population)
Both figures are valid but measure different things. Where the article refers to “more than $2,200 per resident,” this refers to the tax levy burden, not total operating spending.
Peer municipality comparisons
Peer municipalities were selected based on:
• similar population scale
• comparable service scope
• Ontario single-tier or lower-tier municipal structure
Comparators include:
• Cobourg
• Belleville
• Stratford
• Quinte West
• Brockville
Municipal budgets are not identical in structure. As a result:
• comparisons are directional, not exact
• per-capita normalization is used to highlight scale differences
• the purpose is to identify outliers and trends, not to imply uniform service models
Large disparities — particularly where one municipality spends two to three times more per resident in a functional area — are highlighted as warranting explanation, not as proof of mismanagement.
Information Technology (IT) spending
IT figures include costs typically reported under:
• information technology
• corporate systems
• enterprise software
• managed services and cybersecurity
Some municipalities embed IT costs across departments. Where this occurs, published IT line items may understate true totals. As such, PEC’s IT per-capita spending should be understood as conservatively high, not exaggerated.
Debt servicing
Debt servicing figures reflect annual operating costs associated with debt, not total outstanding debt. Debt servicing is highlighted because it:
• does not deliver services directly
• reduces operating flexibility
• represents a fixed obligation for future councils
Where precise totals vary by presentation, the analysis focuses on trend direction and proportional burden, not a single isolated number.
Election-year costs
Election costs are presented net of recoveries, consistent with how municipalities typically report the operating impact of elections. Comparisons use the most recent publicly available municipal election budgets.
Compliance vs. governance
This article does not allege illegality, misconduct, or breach of statute. References to Ontario’s Municipal Act are included to assess governance intent, not legal compliance.
A municipality may meet the technical requirements of the Act while still falling short of its underlying principles of:
• transparency
• accountability
• financial stewardship
• meaningful public engagement
This analysis is concerned with that distinction.
Purpose of this analysis
The intent of this article is to:
• improve public understanding of the County budget
• encourage informed questioning by residents
• support better governance practices
• promote transparency and accountability
All figures are drawn from public documents and reasonable analytical assumptions. Residents are encouraged to review the source budgets directly and to ask councillors for clarification where questions remain.