A motion brought forward at the first meeting of the draft 2026 budget in Prince Edward County falls in a close vote.
Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer brought a motion forward, seconded by Councillor Chris Braney, to have the 11% tax levy proposed by staff to be reviewed. The motion was defeated 6-8 in a recorded vote.
While many Council members agreed that an 11% tax levy was high, they said it was now ultimately in Council’s hands to decide and that staff have done their part.
The motion read as follows:
“That Council recommend that the draft 2026 budget indicating the 11% levy increase be referred back to staff and that staff be directed to return with a revised draft budget reflecting the cost of inflation increase while identifying any corresponding impacts on staffing and service levels.”
Councillor Engelsdorfer spoke to the motion, saying he acknowledges the work staff has put in into the budget and the complexities of the community, but that an 11% increase is not something many residents can absorb.
“Many households here earn less than a considerable living wage and therefore may already be struggling to cover basic neccessities like housing, transportation, childcare, and food, we see the impact of this everyday,” he said.
“Nearly one in four households are food insecure, 23% higher than the national average. This isn’t about a lack of food in the community, it’s about insufficient income to afford that food. While some businesses are scaling back operations, the StoreHouse Food Bank is seeing increasing numbers every week. Families, seniors, small businesses, farmers, and those on fixed incomes are all feeling the weight of rising costs. People are stretched, we hear it in emails and phone calls everyday,”
“The motion before us does not dismiss the work done, instead it asks us to take a discipline and responsible next step. It’s asking for clear information and what scaling back to an inflation increase only means for staffing and service levels. In other words, I’m asking for a budget that holds the line to respect of taxpayers capacity. This approach allows us to remain realistic, while still being fiscally responsible. I don’t want to abandon the Asset Management Plan, but I’d like to see what we can get rid of to get to that number. It’s important in principle, but I believe it’s unworkable given the current conditions we are living in.”
Councillor Maynard spoke against the motion, saying that while she respects what was put forward, it is now Council’s job is to make the decision.
“It’s not staff’s job, we gave them direction, we have a budget binder, so as we go through this line by line, then we can find that 8% and we can agree on where that 8% should come out of this budget, then we will be in that tax rate increase that you’re looking for,”
“It’s just not responsible because we have lots of people that say they don’t want to pay anymore taxes. But very rarely does that come along with the detail of what they would like to get rid of. So as we go through this budget, if you can find 8% line after line, then maybe that’s what we can do. That is now our job. Staff have presented us with that they thought, we have eliminated a lot of things from the original draft, if you want to remove 8% of this budget, that is our job to do.”
Councillor Pennell spoke in favour of the motion, saying they have heard from residents that there is ‘a real financial problem out there’.
“Every time you increase a budget, there’s going to be more people in need of assistance. If we come in with 11% increase, I suspect we might be looking at another half million for people that are going to need assistance,” he said.
“The whole idea is a budget. We represent the people. We should be looking at needs, not wants, and I believe there are some wants in that budget. The people in the community, it’s going to affect them not only today, it’s the rest of their life as long as they’re able to live here. If it goes up this year, you know that the next year is going to go up again. I would perhaps take a little time to get it closer to right than just throw in the towel and say nobody minds paying, because they do.”
Councillor St-Jean spoke his mind on the matter, saying after eight years on Council, there is always a similar type of motion at every budget meeting.
“It’s our job now. Staff have spent months and months bringing the budget to us that clearly is barebones, if not cutting to the bone, and they presented us with their best option,”
“I don’t believe it’s up to them to tell us what our community wants cut, that is our responsibility. It’s our job to find those lines we don’t like, find those things that we think are wants and are not needs. That is our decision. It is Council’s responsibility now to work on this budget and come back with something that we can agree on that will be somewhat acceptable to our community. Our community is not going to be in agreement with anything that we do.”
In a recorded vote, the motion was defeated 6-8.
In favour of the motion were Councillor Pennell, Councillor Nieman, Councillor Prinzen, Councillor Harrison, Councillor Engelsdorfer, and Councillor Braney.
Opposed to the motion were Councillor Roberts, Councillor St-Jean, Councillor Grosso, Councillor Branderhorst, Councillor Hirsch, Councillor MacNaughton, Councillor Maynard, and Mayor Ferguson.
Council meets again to discuss the draft 2026 budget on Dec 2 for 9am at Shire Hall.
