County News
‘Our job’
11 per cent budget crosses first obstacle
The councillor from Wellington wanted to know the impact—the trade-offs—required to reduce the 2026 budget from 11 per cent to the cost of living, or about 2.5 per cent. Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer asked his council colleagues to join him in sending the proposed budget back to staff to a) determine how to do that, and b) determine what the impact would be on the business of local government.
“I want to acknowledge the work staff have put into this budget,” said Engelsdorfer. “It’s complex and gets harder to balance each year. However, an 11 per cent increase is something our residents cannot absorb. Many households earn less than what is considered a living wage. They are already struggling to pay for transportation. While some businesses are scaling back, the Storehouse Foodbank is serving more clients every year. People are stretched. This motion asks us to take a disciplined approach to budgeting. I want to understand the trade-offs needed to get there,” said Engelsdorfer.
The Wellington councillor got support from some around the council table.
Councillor Brad Nieman noted that a survey of residents showed that 58 per cent were willing to live with fewer municipal services if it meant lower property taxes.
“We need to really look at this,” said Nieman.
Others said that staff were best placed to recommend budget cuts.
“We are not here full time,” said Councillor Chris Braney. “We don’t have the knowledge our staff does. They know what can be cut and what can’t.”
David Harrison agreed.
“I have confidence in staff’s expertise—to find savings,” said the North Marysburgh councillor. “I would like to hear that. I would be more confident once I’ve heard that to know that we are making the right decisions.”
Phil Prinzen wanted to see the impact of limiting the budget increase to the cost of living.
“We are told this is bare bones, but we don’t know,” acknowledged the Bloomfield Hallowell council member.
But others were adamant that Engelsdorfer’s motion would not succeed. It was council’s job to wade through the budget documents and reach consensus on what should stay and what could go, according to this cohort.
Mayor Steve Ferguson led the pushback on Engelsdorfer’s motion.
“I encourage council to follow this process, to see if we can get to a reasonable number,” said Ferguson, before tipping his hand as to where he was leaning. “As far as I can tell, staff have got the budget down to the bone.”
Councillors Janice Maynard, Phil St-Jean, John Hirsch and Sam Grosso echoed Mayor Ferguson’s comment.
“It’s our job now,” said Councillor St. Jean. “Staff have presented a bare bones budget. I don’t know what they would provide. Our community is not going to be in agreement with anything we do.”
Hirsch had earlier pointed out that affordability was a defining factor in the consideration of the municipal budget.
“We have in place a municipal financial relief grant program, which we have massaged to include property taxes and water rates for those who can least afford them,” said the South Marysburgh councillor.
To wit, Councillor Harrison responded, “That’s all fine and dandy—but the fact of the relief program is an indicator of our residents’ inability to pay.”
Near the end of the debate on Engelsdorfer’s motion, Mayor Ferguson mused about using ‘strong mayor powers’ accorded to him by the province last year. He asked staff to confirm that he could pass the budget on his own with these powers.
The answer was, yes, he could do that.
But Mayor Ferguson quickly assured his colleagues he wasn’t going to do that. But that he could.
“I have committed not to do that,” said Ferguson. “I’m used to a collaborative approach. That’s what I want to see.”
The councillor’s motion failed. Councillors Prinzen, Braney, Harrison, Nieman, Pennell and Engelsdorfer supported the proposal to send the budget back to staff to find savings. Mayor Ferguson, along with councillors Hirsch, Bill Roberts, Sam Branderhorst, St-Jean, Grosso, Kate MacNaughton and Maynard.
A comment from Fulltime Taxpayer, Oct 19, 2025 at 9:17AM following the Wellington Times editorial “Economic Dementia https://wellingtontimes.ca/economic-dementia/
If people are indeed coming to Tuesday’s Council meeting, why not prepare by looking specifically at the Audited Financial Statements for the year ended Dec 31, 2024, at https://www.thecounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Consolidated-Financial-Statements-2024.pdf
Sample questions might be:
Pg. 5, Temporary Borrowing is over $40.7 MILLION, up over 36.2% from a year earlier. Yet, Cash pile sitting at over $64.5 MILLION, up over 17.5% from a year earlier. In what universe is building a cash pile with borrowed money, financial responsibility?
Pg. 5, Net Debt (Net Worth) is over MINUS $54.9 MILLION, a DEEPER hole by 43% then the previous year. What’s driving the acceleration deeper underwater?
Pg. 6, EXPENSES: “General government” over $12.2 MILLION, up over 41.1% from previous year. “Transportation services” over $22.9 MILLION, up over 23.3% from year earlier. What’s driving the massive spikes in these departments?
But, don’t stop there. Look at Pg. 26, “Supplementary Information”, where you can see the categories of what the OVER $96.1 MILLION was spent on during the year 2024.
“Materials and supplies ” –> over $20.5 MILLION, up 40.8% from prior year. What is all this for?
“Interest on long-term debt ” –> over $2.7 MILLION, up over 32.9% from prior year. Interest is an expense that is delivering no value except revenue for the Provincial Government. Why are we increasing this so much by more and more borrowing, especially with a “Cash pile”?
“Salaries, wages and employee benefits ” –> over $34.7 MILLION, up over 13.5% from prior year. And this does not include what are sure to be large number spikes from the severance packages paid out for departing “leadership” positions in 2025. Why does a largely rural County of 25,000 souls need so many people, and why are the numbers so high? Does the County think it’s their role to singlehandedly generate income for some of its citizens by borrowing and taxing other citizens?
The total spend was over $96.1 MILLION, up over 14.8% from the prior year, and over 8.8% HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS BUDGETED. Why has there been no explanation for this, and has there been any discussion or concern by any Councilors in any of their “Closed” meetings about this?
I am sure that the answers will be a series of “word salads” that attempt to soothe and calm …. “everything is fine, adults are in charge, nothing to see here”.
These numbers say differently. And the source of the numbers is the County’s own Web site, public information, at the link provided.
If anyone is interested, the site has the past 10 years for comparison also.
At least someone other than me should be asking. I will not be attending, my previous questions over the years having been dismissed, denied, and deflected.
Good luck. You will need it.
One thing I don’t understand is that the headlines were:
Inquinte, Dec.5, 2025
Tax levy trimmed from 11% to 3.59% after days of debate in Prince Edward County
https://www.inquinte.ca/2025/12/5615/
It sure sounds like the presented budget (11% increase) was a fake and that the real one (3.59% increase) was kept under wraps and revealed at the last moment to make Ferguson look good.
Perhaps, Ferguson and Shire Hall should hire Fulltime Taxpayer; he seems to know a lot more than anybody at Shire Hall where to trim.
Another thing I don’t understand is asking Shire Hall to prep a budget – they are those who spend the budget- is akin to asking the fox to advise security at the chicken coop.
From the beginning of the Wellington Water Plant Expansion project to now, Shire Hall, Ferguson and
Kate MacNaughton, Phil St-Jean, Sam Grosso, Janice Maynard, Bill Roberts, John Hirsch who voted against Engelsdorfer’s motion that could have prevented Ferguson from having strong mayor powers, have all turned themselves in pretzels to justify the unjustifiable.
Al Brosseau
Wellington
What are the impacts/trade-offs required in this 3.49% tax levy, dropped from 11%? The Wellington councillor made a good point, but so far I’ve not seen a response from the rest of council.
Hmmmm…
“Near the end of the debate on Engelsdorfer’s motion, Mayor Ferguson mused about using ‘strong mayor powers’ accorded to him by the province last year. He asked staff to confirm that he could pass the budget on his own with these powers.
The answer was, yes, he could do that.
But Mayor Ferguson quickly assured his colleagues he wasn’t going to do that. But that he could.
“I have committed not to do that,” said Ferguson. “I’m used to a collaborative approach. That’s what I want to see.””
Well now. The Mayor already knew the answer to his question, as this had been made VERY clear to him when the “Strong Mayor Powers” had been given to him. He had specifically promised Council at the time that he would NOT use this (“addition to his job description given to the Mayors by Premier Ford”) when the 2026 Budget was being set for The County. For him to trot this little gem out in the midst of the Budget Meeting deliberations was nothing short of a none-too thinly veiled threat to ALL members of Council that, should he so choose, he could, and he would, shut them down. I am not impressed, Mayor Steve Ferguson. I am not impressed with this bullying tactic of yours AT ALL!
By the way, does anyone else find it more than a little odd that the proposed tax levy, which was initially set at 11%, was somehow, despite all the weeks, days and hours that the highly trained, exceedingly skilled and well paid Staff of Shire Hall had worked so hard on this draft budget, somehow, in ONE day, our untrained, unqualified, and admittedly appallingly paid, part-time municipal Council (aside from the full-time Mayor, of course!) had managed to drop this tax levy to 3.49%?