Review makes recommendations on how the municipality can do better
Administrator | Jun 15, 2026 | Comments 7
By Sharon Harrison
Council heard about service delivery and organizational review recommendations for the County – a lengthy discussion point at Thursday’s committee of the whole meeting, and an even longer comprehensive final report.
Along with receiving the chief administrative officer’s (CAO) report, the firm of consultants that undertook the research, Municipal VU (MVU) Consulting Inc., provided a detailed presentation of their findings.
“The purpose of this review was to define and assess the services the County is delivering, investigate whether the County is organized and resourced to deliver those services sustainably, and to identify opportunities for change that would improve the County’s ability to sustain those services into the future,” outlined Lena Dianda, Municipal VU Consulting Inc. vice-president.
“The opportunity of this review is really to protect what’s working well, and build on some of those strengths.”
CAO Adam Goheen said, there is no time to waste in moving forward, adding “It’s a fantastic document and it won’t sit on a shelf.”
He outlined how the report finds that while the County is functioning well in many areas, it is operating under increasing structural, financial, and organizational pressures that are not sustainable over the long-term.
Several key opportunities discussed in the report will trigger future council consideration, such as:
-What services the County intends to deliver and at what level;
-How long-term infrastructure and financial pressures will be funded and prioritized; and
-How council and administration can continue strengthening roles, authority and accountability to support effective service delivery.
The County provides 44 services across nine departments. What is not covered by MVU’s review are fire and rescue, the planning department, long-term care and council composition.
“MVU’s review found that while the County benefits from a committed workforce and strong community engagement, it is experiencing increasing pressure due to a misalignment between service expectations, organizational capacity and financial resources,” Goheen outlined. “These pressures are affecting the ability to consistently deliver foundational services, and plan for long-term sustainability.”
While the County has an annual infrastructure funding gap of $24.2 million per year, MVU noted that 54 per cent of the County’s revenue comes from property taxes, a figure that is around 10 per cent higher than comparator municipalities.
“This means that the County isn’t currently investing at the level required to renew its tax-supported assets,” explained Dianda. “The tax stabilization reserve is low compared to recommended target ranges presenting some limited flexibility if costs increase, or if there are revenue shortfalls.”
“At the same time, the County relies heavily on property taxes, and that matters because property taxes are already carrying a large share of the burden,” she added.
Councillor John Hirsch said the most important thing is that the County has to decide which services to provide, and at what level.
“If you don’t know that, then the rest of it can’t fall into place,” said Hirsch. “Historically, we do that at budget time; we have never done a proper exercise on determining what services we want to provide and at what level. It’s by default. It happens at budget and that’s the worst possible place to be determining service levels.”
Extensive engagement with council and staff formed a key component of the review, and as well, comparator benchmarking was also undertaken using selected single-tier municipalities with similar population, service structure, and seasonal pressures (Kawartha Lakes, Norfolk County and West Nipissing).
The report identifies several interconnected key themes affecting the County’s ability to deliver services effectively, namely:
– Strengths to build on: Staff demonstrate strong commitment, collaboration, and community engagement, which are key organizational assets.
– Growing pressures: Service demands, organizational complexity, and expectations have increased faster than capacity, funding, and processes have evolved.
– Reactive operations: Day-to-day interruptions and emergent issues are displacing planned, preventative and strategic work.
– Organizational alignment: Governance practices, structure, and responsibilities are not consistently aligned with current operational realities.
– Long-term sustainability: Financial pressures, infrastructure needs, and reliance on reserves and debt are creating on-going sustainability challenges.
MVU vice-president, Andrea Clemencio, spoke to work intake and demand, where she summarized challenges and opportunities.
“The consistency of services the County provides really is based on a balance between reacting to changes, complaints, unplanned work that comes in, while balancing that with the planned, preventive, predictive work that needs to be on-going,” explained Clemencio.
“Without a clear intake process, or screening of new or unplanned work, then the staff capacity is often redirected or planned work is displaced. This is happening slowly, it is eroding slowly. It is not a noticeable difference, but year-over-year the demand is changing.”
Speaking to long-term sustainability being tied closely to asset stewardship, she said dependable services rely on sustainable funding, planned investment in asset manage renewal, with the consideration of affordability, “that’s your balancing act that you are always doing.
“Without having that connection routed back to service levels, having that integration back to the foundation of what are you trying to achieve, what services are you proving to the community, and what is that going to cost now, and in the future, there is a disconnect there.”
She said the County’s asset management plan is an important tool and should be the core guiding document as it’s a long-term vision into the future.
“Currently, we are sitting on infrastructure problems because they weren’t properly funded in the years past, for decades maybe,” said councillor Kate MacNaughton. “Implementing the asset management plan that we have chosen not to implement would get us one strong step ahead out the gate if that was something that the pubic was supportive of.
“Is that something that would make a huge dent in what is obviously either a money-in or a money-out problem and matching it too?” she asked.
“In terms of catching up,” said Clemencio, “the asset management that you have now probably isn’t the plan to start with.
“There is about a 20-year recovery horizon that you could catch up, but it means some difficult decisions and some sacrifices, and some realistic goal setting,” stated Clemencio. “Is it realistic to get somewhere and make a dent? Yes. Aggressive, defined, goal-setting and sticking to it even when it’s talking about making difficult decisions for a decade or two, and you can get caught up.”
Thirteen integrated opportunities are provided – grouped across six key areas which focus on clarifying service levels, strengthening financial and asset management, improving governance and business planning, modernizing systems and realigning the organizational structure.
They are intended to address systemic challenges through a phased approach, or roadmap, over approximately three years.
The 36-month timeline includes four phases (and assume a July 2026 start date, with a July 2029 completion date):
Phase 1: Election direction and decision-making – Timeline: 0-12 months (cost: $75,000-$200,000)
The overall objective of this phase is to create the governance, authority and strategic clarity needed before redesigning the County or investing heavily in systems/processes.
Phase 2: Strengthen financial and organizational foundations – Timeline: 6-24 months (cost: $300,000-$2 million+)
The overall objective is to strengthen the County’s financial sustainability, organizational structure, and long-term planning capability following the establishment of clearer strategic direction in Phase 1.
Phase 3: Build co-ordination and capacity – Timeline: 12-30 months (cost: $200,000-$750,000)
The overall objective of this phase is to improve workload management, coordination, leadership support, and the organization’s ability to consistently deliver planned and strategic work.
Phase 4: Modernize services and systems – Timeline: 18-36 months (cost: $500,000-$3 million+)
The overall objective is to modernize how the County delivers services, manages information, and supports consistent and efficient operations.
Should council approve going ahead with the proposed recommendations, it is anticipated there will be public engagement over the summer.
There are 124 open action items on the council tracker right now, 17 of those are still outstanding from 2024. Eight items on the open action items tracker have been there for two years or more (the oldest items date to January 2021). The County received 645 road action requests in the first quarter of 2026 alone.
“The County does not have a consistent mechanism to manage new/unplanned work directed to staff arriving from multiple sources,” notes the review. “New work enters through council motions, committee and board requests, deputations, complaints and service requests, and emerging operational issues.”
MVU suggestions for revenue opportunities include increasing the municipal accommodation tax (MAT) from four per cent to five per cent, which they anticipate will bring in a further $300,000-$350,000 per year.
However, the CAO said they are not recommending a change in MAT at this time, adding “It is an option. It is a tool in the tool box.”
Other things on the list that could increase revenue are development charges ($200,000-$400,000 potential per year), having seasonal paid parking in Wellington and Picton ($150,000-$300,000 potential revenue per year), looking at naming rights and sponsorship ($25,000-$75,000 per year), as well as recreation fees ($50,000-$150,000 per year) – currently cost recovery is one per cent, target is 30 per cent.
The consultants recommend implementing the opportunities through a phased, multi-year approach as this would enable council to set the overall direction for the municipality, including priorities, policies, budgets and service levels on behalf of the community.
“It also provides the CAO with a roadmap to guide decision-making, prioritize resources, and support sustainable service delivery which will ensure council’s decisions are implemented effectively.”
One key observation by MVU on the organizational foundation is that organizational structure is not aligned to how the County needs to operate today.
“This is really putting the operations in the municipality under a microscope and taking an objective look at the way in which we do things, the services we provide,” added mayor Steve Ferguson. “The amount of information and the data that’s been provided really does provide a guideline of how we can do things better. It really does provide a terrific starting point for us to do a comprehensive analysis of our services and how we deliver them.”
The CAO’s report on service delivery and organizational review, along with the consultant’s 104-page report and long presentation, as discussed at the June 11 committee of the whole meeting, can be found on the corresponding agenda item on the County’s website, along with the meeting recording.
Filed Under: Featured Articles • Local News
@ADJ comments and feedback is integral part of public office; it’s a difficult role, albeit one that they put their hand up for. Yes we know there is an election, and yes I could invite discussion. However, engaging local representatives would eat into my rest time. As a local, I have 2 jobs to keep food on my table and taxes paid. No thank you.
$100,000 + staff are calling the shots in Prince Edward not Council.
I agree that the Ward councillors should be the first to be approached, and I also agree that it would be best to do that as neighbours, friends, which we’re supposed to be. I think few of our councillors can, or will, do that. So, by all means, always try your councillor first. But, some don’t have the time, some don’t have the inclination, and the decision is theirs, not ours. Remember, those meetings at Shire Hall can go on for hours, and the documentation on those meetings can be horrendously lengthy. All of which means the time to engage with the public isn’t necessarily possible when they’re jumping hoops at Shire Hall on our behalf, either. The position of councillor isn’t an hourly/weekly job. They set their own hours, depending on what they have going on their own lives – perhaps working full or part time jobs, family, etc. Being on Council is not a normal situation by any means – no benefits, no set hours, no vacation pay or leave, a demanding public, and a performance review that occurs once after four years. And that fourth year – it all comes home to roost, and the pressure is enormous. For those who want answers now, it can be like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Why not contact your Ward councillor and voice your questions . Ask them for a home visit face to face and welcome others in your community to participate. 5- 8 people is a good number. Welcome your councillor as a friend and don’t feel the need to grill them on questions. Not satisfied with their efforts? there’s an election coming up remember!
Send a message to the CAO and all of Council – if you really want immediate action on the staffing review, in everyday English, and have that high payroll reduced sooner rather than later, you have to tell them. Also, in “everyday English”. There is no excuse for this lack of clarity from our Council that the taxpayers could understand.
Really was looking for a staffing review that reduced the high payroll. Disappointed!
It would be helpful if the County advertised with you to direct link back to their website. I’m somewhat confused. We have another consultant, we are paying for, to tell the council and the county how to formulate the work. I’m sorry but I struggle to understand the disconnection. Although, I am glad it precedes the upcoming election – a framework for new incoming council. Perhaps they can build upon it as a foundational guideline, albeit not all recommendations will be utilized or implemented. 10 – 20 yrs – is that even realistic considering the turnover in council, CAOs, mayor and staff? Let’s be realistic.