Part 2: From Holding Costs to Housing Delivery: Where Pressure Is Building at the Affordable Housing Board - 11/10/25

Once the formal approvals were out of the way, the real substance of this meeting came through in the discussion. This was less about voting blocks and more about where frustration is building, where urgency is sharpening, and how different members are thinking about the next phase for affordable housing in Prince Edward County.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Katie McMahon, the external auditor, presented the 2024 audited financial statements and confirmed a clean audit with no corrections, no disagreements, and no accounting policy issues. On paper, this was a smooth result.

But once questions opened, the tone shifted.

Albert Paschkowiak raised the issue directly. He pointed out that the audit cost of approximately $11,000 represents the single largest operating expense for a corporation that has had limited activity over the past year. His comment was not about the quality of the audit, but about proportionality. For a year focused largely on holding assets and attending meetings, the cost felt excessive.

Staff acknowledged the concern. They explained that the auditor appears to be the same firm used by the County, and that the arrangement may be linked to that broader contract. Importantly, they did not rule out change. Staff committed to speaking with Treasury and exploring whether a separate procurement process or different arrangement could reduce costs in future years.

Why this matters locally: Every dollar spent on corporate overhead is a dollar not available for site work, planning, or partnership development. This discussion signals that the board is no longer willing to accept fixed costs without questioning whether they still make sense for a small, project focused housing corporation.

The Wellington fencing debate revealed deeper frustration

The proposed $10,000 annual fencing rental at the Wellington site became a focal point for wider concerns about stalled progress.

Councillor Brad Nyman questioned whether the fencing was truly necessary and whether the risk justified the cost. He framed it simply: it is a lot of money for something that does not move the project forward.

Staff did not dismiss the concern. They explained that the fencing relates to protecting environmental monitoring wells, but also acknowledged that alternatives may exist. Concrete barriers, partial site protection, or other lower cost exclusion measures were all raised as possibilities.

Albert Paschkowiak and others supported re examining the approach, noting that fencing rentals feel like money disappearing into maintenance rather than investment.

Why this matters locally: Wellington residents are watching a prominent site sit idle. Ongoing rental costs reinforce the perception of delay. A shift toward permanent, lower cost protection could reduce annual expenses while signalling that the corporation is actively managing public funds.

Budget deferral was about clarity, not avoidance

When the preliminary 2026 budget came forward, it was clear early on that approval was unlikely. Jane Lesslie was direct. She said it felt too early to lock in numbers without better clarity, especially given upcoming onboarding costs for new board members. Orientation, training, and governance support were not yet reflected in the draft, and she flagged that gap clearly.

Staff agreed and recommended deferring the budget to the December meeting, where they could present clearer financial options and explain how existing assets might offset projected deficits. The board supported deferral unanimously.

Why this matters locally: This was not a rejection of spending. It was a signal that the board wants a budget tied to an actual work plan, not just a list of holding costs. That increases the chance that future spending aligns with visible progress on housing delivery.

Disraeli Street is about speed versus structure

The Disraeli Street update exposed the biggest strategic tension of the meeting. Staff explained that delays in issuing a revised RFP are tied to one core issue: how to fairly evaluate different ownership models while complying with municipal procurement rules. They want an RFP that allows flexibility, without accidentally excluding viable proponents or creating evaluation risks.

Jane Lesslie pressed for timelines. She emphasized the need to move quickly while still getting the structure right. Her position was clear. Care matters, but delay has consequences. Councillor Nyman was more openly frustrated. He questioned whether revisiting the RFP again would truly deliver better results, or whether the board was repeating a process that had already consumed time without progress.

Staff responded by outlining a more detailed timeline. They expect the RFP to be finalized within weeks, but acknowledged that results would likely not be ready for the December board meeting, meaning a special meeting may be required.

Why this matters locally: 

Picton residents near Disraeli Street have seen years of discussion with little visible change. The board’s debate shows growing impatience, but also an awareness that a flawed RFP could create even longer delays later.

CMHC uncertainty is shaping decision making

Another undercurrent was the changing landscape at CMHC. Staff confirmed that the corporation’s previous CMHC program representative has moved on, requiring relationship rebuilding. They stressed the importance of keeping CMHC engaged in parallel with the RFP process so that funding applications do not stall once a proponent is selected.

Councillor Nyman asked directly about timelines and readiness. Staff acknowledged that success depends heavily on how quickly documentation like class B estimates and pro formas can be assembled.

Why this matters locally: Federal funding timelines can make or break small community housing projects. The board is clearly trying to avoid a scenario where local momentum is lost waiting on external approvals.

New board appointments point to a capacity reset

Coming out of closed session, the board formally appointed Mark Gusslitz, Hilary Sprigg, Penny Morris, and Ted Elborn as public members.

This decision passed without controversy, but its importance should not be understated. Several earlier discussions about onboarding, training, and capacity suddenly make more sense in this context.

Why this matters locally: Affordable housing projects require sustained attention over years. Adding experienced public members strengthens continuity and reduces reliance on councillor turnover cycles.

The bigger picture

Across all agenda items, one theme was consistent. The board is trying to shift from maintenance mode into delivery mode. Questions about audit costs, fencing rentals, and software subscriptions are not nitpicking. They are symptoms of a board that wants to stop paying to stand still.

Where opinions differed, it was mostly about how fast to move and how much structure is enough. But there was little disagreement about direction. Reduce unnecessary overhead. Clarify governance. Move Disraeli forward. Prepare for Wellington. And build a board that can carry the work.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:51:019. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis.

The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations.

This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.