Part 2: Board Pushes Housing Momentum, Debates Funding Conditions, and Signals Long-Term Shift – 05/11/2026
- PECConnect
- May 11
- 4 min read
Several key moments during the May 11, 2026 Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation session revealed where board members stood on major housing issues, especially around funding, timelines, and the future direction of affordable housing development in the County.
One of the clearest themes throughout the meeting was urgency. Several members repeatedly stressed that the corporation needs to keep projects moving instead of slowing down while waiting for perfect conditions or guaranteed funding.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Councillor Brad Nieman pushed strongly for maintaining momentum, especially after attending a provincial housing conference focused on municipal housing solutions. Nieman told the board that provincial representatives emphasized continuing to move projects forward while staying in constant communication with upper levels of government. He argued that the County should continue aggressively pursuing funding opportunities, even if some programs initially appear geared toward larger municipalities.
That same sense of urgency appeared again later during the debate over municipal financial support for the Disraeli Street affordable housing project.
Hilary Spriggs strongly supported continuing the funding push, arguing that affordable housing directly affects the County’s economy, workforce, and ability to function long term. Morris repeatedly stressed that workers need places to live close to where they work and warned against losing momentum after getting this far into the project planning process.
Jane Lesslie also backed continued efforts to secure funding and repeatedly returned to the idea that the County needs to finally start putting “shovels in the ground.” Lesslie acknowledged there are financial risks but argued that delaying projects could ultimately create even larger setbacks. She also pointed out that affordable housing discussions tied to Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues have been happening for years and suggested the County needs to seriously consider dedicating stable tourism-related funding toward housing.
On the other side of the discussion, Hirsch took a more cautious and procedural approach. Hirsch consistently supported the housing projects themselves but argued the board needed stronger financial backing and clearer reporting before making major funding requests to Council. During the Disraeli Street funding debate, Hirsch said she would support asking Council for money only if the request was backed by confirmation from the County’s Director of Finance showing where the funding would realistically come from.
That compromise eventually shaped the final motion. The board approved moving forward with a request for municipal financial support for the Disraeli project, but only pending confirmation of funding sources from finance staff.
The meeting also revealed differing views on how aggressive the corporation should be moving forward with future projects and partnerships.
During discussions about the former St. Gregory Catholic School property, Jane Lesslie argued that even exploratory conversations about future housing opportunities are important because affordable housing projects often take years to materialize. Lesslie said simply gathering information now could help create future opportunities later.
Hirsch supported that idea and expanded it further, suggesting the corporation may eventually need to rethink its role altogether. Hirsch floated the possibility of future partnerships with private developers, churches, or community organizations rather than always acting as the direct developer itself. The suggestion tied into a larger conversation about what the Affordable Housing Corporation should realistically become over the next five years.
Several members also voiced frustration with how long administrative and environmental processes are taking, particularly around the Niles Street property in Wellington.
Councillor Phil St-Jean, who chaired the meeting, repeatedly emphasized that the board’s goal is simply to keep projects advancing step by step. During discussions about severances, environmental approvals, and planning matters, St-Jean often acted as the bridge between technical planning details and practical next steps, reminding members that delays only push housing further away.
The board ultimately approved several motions unanimously or near-unanimously throughout the meeting, including moving ahead with the Niles Street severance process, reviewing the corporation’s long-term business plan, creating a future strategic planning workshop, and pursuing discussions around future housing funding opportunities.
One of the biggest symbolic votes came near the end of the meeting when the board approved asking County Council to consider including $500,000 in Municipal Accommodation Tax funding for affordable housing during future 2027 budget deliberations. St-Jean described the motion as an attempt to finally create a serious conversation around stable, long-term funding for housing in the County rather than relying on one-off funding requests or temporary grants.
What This Means for Locals
The meeting showed that affordable housing discussions are beginning to move beyond broad concepts and into long-term financial and political planning.
The Disraeli Street project continues moving closer toward construction, although funding gaps and timelines remain major challenges. Residents waiting for affordable housing options may still face delays, but the board made it clear that members do not want projects sitting idle.
The discussions around Municipal Accommodation Tax funding could also become significant for the wider community over the next year. If Council eventually dedicates tourism-related revenue toward housing, it could create a more stable funding stream for future affordable housing developments across the County.
The meeting also signaled that the corporation may begin exploring broader partnerships with developers, community groups, and institutions to help expand housing opportunities in the future rather than relying solely on municipally driven projects.
Most importantly, the meeting showed that affordable housing is no longer being discussed as a temporary issue or side project. Board members repeatedly framed it as a long-term economic and community issue tied directly to workforce stability, tourism pressures, population growth, and the future sustainability of the County itself.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:45:28. 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.
Comments