Part 1: The Board Focuses on Funding Strategy, Project Progress, and Long-Term Planning – 05/11/2026
- PECConnect
- May 11
- 6 min read
The Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation Board spent much of its May 11, 2026 meeting looking ahead. While several discussions focused on technical planning matters tied to the Disraeli and Niles Street housing projects, the broader theme running through the afternoon was how the corporation plans to sustain momentum, secure funding, and define its long-term role in the County’s housing future.
The meeting was chaired by Councillor Phil St-Jean and included both public and closed session discussions. Board members moved through a lengthy action tracker review, debated financing strategies, discussed timelines for future public engagement, and explored possible partnerships and funding opportunities tied to affordable housing development in the County.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
One of the first major conversations centered around the board’s action tracker, which several members said had become difficult to follow. Hirsch raised concerns that completed items, vague timelines, and unclear action steps were making it harder to understand what still needed to happen and when. Members discussed the possibility of restructuring the tracker to separate completed work from active tasks and adding clearer deadlines or milestone dates.
Staff explained that the tracker was originally designed to follow board motions rather than full project management timelines, but members generally agreed that it should evolve into a more practical working tool. The discussion quickly expanded into a broader conversation about the corporation’s strategic plan, with several members pointing out that major goals originally targeted for completion in 2026 had not yet been revisited in detail.
Hirsch suggested holding a workshop-style session dedicated entirely to the corporation’s future direction, including its role in housing development, stakeholder consultation, and long-term priorities after the current projects are complete. Staff acknowledged that the original business plan had not been revisited in depth for roughly two years and agreed that a fresh review would likely be necessary given how much has changed financially and politically since it was written.
The board ultimately approved plans to review the existing business plan, identify key stakeholders for consultation, and organize a future workshop discussion, likely sometime before mid-July.
Another lengthy discussion focused on the corporation’s future annual general meeting and public engagement strategy. Members debated whether the AGM should remain a technical shareholder meeting focused on audited financial statements or evolve into a broader public-facing community meeting about affordable housing progress in the County.
Several members noted that the timing is complicated by the upcoming municipal election and delays tied to the municipal audit process. Staff explained that the corporation’s audits are tied to the County’s broader financial review process, which has sometimes delayed finalized statements until late in the year. Board members expressed frustration with those timelines, especially given the urgency surrounding current housing projects.
At the same time, members emphasized that public communication around housing would become increasingly important moving forward. Ideas discussed included informal community-style meetings in local halls or community centres rather than formal municipal-style sessions inside council chambers.
The board also received a verbal report from Councillor Brad Nieman regarding potential provincial funding opportunities connected to the Building Ontario Fund. Nieman attended a recent Ontario municipal conference where housing financing and provincial priorities were discussed extensively. He explained that provincial representatives repeatedly emphasized the importance of municipalities continuing to push housing projects forward and maintaining communication with upper levels of government.
The discussion sparked broader debate around whether the County’s affordable housing projects are large enough to qualify for certain provincial funding streams. Some members questioned whether the County met the financial thresholds outlined publicly by the program, while others argued that maintaining relationships and continuing discussions with funding agencies could still prove valuable. Staff confirmed that preliminary contact had already been made with provincial representatives regarding the Disraeli project.
The meeting then shifted back toward active development work on the Niles Street property in Wellington. The board approved moving ahead with a consent application tied to severing part of the property to support the future residential development process and eventually secure a Record of Site Condition.
Members spent considerable time discussing environmental approvals, severance logistics, and how the property might ultimately be structured between the housing corporation and the municipality. Questions were raised about liability, parking, future land use restrictions, and whether parts of the land should eventually revert back to municipal ownership.
Although several legal and technical questions remain unresolved, board members generally agreed that beginning the severance process was necessary to keep the project moving forward.
The board also briefly discussed the former St. Gregory Catholic School property in Picton after members raised questions about whether the site could someday become part of the County’s affordable housing pipeline. No decisions were made, but board members supported gathering more information about ownership, future plans for the property, and whether any housing opportunities may eventually exist there.
Much of the meeting’s final hour focused on financing for the Disraeli Street housing project. After returning from closed session, the board approved moving forward with a construction agreement tied to the project, subject to final revisions.
Board members then debated a proposed request to County Council for financial support. After lengthy discussion, the board separated the request into two parts. One part requested waiver of future building permit and connection fees for the project, while the second involved a request for a $330,000 municipal contribution toward project completion, pending confirmation of funding sources from the County’s Director of Finance.
The conversation reflected growing pressure to keep the project moving while balancing financial risks and political realities. Some members argued that delaying construction could ultimately increase costs and further slow housing delivery, while others stressed the importance of presenting Council with a financially supported request backed by clear funding sources.
The meeting closed with another notable motion requesting that County Council consider including $500,000 from Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues for affordable housing during 2027 budget deliberations. Board members described the motion as an attempt to start a larger public conversation about creating stable, long-term housing funding tied to tourism revenues and housing pressures across the County.
Key Takeaways
The Affordable Housing Corporation is shifting into long-term planning mode. Board members agreed the corporation needs a clearer multi-year strategy beyond the current Disraeli and Niles Street projects. A workshop and business plan review are now being planned to help determine what affordable housing development in the County should look like over the next several years.
The Disraeli and Niles Street housing projects are still moving forward, but funding and timing remain major hurdles. The board approved steps tied to the Niles Street severance process and continued work on the Disraeli Street project, including construction agreements and financing discussions. Members repeatedly stressed that delays could increase costs and push occupancy further into the future.
The board wants affordable housing funding to become part of the County’s long-term financial planning. One of the biggest discussions of the meeting focused on creating more stable municipal funding for housing. The board approved a motion asking County Council to consider allocating $500,000 from Municipal Accommodation Tax revenues during 2027 budget discussions, signaling a push for ongoing local housing investment instead of project-by-project funding requests.
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