Part 2: Disraeli Affordable Housing Project - 02/09/2026

The conversation about the Annual General Meeting was straightforward. Hilary Spriggs asked when the AGM is usually held and whether it should be tied to audited financial statements. Elis Ziegler explained audits have been arriving in the fall in recent years. Penny Morris suggested it might make sense to delay until after the next municipal election, since the board could have new council representatives and potentially a new chair. Phil St-Jean agreed to bring the AGM timing back as a future agenda item. There was no vote setting a date. The board simply agreed to revisit it later.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

The Topographical Survey

This was the first clear financial decision of the afternoon. Phil St-Jean asked when the survey would be completed. Elis confirmed it would be done that week and estimated the cost at approximately $2,500.

A motion was amended to reflect that amount.

Voted in favour are Phil St-Jean, Hilary, Penny, Phil, Mark, Ted Elborn, and Jane Lesslie. The motion carried. The survey allows final grading and ramp details to be completed, which is necessary before a building permit application can move ahead.

Interest Rates and Lender Direction

This is where the discussion became more layered. Albert Paschkowiak questioned the mortgage math when a lower interest rate scenario showed a higher annual payment. Elis acknowledged it was a spreadsheet input error.

Hilary pressed for clarity on rate assumptions and suggested that Infrastructure Ontario appears promising because early numbers show lower interest rates than some alternatives. Mark Guslits encouraged staff to continue exploring grant opportunities alongside lender conversations. Adam Goheen cautioned that the numbers remain tight and suggested the project likely needs some form of capital cost reduction to reduce risk.

There was no final vote choosing a lender at this meeting. Staff were directed to refine the pro forma and continue discussions with lenders.

What is clear is that Hilary is pushing for momentum and believes the numbers can be adjusted to work, while Adam Goheen is signaling caution if the debt coverage ratio remains tight.

Affordable Units vs Market Units

The affordability mix sparked discussion. The early application included approximately 35 percent affordability. During discussion, it became clear that three of the eight units would be affordable under current assumptions.

Mark questioned whether a building with only three affordable units fits the corporation’s mandate. Hilary responded that three out of eight exceeds what private developers typically deliver and described it as a strong starting point.

There was no vote changing the affordability mix at this meeting. The direction was to continue adjusting the financial model to see what level of affordability is sustainable.

Fundraising Working Group

This discussion was led by Jane Lesslie, who pushed for exploring fundraising pathways such as bonds or partnerships that could subsidize affordability.

Elis cautioned that community bond programs are complex and time intensive. Adam noted a fundraising working group already exists but would need to be reconstituted. St.-Jean confirmed he is currently the only remaining member of that group.

A motion was brought forward. Motion: Staff to bring back information about potential fundraising opportunities. Voted in favour are Phil St-Jean, Hilary, Penny, Phil, Mark, Ted Elborn, and Jane Lesslie.. The motion carried. This signals that fundraising is not replacing financing efforts but will run in parallel.

Municipal Fees and Charges

This topic generated one of the more strategic discussions of the day.

Phil questioned why a municipally owned housing corporation would be charging itself development related fees and building permit fees. Adam explained that waiving those fees requires council approval. Hilary raised a chicken and egg issue, suggesting that the pro forma may not work without fee waivers, but council may want solid numbers before approving them. 

The board agreed on a practical solution. Staff will prepare two pro formas. One including municipal charges and one showing the impact if those charges are waived.

A motion was carried directing staff to bring back further information regarding potential fee waivers and related policy development.

Voted in favour are Phil St-Jean, Hilary, Penny, Phil, Mark, Ted Elborn, and Jane Lesslie.. This was unanimous.

Use of Cash Reserves

Hillary suggested exploring whether the corporation could contribute equity from its own reserves to improve the debt coverage ratio. Ted raised a caution, asking whether reserves should be preserved for future projects instead of being used on this one. Albert suggested a middle path, use reserves only if a lender requires it to close a financing gap. Adam clarified that the corporation does not appear to have large free cash reserves and that the treasurer will need to present detailed numbers.

No motion was passed allocating reserves. The board agreed to revisit the conversation once the treasurer reports back.

Project Management Tools

Hilary suggested that staff consider using Microsoft Project or similar scheduling software to manage dependencies on future builds.

Adam confirmed the municipality does not currently have that level of license but said it could be explored. No formal motion was required. Staff will investigate options and report back.

Closed Session

The board voted to move into closed session under the Municipal Act for matters including land and financial negotiations. Voted in favour are Phil St-Jean, Hilary, Penny, Phil, Mark, Ted Elborn, and Jane Lesslie. The motion carried.

What This Means for the Locals

The Disraeli project is not stalled. It is in the detailed financial tuning phase. The board is actively weighing risk versus urgency. Some members are pushing to move quickly if interest rates come in around 3.5 percent. Others are focused on ensuring the debt coverage ratio is solid before proceeding.

Three affordable units out of eight appears to be the working assumption right now. That may not sound large, but in today’s lending environment it is not insignificant. If fundraising or fee waivers improve the numbers, that percentage could increase.

The municipal fee waiver discussion is important. If council agrees to waive development related charges for Affordable Housing Corporation builds, that becomes a policy shift that could make future projects more viable.

Residents should also note that fundraising and grant applications are being explored alongside traditional financing. That signals the board understands that affordable housing in today’s market requires layered funding.

The next few weeks matter. A special meeting is expected once lender conversations and revised numbers are ready. That meeting will likely determine whether Disraeli moves into the formal financing stage.

For locals waiting for affordable rental units, the process is deliberate but active. The board is trying to land its first build in a way that is financially sustainable, because how this one performs will shape every affordable housing project that follows in the County.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:00:49. 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.