Part 1: Disraeli Housing Financing, Fee Waiver Options, and Fundraising Strategy Discussed – 02/09/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 9
- 5 min read
The Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation Board met on February 9, 2026 at Shire Hall. After confirming the agenda and approving the previous minutes, the board moved quickly into the real focus of the afternoon: pushing the Disraeli housing project forward and tightening up the financial plan that will determine whether it can proceed.
There were no deputations or public comments, which gave the board time to dig into details. And most of those details came down to one thing: making the numbers work.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
AGM timing discussed, decision deferred
During a review of the action tracker, a question came up about when the corporation should hold its Annual General Meeting.
Staff explained that the corporation’s fiscal year matches the calendar year, but in recent years audited financial statements have not arrived until the fall. Board members agreed that it makes sense to tie the AGM to audited numbers. There was also recognition that council representation on the board could change after the next municipal election, which may affect leadership roles.
Rather than rush a decision, the chair confirmed the AGM date would come back as a future agenda item once timing is clearer.
Disraeli site: survey work underway
The meeting then shifted to the Disraeli site working group update. One of the immediate next steps is a topographical survey, which is needed to finalize grading and ramp details in the site plan drawings. Staff confirmed the survey would be completed that week and sent to the project team.
The estimated cost for the survey is approximately $2,500, and the board amended its motion to reflect that amount before carrying it. It was a small but important step, since finalizing site details helps keep the project moving toward building permit readiness.
Financing dominates the conversation
The bulk of the meeting centered on the draft pro forma for the Disraeli build. Staff walked the board through the financial model, which includes pre-development costs already paid, operating assumptions, property management costs, a building reserve, and the projected mortgage.
Two major variables drive whether the project works financially: the interest rate on the construction or long-term loan and the mix between affordable units and market units
The number of affordable units matters because certain municipal supports, like property tax waivers, are tied to affordability. At the same time, higher rents from market units improve the debt coverage ratio (DCR), which lenders use to decide whether a project is viable. More rental income means a stronger DCR. More affordability means less income, but greater social impact.
That balancing act was front and centre throughout the discussion.
Interest rates still uncertain
Staff reported they are actively exploring multiple financing paths, including the Apartment Construction Loan Program and Infrastructure Ontario. Preliminary information from Infrastructure Ontario suggested potentially lower interest rates than some other options, but firm commitments and eligibility requirements still need to be confirmed.
Board members questioned how different rate scenarios were being shown in the spreadsheet, and staff acknowledged that some figures were placeholders used for comparison while waiting for clearer information. A couple of spreadsheet inconsistencies were identified during the meeting, including a mortgage payment calculation error, which staff committed to correct.
Because of those outstanding adjustments, the pro forma was received for information only. It was not approved as final.
Can the project move without grants?
Another major theme was the role of grants and capital funding. Board members discussed federal and other government funding streams, but staff noted that some application processes lack clear evaluation criteria. There was interest in pursuing funding opportunities, but also concern about timing. Waiting too long for grants could stall the project.
A practical question was raised about whether a loan could be structured so that if a grant is received later, the funds could be used to pay down the mortgage. Staff indicated that would depend on lender terms.
There was a candid acknowledgement that reducing capital costs through grant funding would make the project far less risky. At the same time, several members expressed confidence that by adjusting multiple pieces of the pro forma, including rents, fees, and potential equity contributions, the numbers might be brought into workable range.
Fundraising back on the table
The board also revisited the idea of local fundraising. A suggestion was made to explore tools such as community bonds or partnerships that could help subsidize rents or enhance affordability without directly altering the base rental structure. Staff cautioned that bond programs are regulated and complex, and that major capital campaigns can be costly to run.
Still, the board agreed it was worth exploring. A motion carried directing staff to bring back information about potential fundraising opportunities. Members acknowledged that the existing fundraising working group would need to be reconstituted.
Municipal fee waivers discussed
Another significant discussion revolved around municipal fees and charges, including development-related fees and building permit costs. Some board members questioned whether it made sense for a wholly municipally owned housing corporation to effectively charge itself those fees. Staff clarified that any waivers would require council approval.
Rather than approach council with incomplete information, the board landed on a practical strategy. Staff will prepare two versions of the pro forma, one including municipal charges and another showing the impact if those charges are waived.
This approach allows council to clearly see how much difference fee waivers would make to the project’s viability. A motion carried directing staff to bring back further information related to potential waivers and policy development.
Updated drawings and contract progress
Beyond financing, there was an update on the project’s technical progress. Board members said the latest drawings reflect working group feedback. Staff confirmed additional revisions are underway and that grading details will be finalized once the topographical survey is complete.
There was also reference to work underway on a CCDC 14 fixed price contract, a standardized Canadian construction contract format. Using a standardized document helps reduce legal costs and provides a vetted framework for construction agreements.
Special meeting likely
With time pressure mounting, the board discussed scheduling a special meeting in roughly two weeks. The goal would be to review a revised pro forma with corrected numbers, updated lender information, and clearer understanding of available cash reserves or equity contributions.
Staff emphasized the need to confirm lender requirements before locking in a direction. The board agreed that once those pieces are clearer, decisions can move quickly.
Key takeaways
The Disraeli project is advancing, but final financing decisions depend on confirmed interest rates and a clean, corrected pro forma.
The board is actively exploring multiple paths at once, including Infrastructure Ontario financing, grants, fundraising, and potential municipal fee waivers.
A special meeting is expected soon to keep momentum going and avoid delays as the board works to get its first build across the line.
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.
Comments