Part 1: NRCan Funding Exploration, Project Planning, and Procurement Review – 02/24/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 24
- 4 min read
The Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation Board met on February 24, 2026 for a special meeting at Shire Hall in Picton. The session was chaired by Councillor Phil St-Jean, who confirmed quorum and opened the meeting by moving quickly through the formal business outlined in the published agenda .
While the agenda itself was brief and largely procedural, the meeting took a meaningful turn when board members introduced an amendment to discuss a time-sensitive federal funding opportunity connected to one of the Corporation’s active housing projects.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
A Late Addition With Big Potential
After confirming the agenda, Councillor Kate MacNaughton brought forward a motion to amend it. The amendment added a discussion item regarding the Natural Resources Canada Offsite Construction Challenge, a federal funding competition focused on innovative and energy-efficient building approaches.
The opportunity arose from a recent email sent to the Corporation by a modular construction company currently involved with the Disraeli Street project. The company expressed interest in partnering with the County and another firm to submit a joint application under the NRCan program.
Staff summarized the opportunity for the board. The competition includes two phases. Semi-finalists could receive up to $180,000 in funding toward design work, while the grand prize winner could receive up to $10 million toward construction.
Board members focused their discussion on how participation might fit within existing procurement rules and project timelines, particularly in relation to the Nile Street project, which has been under consideration.
Procurement and Process Questions
Albert Paschkowiak, Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor, raised an early question about whether partnering on the grant application could create the appearance of favouring a particular builder before a formal Request for Proposals process is launched.
Staff clarified that the design funding would not replace or bypass procurement requirements. If the Corporation were successful in Phase 1, the resulting architectural and conceptual plans would still be used to inform a competitive RFP process, in accordance with the County’s procurement by-law. The intent would be to have a more refined design before going to market.
Board members also discussed timing. Phase 1 awards are expected this spring, while Phase 2 funding would not be decided until roughly a year later. That raised practical considerations about how the timeline might align with the Corporation’s goals for Nile Street.
Councillor MacNaughton noted that understanding the details of the competition, including how many winners might be selected and how competitive the process could be, would be important before fully committing.
Role of Community Partners
Another consideration involved the Wellington Food Bank, which has previously been discussed as a potential tenant in a future project.
Paschkowiak asked whether the Food Bank would need to be formally included in the application at this stage. Board members acknowledged that outreach to the organization would be necessary if the project were to include them, but it was not clear that their formal participation would be required in the first phase of the competition.
Chair St-Jean confirmed that staff had already been in contact with the Food Bank regarding recent developments and agreed that further coordination would be needed if the grant opportunity moves forward.
A Two-Step Approach
Given the tight application window, which closes March 27, the board discussed how to proceed without committing prematurely.
Rather than immediately approving submission of an application, members agreed on a more measured approach. The board passed a motion directing staff to explore partnering with Theberge Homes and 720 Modular to submit an application under the NRCan Offsite Construction Challenge in support of the Nile Street project.
Staff were instructed to review site suitability, partner roles, governance structure, municipal participation requirements, timeline considerations, and next steps, and to report back at the March 9 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously, allowing staff to begin discussions while preserving the board’s ability to decide later whether to proceed with a formal application.
Following the grant discussion, the board moved into closed session under Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act to consider matters related to land acquisition and financial information .
Upon returning to open session, Councillor MacNaughton brought forward a motion directing staff to prepare a revised pro forma and a presentation to Council. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
Key Takeaways
The Affordable Housing Corporation is exploring a federal funding opportunity that could provide up to $180,000 for design work and potentially up to $10 million for construction.
Any participation in the grant program would still require a competitive procurement process, and no builder has been selected.
Staff will return on March 9 with more details before any final decision is made on submitting an application.
This special meeting was short in length but significant in scope, signaling that the Corporation continues to actively seek external funding options to advance affordable housing projects in the County.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:43:35. 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