Part 2: Nile Street Delays, Board Recruitment, and Housing Funding Decisions – 04/13/2026

The update on the Nile Street development was brief, but a few members pushed for clarity. Elis Ziegler explained that testing had already been completed, but results from the lab were still pending. The delay, according to staff, was not in the testing itself but in receiving confirmation back from external sources.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Board members wanted timelines. Councillor Brad Nieman asked directly when testing would be done, while another member followed up on when it was originally supposed to be completed. Staff acknowledged that the process was running behind schedule by a couple of weeks.

Councillor Phil St.-Jean (Chair) stepped in to clarify that results could come at any time and would likely be shared by email once received. In the end, there was no formal vote tied to this update. The board simply received the update, with Councillor John Hirsch and Hilary Spriggs moving and seconding that motion, and all members voting in favour.

Fundraising and Recruitment

The discussion around the fundraising working group turned into a broader conversation about board capacity. Elis outlined that the working group needed to be re-established, noting that only one member remained active. Instead of rushing appointments, the board agreed to hold off until more members could participate.

From there, Councillor Kate MacNaughton raised a more forward-looking idea. She suggested that the Corporation should move ahead with a new recruitment process, specifically looking for candidates with experience in fundraising and capital campaigns. She explained that this had been discussed previously and felt it was time to move forward.

Bob Waldon supported the idea and suggested that staff could begin recruitment right away, even before formally updating the board’s skills matrix. His approach was practical. Rather than delaying another month, the recruitment materials could simply highlight the expertise the board is currently missing.

Hilary added another layer to the conversation. While she agreed on the need for fundraising expertise, she also pointed out that future projects will likely require people with experience in joint ventures, land structuring, and financing models. Her comments reflected the growing complexity of affordable housing development.

St-Jean responded by noting that some of these skills are already captured under development or legal categories, but agreed that refining how they are described could help attract the right candidates.

In the end, there was no formal motion to launch recruitment. Instead, the board reached a general consensus to move forward, and staff confirmed they would adjust the language in the skills matrix as needed. A motion to receive the discussion was passed, moved by Mark Guslits and seconded by Hilary Spriggs, with all members in favour.

Closed Session: Funding Strategy Takes Shape

The most concrete decision of the meeting came after the board returned from closed session. Bob Waldon read out the motion that had been developed behind closed doors. The motion directed staff to revise a report to Council that would clearly outline the current funding status of housing initiatives and explore several financial tools.

This included looking at waiving municipal charges, identifying other municipal funding supports, and examining opportunities for equity partnerships and profit sharing agreements, along with expanded fundraising efforts.

The motion was moved by Mark Guslits, with a seconder called from the floor, and it passed with all members voting in favour. There was no opposition recorded.

This was one of the clearest signals from the meeting. The board is not only tracking projects, but actively working to build the financial structure needed to move them forward.

What This Means for the Locals

For residents across the County, these decisions may feel behind the scenes, but they point to how affordable housing projects are likely to evolve.

Delays like the one on Nile Street show how dependent projects are on external approvals and testing. Even when work is underway, timelines can shift. For locals waiting on new housing supply, this means progress can be uneven and updates may come in stages rather than all at once.

The push for new board members with fundraising and development expertise suggests the County is preparing for more complex projects. This could mean partnerships with private developers or alternative funding models instead of relying only on municipal budgets.

The direction given in closed session signals a bigger shift. By exploring tools like fee waivers, equity partnerships, and profit sharing, the Corporation is looking for ways to make projects financially viable in a challenging market.

For residents, that could translate into more housing opportunities over time, but through models that may look different from traditional municipal builds.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:47:29. 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.