Comment
Red flags
What some folks appear to be missing from the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation (Housing Corp) story is that failing to properly create and manage affordable housing threatens to jeopardize progress for a long, long time.
Done badly—and managed badly—an eight-unit apartment block will become a massive and expensive headache this municipality can ill afford. It will be particularly bad for those who need affordable housing.
Done poorly, it risks raising a giant Do Not Go Here sign on Disraeli Street. It will discourage investment. It will dampen inspiration and ambition. For a long time. It will set the goal of municipally driven affordable housing back decades. There is a cost to doing this badly—even if the goal is worthy.
The Housing Corp board has raced through a series of bright red flags— choosing to ignore the risks piling up in their wake. Why would County taxpayers believe it will be different if it invests further in this project?
The Housing Corp has no experience in building anything, let alone a multi-million-dollar structure. Yet, it has sole-sourced construction to an Ottawa based builder. (Was there no local builder able to construct it?)
The Housing Corp has no experience managing rental stock—vetting tenants, collecting rents, evicting non-payers or navigating the Landlord and Tenant Board. Who will manage maintenance and repairs? Will this fall on municipal staff? Operating a rental building, even an eight-unit apartment block, requires a set of skills and expertise that the Housing Corp board doesn’t have.
Other levels of government have declined to invest in this project. Twice. Pools of money exist at the federal and provincial levels to fund this type of project—yet the Housing Corp has been unsuccessful in attracting this funding.
The folks who adjudicate such applications are seasoned professionals. They rely on expertise and market insight to assess the viability of development plans. Their mandate is to build affordable housing and to flow money into community projects to get it done. Yet they have twice declined to put their public capital into this project.
Then there is the 50-year mortgage. The standard length of a home or commercial mortgage is 20, 25, or 30 years. A 50-year mortgage is extremely rare—only offered in unusual circumstances. It is only possible because it is backed by property taxpayers who support the County’s credit.
It is also really, really expensive. According to the Housing Corp board chair’s April 23 presentation to Council, the Housing Corp mortgage will cost $9,541 per month for 600 months. Assuming interest rates remain unchanged for several generations, it adds up to a total cost of $5.7 million for a $2.2 million loan. The gobsmacking cost alone ought to have put the brakes on this plan.
Then there are the warnings from the County’s senior leadership. The finance director wants to be helpful, but the Housing Corp already owes $700,000. He is responsible for a County that will spend $110 million this year. He can’t afford to forgive loans or extend further credit. The County Chief Administrative Officer is on the record as stating that, in his view, the project doesn’t work without external funding, i.e., provincial or federal agencies.
While it intends to build an eight-unit apartment block, only three units will be available at affordable rates under the current plan. The remainder will be priced according to market rents.
The Housing Corp board has churned through members since it was formed in 2018. Currently, five of the nine directors are sitting council members. They may mean well. But it isn’t enough.
This community needs affordable housing. On this point, there is no debate. It is the easy bit. But need and execution are vastly different things. Wanting something badly doesn’t entitle you to it—no matter how much you wish it so. It can close your eyes to the risks.
Some council/board members argue that if the County fronts it a few hundred thousand dollars, and; if it is constructed; and if it provides homes to three worthy tenants, and; if they pay the rent, they will have proved the funding agencies were wrong to turn them down. That, if it all works out, perhaps federal and provincial funding taps will flow. It is a lot of wishful thinking.
The Housing Corp board is scanning the horizon for a villain in their story—something to explain eight years of fruitless existence.
‘Council discontinued funding’. ‘Other governments wouldn’t invest’. ‘The County finance director refused to convert debt to equity’.
Somewhere along the way, the Housing Corp board lost sight of the folks they were supposed to serve— the folks who actually need affordable housing. They became infatuated with a builder and the idea of an apartment block in Picton. The building became the thing.
Just getting the eight-unit apartment block out of the ground has become the goal. It is how success will be measured. Ribbons cut. Banners unfurled.
What the Housing Corp board seems to miss is the very real risk that it doesn’t work—the significance of the trail of red flags in their rear-view mirror—the cost of doing it badly.
Our community will be richer and more productive when affordable housing is done well and managed well. We are, sadly, a long way from that.
The big ask that is coming to Council for this boondoggle will fail. Will not pass the smell test in an Election Year even if 5 Board Councilors attempt to ram it through. Need 7 Councilors to stand strong against this mess!
BTW. Speaking of “Red Flags”. Please keep this date in mind: June 23, 2026 – Regular Council Meeting
1. “Draft Council Code of Conduct” to be presented by the Clerks Dept. for their review.
2. “Inaugural Annual Report” from David Boghosian, our Integrity Commissioner.
Please note: Mr. D. Boghosian had been appointed as our Integrity Commissioner February, 2025. The following article should be of particular concern to the Residents of PEC, and had been published by The Pointer last October 11, 2025. I would recommend reading the entire article. If it concerns you as much as it concerns me, please let Council know about your thoughts on this before the June 23 meeting of Council.
https://thepointer.com/article/2025-10-11/after-integrity-commissioner-called-public-oversight-of-his-work-a-political-circus-caledon-stopped-his-outrageous-move-to-silence-residents
To send a Group Email to Council:
LINK: council@pecounty.on.ca
On May 25, 2026 I received a response to my Action Request for information about PECAHC. This response came from Elis Ziegler, Affordable Housing Supervisor, Housing Department [Shire Hall] to myself. The questions and answers are intact, as follows:
Financial Statements: All of the PECAHC audited financial statements are available on this page of its website to view or download.
LINK: https://www.pecahc.ca/financial-statements
From Elis Ziegler – Your questions from last week with mine in italics:
1. Regarding the three Public Representatives who left the PECAHC, please provide the dates and meetings [including a link to those meetings] when they left the corporation.
The three board members resigned at the PECAHC meeting of January 11 2025. Their resignations were accepted by Council at their meeting January 28, 2025. Councillor Grosso and MacNaughton were appointed at the same meeting.
2. Regarding the three Interim Councillors who replaced the PECAHC Public Representatives, you mentioned this occurred in 2025. Please provide the dates and meetings [including a link to those meetings] whey these Interim Councillors were appointed.
All Council appointments are put forth based on interest and confirmed by Council. The first two were appointed as above, the third was appointed as below.
3. I want to know WHY members of Council were chosen as Interim Representatives when the Maximum number of Councillors for the PECAHC is specifically stated as Two Councillors.
At that time, no other public members had applied, and Council had to maintain quorum on the PECAHC Board, so filled the vacant positions. An additional appointment was required in August when the remaining public member was hired as Municipal staff and could not continue the Board position as a result, Councillor Hirsch was appointed at the same Council meeting August 25, 2025 that the resignation was accepted. As to why, Councillors generally accept nominations for Municipal Committees and Boards which interest them, out of personal interest or professional expertise. Councillors sit on 19 Boards and Committees, not including Ward Recreation Committees.
4. Presently the PECAHC is an unbalanced, and illegal entity in favour of members of (five councillors) Council vs. members of the Public (four public representatives) who this is supposed to represent. I want to know who is responsible in Shire Hall for authorizing this – name, title and contact information.
There is no one person responsible. As PECAHC is a Municipal Services Corporation of the Municipality which is its sole shareholder, PECAHC is solely responsible to the municipality and vice versa. The municipality was required to ensure there were enough board members. Council’s decision to appoint subsequent temporary Councillor members is completely within in its right in the absence of public members available. There were no public members who had applied nor who represented the skill set required by its incorporation documents at that time. A recruitment drive was launched in the fall of 2025, after the last public board member sitting had resigned, from which four public members were confirmed as Directors and an education session was held at the December 8, 2025 meeting of the Board. We are conducting another recruitment drive presently. The intention is to have as many qualified public members, so another recruitment drive will happen again, likely late this year.
On May 16, 2026 I received a response from David Boghosian, our Integrity Commissioner where I’d expressed my concern about a Conflict of Interest with regard to having Five Members of Council on the PECAHC. His response follows:
IC Response:
Section 4.(h) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act 9”MCIA”) contains an exemption to the requirement of recusing oneself from the debate and vote on a matter in precisely the circumstances you set out in your letter. That section of the MCIA reads as follows.
4. Sections 5, 5.2 and 5.3 do not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have,
…
(h) by reason only of the member being a director or senior officer of a corporation incorporated for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality or local board or by reason only of the member being a member of a board, commission, or other body as an appointee of a council or local board;
The Members of Council who sit on the PEC Affordable Housing Corporation board – a corporation set up to carry on business on behalf of the municipality – are therefore not in a conflict of interest in participating in Council debates regarding funding of the Corporation and its business.
When does Council deal with this boondoggle?
To all appearances, they won’t.
I’ve asked Mr. E. Ziegler about this today, and am awaiting a response. I want to know if these positions are to increase the Public Representation to nine members from seven, or if it is meant to remove the Interim Councillors [in which case, they should be seeking to fill three positions, not two]. Unless someone else wishes to ask their Ward Councillor over the weekend [mine doesn’t want to know me], I guess we’ll just have to wait until I get a response, hmmm?
Councilor Harrison needs to respond to residents.
Don’t see why he’d start now. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know anyone who has any idea what he’s done for our Ward [not PEC as a whole – that’s easy enough to find out] since we elected him. The only thing I do know that he’s done for sure, is vote in favour of a developer over the wishes of more than half the people who voted for him in the first place, with no explanation afforded to the residents.
As of May 29, 2026, in Prince Edward County, a 1-bedroom apartment averages $1,800 per month and a 2-bedroom apartment averages just under $2,500 per month.
The maximum “affordable unit” limits based on the current formula, are $1,200 per month for a 1-bedroom, and $1,500 per month for a 2-bedroom.
To subsidise the (1) 1-bedroom and (2) 2-bedroom units that are in the proposal for Disraeli Street, the arithmetic says this would cost the County $600 + $1,000 + $1,000 = $2,600 per month.
Consider this: the Affordable Housing Supervisor position on the County Payroll is on the 2025 Sunshine list as being paid annual salary + benefits of $104,205, which is just over $8,600 per month. With 0 units delivered in 8 years of the PECAHC’s existence.
If just that ONE POSITION was eliminated, and the County subsidised the rent for 3 existing available units, the County would SAVE $6,000 PER MONTH, which could be used for more units, WITHOUT BUILDING A THING.
And this could be done by the stroke of a pen.
The PECAHC could be shut down and abolished by a Motion tabled in a Council meeting, approved by 8 Councillors, unless it was overridden by the Mayor using the “Strong Mayor” powers.
The 8 Councillors that are NOT on the PECAHC “Board” have to step up, and move, second and vote In Favour of such a Motion, and they should do that NOW. Enough waste of taxpayer money and inaction for the people on the waiting list.
Rather than reinvent the wheel in reply to numerous comments herein, I refer to PARACHUTE PACKING’s concise and superb earlier summary of the PECAHC boondoggle:
MAY 16, 2026 AT 8:43 AM PARACHUTE PACKING (c) 2026
@Mark Guslits – with respect, using your experience with the City of Toronto’s “Let’s Build Affordable Housing” program to discuss what could be done with Prince Edward County’s PECAHC enterprise, is comparing “chalk with cheese”.
For example, a simple Google search with the query “what is the population of the metro area served by the City of Toronto’s Let’s Build Affordable Housing Program” shows:
“The metropolitan area explicitly served by the City of Toronto’s housing programs has an estimated population of 3.27 million people within the city proper, while the broader Greater Toronto Area (GTA) it impacts encompasses a population of approximately 6.7 million people.”
The City of Toronto’s Let’s Build Affordable Housing Program was launched in a different time – 1999. And it took approximately 3.5 years to get to where tenants could occupy any “affordable” units, even with the considerable critical mass, size and resources of Toronto.
PECAHC was launched in 2018, and has delivered 0 units to date, despite spending hundreds of thousands of County treasury. Now the 5 Councillors, led by one of the 2 candidates for the “Strong Mayor” position in the October election, is asking for the County treasury to fund MILLIONS more over a time horizon of 45 years, to deliver … wait for it … 3 units.
And the earliest possible date that the fortunate 3 tenants could get the keys to their spanking new “affordable” units is 2027, almost 10 years after the enterprise was launched.
It’s great that you want to share your Toronto experience. But, (assuming that you now pay property taxes to the County), do you enjoy the prospect of sharing your County tax dollars for such a project?
If recent public info is to be believed, the PECAHC wants the County to waive $108,000 in municipal connection fees and building permit charges, and then allow a drawdown of $2,625,000 from a municipal “line of credit” to pay the Ottawa modular builder (Theberge Construction Limited) as work begins.
Here is a summary of the financials:
Taxpayer funds spent to run PECAHC between 2019–2022 –> $770,000
Waived building and connection fees absorbed by the County –> $108,000
Total shortfall between bank financing and build cost –> $463,000 (based on Finance Director Arryn McNicol’s warnings that First National Bank’s commitment to the County only covers $2,162,000 of the $2,625,000 build cost, leaving an un-financed gap of roughly $463,000 that will fall directly onto County taxpayers.
All of the above, PLUS the County will have to cover the 20.4% monthly cash-flow deficit caused by the 0.796 Debt Service Ratio to prevent mortgage default.
All this for … wait for it … 3 (Three) “affordable” rental units.
Because PECAHC cannot magically generate market revenues from capped affordable units, the yearly operational deficit will roll back into the County’s annual budget cycle, forcing local property taxpayers to subsidize the shortfall.
You and the other Board members may be comfortable with your share of the property tax increases that will be required to fund this.
I certainly am not.
I would, however, consider the idea of the County “subsidizing” 3 lucky tenants for the difference between current “market” rent and “affordable” rent.
The proposed Disraeli Street project would deliver ONE 1-bedroom and TWO 2-bedroom units. Current difference between “market” and “affordable” rent for a 1-bedroom unit in PEC is $666 per month (no joke) and $800 per month for a 2-bedroom unit.
Such a subsidy would then cost County taxpayers $2,266 per month to deliver affordable housing for the 3 lucky tenants.
For comparison, the monthly carrying cost for the $770,000 ALREADY BLOWN by the PECAHC since 2018, is at least $3,800 per month, possibly more depending on the interest rate the County has paid over that time (which is NOT disclosed).
This is not financial wizardry, nor smoke and mirrors. The whole approach of trying to get a Toronto / Ottawa solution to a County problem has been flawed from the start, and this enterprise must be shut ASAP to prevent further waste of time and resources while people wait for a solution to their problems
https://www.quintenews.com/2026/05/27/affordable-housing-corporation-seeking-new-board-members/
So, rather than shut this money pit down, they want new Board members.
Ridiculous.
For 3 units (which is what this latest proposal is for), they could subsidise the difference between “Market Rent” and “Affordable Rent” for a TINY FRACTION of what they are asking for.
And they could do this right away, which would deliver at least some relief to 3 applicants on the waiting list.
And if there are no “Market Rent” places available at all, that’s a whole other problem that the County government has no business trying to solve.
Nope. Not new board members. I suspect these are to replace the members of Council who are “Interim Representatives” [ie temporary, in order to make a quorum for voting purposes – don’t know. I haven’t finished wading my way through the documentation Elis Ziegler passed on to me through my Action Request. PECAHC, however, hasn’t replaced the three Public Representatives in over a year now. Perhaps nobody wants to get involved?
Shut this down, Council. ASAP!
Shut it down definitely! You could buy a 3 unit apartment in Town for a fraction of the cost of this venture. Ask Councilor Harrison or Councilor Englesdorfer if they can support such a foolish venture! Put it to bed, dissolve this useless Corporation that has run 8 years and not delivered a single unit. Just the staffing costs alone is justified!
Now then. I have reread the link to the notice Hopeful provided, and may be incorrect about the PECAHC seeking two NEW members to REPLACE two of the three interim councillors. It does sound like they really are looking for two new members. Now what are they doing? I thought it was to be a maximum of two councillors and seven public representatives. Will these two Board members replace two Councillors who shouldn’t be there in the first place…or not? And what about that third interim councillor who shouldn’t be there either?
As others have mentioned, regarding Shire Hall over the last few years – is this yet another example of “Empire Building” from an internal Shire Hall Corporation using taxpayer dollars, which many of the residents are not in support of? Perhaps if it’s “bigger’n’better”, Council will let it live for a little while longer? If so, I really pity the incoming council members come October. What a mess.
I stand corrected. These are two NEW board members being recruited. The intention is to wait until after the election before replacing the Interim Councillor representatives. They are allowed, I think, up to ten (11? – I’d have to go over the responses to my queries again to be sure) board members, but only require five in total for a quorum. Which still leaves me wondering why Council saw fit to step into this at all and lock up FIVE votes in Council for something they should never have been involved in, in the first place. And if the PECAHC Governance hasn’t filled all the public representations that they are allotted, after eight years, and with nothing to show for it, who in PEC is qualified to be on this board as a public representative, and why aren’t they stepping up? And what, exactly, are the qualifications for those three Interim Council Representatives for this board anyway? The latest tactic of this Corporation is to “ask” for $500,000 from the MAT fund, which is the PEC’s portion to decide on how to use it. Excuse me, but wouldn’t that be better put into equipment for our new hospital, so that it serves everyone?
Great message. Will Council listen to their citizens ? We await.
Why on Earth would they start listening now? It’s worked for them thus far.
Why couldn’t these “geniusses”, as money came in, simply purchase individual condos and/or tiny house and rent them below market value?
The tried and tested rule is: Follow the money.
However:
1) This is tough to do here in the County; and
2) Once you ask this question, you will immediately be labelled as a troublemaker at best, and at worst, accused of slander / libel.
Asking the question does not make you guilty of these things, from a legal standpoint.
Follow the money.
If it’s not possible to follow the money, THAT’S A BIGGER PROBLEM.
How could any Council answerable to the taxpayer approve such a nonsensical plan? How could a lame duck Council stick a new Council 5 months away with these absurd expenses?
To undertake a mortgage of that length and cost to say that you created three (3) affordable housing units is pure insanity. The Councilors should step away from this boondoggle admit failure and move to dissolve this Housing Corporation. This is a major election issue if I’ve ever seen one!