PEC’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING STORY NEEDS A SCORECARD — NOT ANOTHER VICTORY LAP

Local issues. Ontario-wide lessons

Seven years after creating its Affordable Housing Corporation, the County’s own records show an organization still described as being in the “development stage,” generating no operating revenue and relying on County support and outside funding. Meanwhile, one flagship project carries a projected cost of more than $3 million for eight units—only three of them affordable under the current base case.

Prince Edward County unquestionably has a housing problem.

The County’s own 2024 Housing Plan estimated that approximately 2,700 additional purpose-built rental units were needed, including roughly 1,350 affordable units and 150 supportive or subsidized units. Those numbers make affordable housing a legitimate municipal concern. But they also make accountability essential. The question taxpayers should now be asking isn’t how many units have been discussed, contemplated, approved or announced. It is much simpler:

After years of municipal effort, what has actually been delivered—and what has it cost?

WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?

PECAHC’s governance is closely connected to Prince Edward County. Its board includes several sitting councillors, while its staff team includes the municipality’s Chief Administrative Officer and an Affordable Housing Supervisor.

https://www.pecahc.ca/governance-team

That makes this more than a discussion about an outside housing organization. Elected officials and municipal administration have direct roles in its governance and operations—and taxpayers are entitled to ask them about the results.

SEVEN YEARS AFTER CREATION, PECAHC IS STILL “DEVELOPMENT-STAGE”

Prince Edward County established its Affordable Housing Corporation in 2018. The County describes it as a municipally initiated, independent non-profit corporation, with the municipality as its sole shareholder member. Now consider what the County’s own finance department reported in March 2026. PECAHC remained in a: “development-stage position.”

The report goes further. It says the corporation does not currently generate operating revenue and remains dependent upon County support and external funding to advance its projects. That’s a remarkable benchmark after roughly seven years. It doesn’t mean the corporation has accomplished nothing. Planning, land assembly, financing and development work can take years.

But taxpayers are entitled to distinguish between organizational activity and housing delivered. That distinction should be front and centre whenever PEC discusses its affordable-housing accomplishments.

THE CORPORATION OWED MONEY TO THE COUNTY—WITHOUT FORMAL REPAYMENT TERMS

Here’s another detail buried in the March financial report. County expenditures advanced on PECAHC’s behalf included project development expenses as well as administrative and shared-service costs. But as of December 31, 2025, those advances had not yet been formalized into a structured loan agreement with defined repayment terms.

The County’s finance department also reported that the amount PECAHC owed the County exceeded its available financial assets, leaving the corporation with a negative net financial asset position. PECAHC held approximately $549,075 in cash at year-end, but some of that was associated with CMHC project funding, and staff were still reconciling funding obligations and possible repayment requirements. This deserves considerably more public attention.

Taxpayers should be told plainly:

How much does PECAHC currently owe the County?
When will it be repaid?
On what terms?
How much County money has been advanced since 2018 in total?

And most importantly:

What completed housing has resulted from that investment?

THE $3-MILLION EIGHT-UNIT PROJECT

Perhaps the most revealing document is PECAHC’s own February 27, 2026 costing analysis for 30 Disraeli Street in Picton. The proposal is for a three-storey modular building containing: Eight apartments.

The projected total project cost: $3,013,453.

But here’s the number residents should notice. Under the February base-case pro forma, only three of the eight units are classified as affordable. Five are market units. That’s 38% affordable housing in a project being advanced by the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation. The arithmetic is worth contemplating.

The overall capital cost works out to approximately $376,700 per apartment. That doesn’t mean taxpayers are writing a $376,700 cheque for every unit—the project anticipates mortgage financing and rental revenue. But it does demonstrate why headlines about “eight affordable housing units” require considerable qualification. The County’s own February costing document says: 3 affordable. 5 market.

AND THE PROJECT RELIES ON MUNICIPAL CONCESSIONS

The same pro forma assumes $222,756 in waived municipal charges. That consists of approximately:

$114,146 in development charges;
$102,883 in water and sewer connection charges; and
$5,727 in building permit fees.

The model also incorporates a $10,000 annual property-tax waiver. The staff report is particularly interesting here. It says PECAHC intended to request that Council waive 100% of building-permit fees, service-connection costs and property taxes based on the structural relationship between the County and PECAHC—not based upon the number or definition of affordable rents.

That distinction matters. Taxpayers aren’t merely entitled to know how much cash government spends. They should also know the value of revenues government chooses not to collect. A waived charge is still an economic subsidy.

THE PROJECT WAS ALSO PROJECTED TO RUN AN OPERATING SHORTFALL

PECAHC’s March staff report says revisions to the Disraeli pro forma produced a projected $15,000 annual operating shortfall for the first three years, which was expected to be self-funded. The project also contemplated roughly $2.7 million in mortgage financing. The County construction-loan arrangement required 2.5% interest-only payments during construction, followed by repayment. Staff concluded that carrying the County loan over its five-year amortization would produce payments too high for the project, meaning the construction loan would need to be repaid in full within 60 days after construction using take-out financing.

Again, none of this necessarily makes the project unsound. It makes the financing considerably more complicated than “the County is building eight affordable units.”

THEN SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENS: A $1.7-MILLION GRANT COULD TRANSFORM THE NUMBERS

The March report reveals something else. PECAHC planned to seek approximately $1.7 million from Build Canada Homes. If successful, staff said the funding could move all eight units into very-low- and low-income categories. That’s potentially excellent news for future tenants. But it also exposes the central economic question.

If approximately $1.7 million of additional federal grant funding is necessary to transform an eight-unit project from three affordable units into eight deeply affordable units, taxpayers deserve to see the complete public subsidy per unit. That calculation should include: municipal land value, waived charges, property-tax exemptions, County advances, staff costs, grants and other government contributions. Then compare that number against alternative ways of producing affordable housing. That’s how taxpayers determine value for money.

THERE IS AN EVEN BIGGER ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION

PECAHC’s 2026 finance report doesn’t merely say it currently lacks rental revenue. It says the corporation continues to depend on County advances and external funding and identifies the absence of a formalized repayment structure for the amount due to the County as a financial consideration. Meanwhile, Council had previously authorized a $5-million construction loan facility at 2.5% interest for five years. That makes PECAHC more than an advocacy or planning body. Taxpayers have real financial exposure to its success. They therefore deserve corporate-style performance reporting.

STOP COUNTING FUTURE HOMES AS PRESENT RESULTS

This may be the most important reform PEC could make. Every housing project should be reported in one of clearly defined stages:

Proposed → Planning Approved → Financed → Construction Started → Completed → Occupied → Affordable and Occupied

Do not combine them.

A project contemplated for 2028 is not housing.
A planning approval is not housing.
A funding application is not housing.
A memorandum of understanding is not housing.
A building under construction isn’t yet someone’s home.
And a market-rate apartment isn’t an affordable apartment simply because it is located inside a project containing some affordable units.

That distinction becomes particularly important when large private developments are included in discussions of the County’s housing pipeline.

EVEN PEC’S DEFINITION OF “AFFORDABLE” DESERVES ATTENTION

There is another number buried in the 2024 Housing Plan. The County’s affordability framework identifies $68,800 in gross household income as its 60th-percentile threshold for 2024. Using the 30% housing-cost benchmark, the document shows an affordability figure of approximately $1,720 per month at that income. That may comply with the applicable policy framework. But residents should understand what the label means. “Affordable” does not necessarily mean affordable to someone receiving Ontario Works.

It doesn’t necessarily mean affordable to a single minimum-wage worker. It doesn’t necessarily mean deeply affordable housing. There are different affordability levels serving very different populations. PEC should report them separately.

THE HOUSING CORPORATION SHOULD PUBLISH A SEVEN-YEAR TAXPAYER LEDGER

There is a straightforward way for Council to clear away the promotional language and allow residents to judge the program fairly.

Publish one table covering 2018 through 2026.

For every year show:

County cash contributed.
County staff costs.
County land transferred or committed and its appraised value.
Consulting and professional fees.
Development charges and fees waived.
Property taxes waived.
Federal and provincial grants received.
Debt and County advances outstanding.
Units proposed.
Units approved.
Units under construction.
Units completed.
Units occupied.
Units actually meeting the County’s affordability definition.
Units meeting a deeply affordable threshold.

Then calculate:

TOTAL PUBLIC INVESTMENT PER COMPLETED AFFORDABLE UNIT.

That single number would tell residents more about municipal housing performance than another summit, strategy or announcement ever could.

PEC’S OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE THE CASE FOR GREATER SCRUTINY

There is nothing inherently wrong with a municipality working with developers, seeking federal grants, using modular construction or subsidizing affordable housing. Some of those approaches may be exactly what PEC needs. Nor do these documents establish misconduct. But they do reveal a much more complicated picture than a simple narrative of affordable-housing momentum.

A corporation created in 2018 was still officially described as development-stage at the end of 2025. It generated no operating revenue. It remained reliant upon County support and external funding. County advances had not yet been formalized into a structured repayment agreement with defined terms. And one of its principal projects carried a projected price exceeding $3 million for eight apartments, with the base case providing only three affordable units before the hoped-for injection of substantial additional federal grant money. Those aren’t allegations. They are numbers contained in PEC’s own documents.

And they lead to a question Council should be willing to answer publicly:

After seven years, how much public money, municipal land, foregone revenue and staff capacity has Prince Edward County committed to its affordable-housing strategy—and how many completed, occupied, genuinely affordable homes have taxpayers received in return?

Until PEC publishes that scorecard, residents should be cautious about measuring success by projects toured, units contemplated, partnerships announced or funding applications submitted. The housing crisis is measured in homes people can actually live in. Municipal housing policy should be measured the same way.

Disclaimer: This article is public-interest commentary based on publicly available municipal records reviewed as of August 26, 2026. Financial projections and proposed developments can change. References to projected costs, financing, affordability and municipal contributions should not be interpreted as allegations of wrongdoing. Readers should consult the underlying municipal records and subsequent Council or PECAHC decisions for the most current information.

The key source documents are publicly accessible:

DISCLAIMER: This post is public-interest commentary based on publicly available municipal records. Figures relating to projects, financing and affordability may change as projects develop. Nothing in this post alleges wrongdoing by Prince Edward County, PECAHC, its directors, staff, councillors, developers or other parties. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying municipal documents and draw their own conclusions.