Utilities Kingston is installing new wastewater and water pipes and reconstructing the Portsmouth Sewage Pumping Stations along Front Road. The new infrastructure is one of the assets that would be transferred to the Municipal Services Corporation.

Council votes to endorse the MSC plan

This is a summary of the four people who spoke to Council last night on the MSC proposal.

Go to the 42.50 minutes mark of this video of the Council meeting to hear David McDonald’s delegation to Council and his answers to councillors’ questions.

McDonald presentation included these observations:

• that the staff report was “not a fair assessment of the two models” — keeping water and wastewater facilities as they are with Utilities Kingston or transferring the $3.2 billion in the assets to an MSC.

• that the staff report “is not an objective analysis, it is advocacy.”

• that an MSC can be considered “financialization - private finance having more and more control over our public services.”

Go to the 1:09:25 mark of this video to hear Jeanne Ryan’s presentation, including slides, to make the point that a decision on a MSC is premature:

• limited public engagement and unaddressed concerns

• many unknowns

• rushed decision making

• Association of Municipalities of Ontario warnings.

Go to the 1:16:22 mark of this video to hear Christine Sypnowich’s delegation. Her points included:

• that the MSC process has been shrouded in secrecy

• the need for a town hall meeting on the MSC proposal noting that none had been held to date

• the lack of democratic process on this matter.

Go to the 1:26:58 mark of this video to hear Stephen Cuthbertson’s delegation. He said:

• the MSC is a good proposal that has failed to gain public support

• that the City website does not lead to the most recent documents and that detailed information is not available to the public

• that the staff report says that the need for more money for water and wastewater infrastructure is not related to urban boundary expansion but that the City is leaning heavily on Kingston’s growth as reasons for the MSC. This is contradictory and residents should not be left trying to understand what it all means.

Council’s debate on the MSC starts at the 1:33:15 mark of this video and continues to the 3:16 mark with a ten minute recess part way through the debate. All councillors spoke including Mayor Paterson though not including Councillor Boehme, who works for Utilities Kingston and did not vote.

An AI-generated cartoon which expresses people’s concerns over the prospect of a Municipal Services Corporation taking on more debt for a longer-period of time.

This announcement was sent out by the Coalition of Kingston Communities:

Stop the Sneaky Deal-Making!
Council must vote NO to the MSC!
Please join the NO MSC info picket Tuesday June 16th
City Hall, 4:30 to 7 (start of Council meeting)

The Council meeting starts at 7 pm at City Hall, 216 Ontario Street. You can attend in person or watch live here.

Since their swearing in as councillors in 2022, two councillors, Councillor Amos and Councillor Ridge, seem to be dedicated to reading budgets and financial reports and consistently asking questions about money. At Tuesday night’s Council meeting they will be carrying a big responsibility for their constituents, Utilities Kingston rate payers, and Kingston residents. Do they believe the numbers add up?

Queen’s professor, David McDonald doesn’t. He wrote in a June 13, 2026 open letter to Council, community groups, and individuals that “the numbers simply do not add up” in the MSC proposal.

In the letter McDonald points out that:

• the staff Report does not compare apples to apples

• the staff Report fails to compare the current Utilities Kingston model and the proposed Municipal Services Corporation model

• the staff Report does not look at the impact of water rate hikes and property tax increases on low-income households

• the staff Report includes too many “unsubstantiated assumptions” promoting the Municipal Services idea.

With respect to borrowing costs, when the City continues to borrow through Infrastructure Ontario the interest rate is expected to be 4.8% over 30 years (page 63, Report 26-148). Were the MSC to borrow “through private lending institutions” the anticipated rate is 5.25%. (page 70, Report 26-148)

The KPMG’s Report and Business Case Update, February 25, 2026 says that “MSCs can leverage their borrowing capacity by securing loans on asset values rather than revenue percentages. For example, while the municipality’s borrowing is limited by annual principal and interest payments that do not exceed 25% of revenues, MSCs could operate under a 50% debt-to-equity ratio, increasing their financing flexibility.” (page 88, Report 26-148)

Clearly, the MSC model allows an MSC to borrow more money than the City can. In the MSC model, private lenders/investors would hold the $3.2 billion assets in water and wastewater pipes and treatment facilities as collateral on the loans. Regardless, loan repayment (interest and capital) falls on users of the water and wastewater services and City taxpayers.

A discrepancy in governance assumptions

The staff report for Tuesday’s Council meeting offers this chart.

The KPMG Report and Business Case Update, February 25, 2026 offers the same chart. Both charts show that approving operating and capital budgets would not be a city council responsibility under an MSC.

There is one major difference between the two charts.

The staff report has “Approving the use of alternative financing tools (e.g., debt instruments, bonds, etc.)” as a City role now but not under an MSC. (page 77, Report 26-148)

On the other hand, the KPMG February update has ‘Establishing Council’s authority over financing approvals process, exercised directly today and, under an MSC, through the City Council approved Shareholder Declaration.” as a City role now and under an MSC. (page 94, Report 26-148)

The staff report on Tuesday’s agenda is not proposing any role for the City in deciding on “financing tools.”

The Council meeting will be broadcast live starting at 7pm Tuesday, June 16.

This chart shows the City’s authority over water and wastewater services now (left-hand column) and the City’s authority under the proposed Municipal Services Corporation model (right-hand column) [Table 3, Report 26-007].

Staff seek Council’s go-ahead for a MSC for city water and wastewater

The City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Lanie Hurdle, is recommending that Council approve this motion at the upcoming Tuesday Council meeting:

• That Council endorse a Water & Wastewater Public Municipal Services Corporation model for its water and wastewater services; and

• That Council direct staff to work with Utilities Kingston to draft a shareholder declaration which will include information on board composition, governance and corporate structure, financial parameters and reporting requirements.

The staff report supporting this recommendation starts on page 55 of Tuesday’s agenda. The report does not include any budget for carrying out this work.

Why is staff proposing a Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) for Kingston’s water and wastewater services?

The staff report presents two main reasons for the MSC proposal:

• there is a “backlog of infrastructure repairs” that have been identified in the City’s asset management plans

• infrastructure expansion is needed to “meet the needs of the growing population.”

The staff report explains that an MSC provides a way to borrow more money from different lenders.

The staff report references past reports to Council that set out the City’s current debt load, its borrowing capacity, and the need for more money to fund City services.

The staff report says that the Council-approved annual investment in the City’s water and wastewater services is about $100 million and that $128 million per year is needed to address municipal asset renewal, not including water and wastewater.

According to the staff report, “The amount to maintain the current municipal asset level of service would be about $282.1 million per year. In addition to the asset renewal, the City needs to fund future growth needs for recreation, housing, roads, etc.”

Councillor Jeff McLaren says that staff’s approach to the City’s financial situation is like wanting “a second credit card.”

How does an MSC increase the City’s ability to borrow more money?

The staff report says that an MSC “would create more financial capacity for water and wastewater projects to advance at a faster pace and create more financial room for the City to finance other infrastructure needs within the community subject to the availability of tax and fee revenue sources, including capital reserve funds, to meet debt servicing costs.”

How? By taking water and wastewater infrastructure costs out of the City budget, there would be more room for the City to borrow more money for other City projects.

The MSC could borrow more money to fund water and wastewater infrastructure in other financial markets, not accessible to the City under government rules.

The City’s water and wastewater assets are valued at $3.2 billion.

Staff explained at the April 14, 2026 meeting of the Environment, Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee that an MSC could borrow over a 40-year time-frame while the City is limited to a 30-year time-frame and that the MSC could “issue debt of up to 50% of the value of its assets and borrow against future revenue projections based on new/additional infrastructure projects.” [Staff report 26-007, page 44 of the meeting agenda]

The difference in costs between borrowing $100 million over 30 years and borrowing $100 million over 40 years based on a 5% interest rate is $38 million with the 40 year term.

Both the current model and the proposed MSC model have Utilities Kingston ratepayers and City taxpayers paying off the interest and capital costs of borrowing.

Public consultations and public response to the MSC proposal

Pie chart on Get Involved Kingston shows that 70% of the 385 people who answered a questionnaire on the City website between December 5 and January 19, 2026 do not support the MSC model.

Relevant dates - note that there was only one City public meeting about the MSC on April 14, 2026.

• KPMG’s Business Case for an MSC (public), report is dated August 19, 2025 and not made public until December 2025

• City Council has a closed-door meeting on October 21, 2025 to discuss “Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees - Municipal Services Corporations - Business Plans”

• City issues a media release about the MSC materials available on the Get Involved Kingston website page on December 4, 2025 which includes the KPMG Business Case (public) and a questionnaire

• December 2025, City staff meet with members of the development community

• The City releases a “Report and Business Case Update,” February 25, 2026

• The Environment, Infrastructure, and Transportation Policies Committee discusses the MSC on April 14, 2026. The minutes from this meeting are not yet on the website as there was no Committee meeting in June.

Recent media articles on the MSC staff recommendation that is coming to Council on Tuesday.

The Kingston Crow

The Kingstonist and here

The Kingston Whig-Standard

The Coalition of Kingston Communities is running this ad on FLY-FM.

This chart shows the City’s authority over water and wastewater services now (left-hand column) and the City’s authority under the proposed Municipal Services Corporation model (right-hand column) [Table 3, Report 26-007].

Staff seek Council’s go-ahead for a MSC for city water and wastewater

The City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Lanie Hurdle, is recommending that Council approve this motion at the upcoming Tuesday Council meeting:

• That Council endorse a Water & Wastewater Public Municipal Services Corporation model for its water and wastewater services; and

• That Council direct staff to work with Utilities Kingston to draft a shareholder declaration which will include information on board composition, governance and corporate structure, financial parameters and reporting requirements.

The staff report supporting this recommendation starts on page 55 of Tuesday’s agenda. The report does not include any budget for carrying out this work.

Why is staff proposing a Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) for Kingston’s water and wastewater services?

The staff report presents two main reasons for the MSC proposal:

• there is a “backlog of infrastructure repairs” that have been identified in the City’s asset management plans

• infrastructure expansion is needed to “meet the needs of the growing population.”

The staff report explains that an MSC provides a way to borrow more money from different lenders.

The staff report references past reports to Council that set out the City’s current debt load, its borrowing capacity, and the need for more money to fund City services.

The staff report says that the Council-approved annual investment in the City’s water and wastewater services is about $100 million and that $128 million per year is needed to address municipal asset renewal, not including water and wastewater.

According to the staff report, “The amount to maintain the current municipal asset level of service would be about $282.1 million per year. In addition to the asset renewal, the City needs to fund future growth needs for recreation, housing, roads, etc.”

Councillor Jeff McLaren says that staff’s approach to the City’s financial situation is like wanting “a second credit card.”

How does an MSC increase the City’s ability to borrow more money?

The staff report says that an MSC “would create more financial capacity for water and wastewater projects to advance at a faster pace and create more financial room for the City to finance other infrastructure needs within the community subject to the availability of tax and fee revenue sources, including capital reserve funds, to meet debt servicing costs.”

How? By taking water and wastewater infrastructure costs out of the City budget, there would be more room for the City to borrow more money for other City projects.

The MSC could borrow more money to fund water and wastewater infrastructure in other financial markets, not accessible to the City under government rules.

The City’s water and wastewater assets are valued at $3.2 billion.

Staff explained at the April 14, 2026 meeting of the Environment, Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee that an MSC could borrow over a 40-year time-frame while the City is limited to a 30-year time-frame and that the MSC could “issue debt of up to 50% of the value of its assets and borrow against future revenue projections based on new/additional infrastructure projects.” [Staff report 26-007, page 44 of the meeting agenda]

The difference in costs between borrowing $100 million over 30 years and borrowing $100 million over 40 years based on a 5% interest rate is $38 million with the 40 year term.

Both the current model and the proposed MSC model have Utilities Kingston ratepayers and City taxpayers paying off the interest and capital costs of borrowing.

Public consultations and public response to the MSC proposal

Pie chart on Get Involved Kingston shows that 70% of the 385 people who answered a questionnaire on the City website between December 5 and January 19, 2026 do not support the MSC model.

Relevant dates - note that there is only one City public meeting about the MSC on April 14, 2026.

• KPMG’s Business Case for an MSC (public), prepares a report dated August 19, 2025 that is not made public until December 2025

• City Council has a closed-door meeting on October 21, 2025 to discuss “Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees - Municipal Services Corporations - Business Plans”

• City issues a media release about the MSC materials available on the Get Involved Kingston website page on December 4, 2025 which includes the KPMG Business Case (public) and a questionnaire

• December 2025, City staff meet with members of the development community

• The City releases a “Report and Business Case Update,” February 25, 2026

• The Environment, Infrastructure, and Transportation Policies Committee discusses the MSC on April 14, 2026. The minutes from this meeting are not yet on the website as there was no Committee meeting in June.

Recent media articles on the MSC staff recommendation that is coming to Council on Tuesday.

The Kingston Crow

The Kingstonist and here

The Kingston Whig-Standard

The Coalition of Kingston Communities is running this ad on FLY-FM.

As part of the drafting of a new Official Plan for Kingston, the city is also working on an “Integrated Mobility Plan.” The city website explains it this way: “If you’re planning for future land uses and planning for growth, it makes sense to plan for how the transportation network will support that growth.”

The idea is to figure out where people will need to travel through the city projecting travel needs up to 2051, the time range for the new Official Plan. This means looking at how to improve road systems, bus routes, cycle paths, and sidewalks to connect people from their homes to jobs and services.

Tonight’s Open House at the library is a chance to see what is being planned and offer comments.

The city website says that having the Official Plan and the Integrated Mobility Plan “completed at the same time presents a great opportunity for collaboration and improvement – so, we’re taking it.”

The final draft of the Official Plan is scheduled to be ready for a Special Meeting of Council on June 30th. It’s time to get moving on the Integrated Mobility Plan.

This image shows the goals for increasing the number of trips using transit, cycling, or walking - “active transportation” - by 2051. Will the plans make it easier to not travel by car to get around town?

Boise, Idaho is taking advantage of its geology by heating buildings with geothermal to meet the city’s climate goal of being climate neutral by 2050.

Grist, who’s masthead claims “25 years on the climate beat,” hosted a webinar on May 4, 2026 - “Local Power, Global Impact: How Cities and States Are Leading on Climate Solutions.”

The webinar panellists were mayors from three cities in the United States: Mayor Justin Bibb, Cleveland, Ohio; Eileen Higgins, Miami, Florida; and Lauren McLean, Boise, Idaho. They are among the 350 climate mayors in 48 American states.

The first question from moderator Jake Bittle was direct — How has President Trump affected your work adapting to climate change?

Mayor Higgins went first. “We need all hands on deck” to face the “ravages of climate change.” Having a federal partner would help.

Mayor McLean agreed that before President Trump there was “someone to help us to accelerate our goals.” Her city lost a $3.5 million grant for EV infrastructure and she gamely added that they have to “figure out ways to get the work done” as “days get hotted and smoke fills our skies.”

Mayor Bibb said that “we’ve gotta do the work regardless of who is in the White House.”

Next question: Without big grants, how do you find the money?

Mayor McLean explained that “climate work is part of everything we do” and gave examples of doubling the tree canopy and making sure that a new fire station or police station is built to advance climate goals.

Police stations were also referenced by Mayor Bibb who said by upgrading five police stations the city is saving money that can be used for other projects to build resiliency.

Mayor Higgins said that Florida is seeing an increase in electric vehicles and that Miami is looking for energy efficiency in its buildings. “When you cut energy use, you save residents money.”

Each city has different priorities — all recognize the need for action

Boise links “climate work to housing work” trying to have more homes closer to jobs to cut down on travel, and building “transit-oriented communities.” Mayor McLean said that “transit is a climate issue.”

One way to get more housing is for Boise to allow people to build two small detached houses on smaller lots with reduced parking requirements.

Given the geology of the city, they are also making use of geothermal opportunities to provide heating to multi-family housing.

Mayor McLean’s goal is for “every kid to walk to a park in two minutes.” She does not want to see any further expansion of the city into parks or open spaces.

Housing is also an issue in Cleveland. Mayor Bibb said that they had found housing for 200 people and were able to close 15 encampments.

Cleveland has an industrial history and is now working on cleaning up 1000 acres (404 hectares) of brownfield sites. “We can’t afford to make the same mistakes in the 21st century that we made in the 20th century.” Resilience will come with “clean air and clean water.”

Miami’s challenge is flooding. The city is vulnerable to storm surges and now has a robust stormwater master plan with the goal of city parks becoming reservoirs for drainage. Mayor Higgins said the city is “starting to prepare for the future.” One project is a water renewal system for industries with the city looking to have “drinking water for drinking and working water for working.”

Miami is also planting trees to cool neighbourhoods.

Mayor Higgins noted that cities in Florida are no longer allowed to have net zero goals or to link climate change to flooding. Her response? “I am not going to complain about things they’re doing up there. Focus on what you can do.”

Ontario bill says cities cannot require green buildings

The Ontario government is asking for feedback on proposed schedules 1, 2, and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026.

The ERO consultation period on Bill 98 is open until May 14, 2026.

The new law would standardize the structure and content of Official Plans and specifically prohibits cities from requiring developers to meet green building standards.

From the ERO posting:

• “Specifically, the proposed changes would:

  • remove references to “sustainable design” from site plan control

  • clarify zoning cannot be used to require sustainable elements,

  • expressly provide that mandatory green building/construction standards are not permitted, including as part of site plan control, and

  • remove provisions that would have authorized municipalities to require green building standards, if the government had made enabling regulatory amendments (i.e., a green pick list).” [bold added]

    Find out more here.

Large-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) were the subject of a recent SWITCH presentation. SWITCH — “the sustainable energy people” — is a Kingston-based “networking hub and source of technical information and business advice for those involved in alternative energy research, education, project development, policy work and entrepreneurship.” Meetings are at 8am on the first Friday of the month.

At the SWITCH meeting on BESS, Dr. David Hyndman, Chief Science Officer at Napanee-based FireRein Inc. talked about these large-scale facilities and the risks associated with them. Hyndman said that these large-scale storage facilities are here to stay and the number of them operating around the world is increasing every year.

The problem is that when a BESS unit catches fire, there is no easy way to put the fire out. The strategy is to let the unit burn and try to keep other nearby units from catching fire, too. BESS units have multiple units in one location.

Hyndman showed this illustration of the environmental impacts of a burning BESS unit.

Last November, the Ontario government announced the construction of Skyview2, a large energy storage facility near Edwardsburgh Cardinal.

The draft 2 Official Plan provides this definition — “Energy storage system: a system or facility that captures energy produced at one time for use at a later time to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production, including for example, flywheels, pumped hydro storage, hydrogen storage, fuels storage, compressed air storage, and battery storage.”

“Energy storage” appears six times in draft 2.

Nowhere is there a policy setting out where a BESS can be located within the City of Kingston and what criteria must be considered when an application to install one is submitted to the city. Clearly, from the illustration above, a BESS must not be located near water systems or too close to a residential area because of the contamination that results from a fire in a unit.

Do you think Kingston’s Official Plan, which is meant to guide the city’s development over the next 25 years, should have a policy for large-scale battery storage?

The deadline for comments on draft 2 of the Official Plan is Tuesday, April 21. One way to submit a comment is to send an email.

With the cancellation of both the Special Meeting of Council on March 31, 2026 and the virtual meeting for the public about the second draft, the public has not had a chance to hear from staff about the draft 2 Official Plan details. Some, if not all, councillors had small group meetings with city staff on the days leading up to the then cancelled March 31st meeting as reported in What’s Up Kingston.

The four areas currently proposed for urban expansion are: Creekford Road, Highway 15 near the 401, Mile Square Block, Highway 2, east of the Canadian Forces Base. Mile Square Block is for employment lands. The other three areas are for housing.

The Kingston Climate Action Network started a petition this week. It asks Council to not make any decisions on expanding city boundaries into rural areas until the projected costs of this expansion are presented to Council.

The Kingston Crow has a report you can read here.

The Kingston Crow

Slow down and do the homework on a new Official Plan

THE CITY IS moving too fast on one of the most consequential decisions to be made by the current Mayor and City Council, says Chris Gusen, spokesperson for the Kingston Climate Justice Coalition…

Read more

2 months ago · Anne Kershaw

Toolkit explains some of the Official Plan proposals

The Kingston Climate Justice Coalition has prepared a Toolkit to help people understand some of the proposals in the second draft of the Official Plan. There are several ways to submit comments to the City set out in the Toolkit.

From The Screening Room’s April 16 newsletter

Kingston-based filmmaker Kaycee Leigh is currently fundraising for her new feature documentary project, Seeking Wh(y). She recently won the Kingston Canadian Film Festival’s Script to Screen Pitch Competition with this film project, and is 91% of the way to reach her $18,000 fundraising goal. Read (and watch a video) about her fascinating story here.

City CAO Lanie Hurdle and Utilities Kingston CEO David Fell at the Town Hall meeting organized by Sydenham District Councillor Conny Glenn

A Meeting to Clear the Air About that Municipal Services Corporation

The topic was described by senior bureaucrats as complicated. The public thought not so much.

A Town Hall meeting was hosted by Sydenham District Councillor Conny Glenn at St. Mark’s Lutheran on April 8th.

It was an odd double-bill: the minutiae of road projects on the same agenda with the proposed Municipal Services Corporation. That’s the scheme for the water and sewer system that has a 70% disapproval rating, according to a City poll. The scheme the City is now calling a shell company.

About 40 or so were there although it was not clear who was there for what. It was also not clear who was from Sydenham District and who were from other districts.

What was said?

Half the meeting was spent on roads so there wasn’t a lot of time left for the MSC.

The need for a new management structure for Kingston’s water and sewer system was presented by Lanie Hurdle, the City CAO and David Fell, the CEO of Utilities Kingston. Their presentation material came from the second version of the KPMG report that’s been used by the City to justify the scheme. The report is on the City website so everyone can read it.

The presentations were short on details. For example, no information was provided about the needed projects. No surprise, really. The long-range master plan for water and sewer won’t be finished until late in 2026. Investments for growth haven’t begun to be costed yet. And in any case, the projections for growth are disputed in a parallel City effort, the Official Plan Review.

CAO Hurdle tried to clear up some of the confusion created by the first version of the KPMG report. The new version of the story is that the City has infrastructure challenges and Council wants to control costs so the only solution is the MSC. But it would be a Public MSC so not Privatization.

No alternative solutions to the problem were put forward for comparison purposes.

CEO Fell did his best but asked the wrong question: who wants higher taxes? It was a clear give-away of the neoliberal austerity agenda that’s been driving the city and the MSC proposal. Polls have consistently shown that Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes for quality public services. The audience responded with disciplined silence, much as an audience would to a stand-up’s bad joke.

What did people want to know?

The meeting was conducted with characteristic Sydenham District civility.

Of the 40 or so in attendance, only one person gave off a positive vibe for the scheme. No-one said it was a great idea.

Questions, including those submitted before the meeting as requested, were about such topics as debt security from a lender’s perspective or what would happen in the event of catastrophic failure were answered with calm certainty. One question, which sought a response to a contrarian point of view of the MSC, was blocked by the moderator. So-called “technical” questions were specifically excluded from the program.

Being a polite audience, no-one asked how it is we’ve landed in this mess in the first place (if in fact it is a mess). Where was the forward-looking financial management? What did previous administrations have to do with it? Why weren’t early warning signs noticed?

Most were skeptical, consistent with the City’s poll. Few if any were convinced by the presentations. Some were concerned about public money boosting profit margins on private sector loans. Some wondered whether the shell company was just a shell game with the City’s debt. Some felt that things have to be paid for one way or another … taxes or rates … and couldn’t see the advantage of the scheme. Others thought the scheme would merely kick the can down the road, leaving out-of-pocket costs to innocent passers-by in some distant future.

What’s Next?

The meeting was launched under a cloud of confusion as word of it had gone round the interconnected networks of already concerned citizens. Some understood it to be an official city meeting. In fact, it wasn’t. It could even be considered an out of process, or irregular meeting, if one were looking for coherence in the typical slow motion train wreck that is the City’s effort to engage citizens on any matter of importance.

It’s understood that the next step will be an official city meeting: the Environment, Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee at 6:00pm on April 14th at City Hall. Unless it’s cancelled or postponed as recent meetings for the Official Plan Review have been. Interested readers are encouraged to confirm via the City website before heading downtown. Joining the meeting via Zoom is an option for those who prefer. The agenda for the meeting is now on the City website.

The desecration of a significant woodland at the west end of the City, outside the urban boundary, led to a Council vote on March 24th to place an interim halt on ‘clear cutting’ and instructions to staff to bring a bylaw to Council on April 7th.

Bylaw to protect woodlands anywhere in Kingston

On March 24th, Council passed a motion asking staff to bring, to the next Council meeting, “a temporary clear cutting by-law to prohibit all clear cutting within the geographic boundaries of the City of Kingston unless expressly authorized by permit or other exemption.”

The Interim Woodland Preservation Bylaw is on Council’s agenda Tuesday night.

It defines “clear cutting” as “the removal or destruction of trees within a woodland that results in the reduction of more than 50% of the tree canopy cover within any contiguous area of 0.1 hectares, measured immediately prior to the removal or destruction, whether occurring as a single operation or a series of operations within any 12-month period.”

In the definition of “tree canopy cover”, the Bylaws clarifies how the City will determine the woodland that was lost — “the area of ground covered by the crown of trees, as determined by aerial imagery, field measurement, or a combination of both, using methods that are consistent with generally accepted arboricultural or forestry practices and satisfactory to the director.” The “director” is the “director of the Planning Services Department” or someone else acting in that position.

The Bylaw makes it clear that owners are responsible for knowing the rules and following them:

Section 4.1: No person shall cause, permit, allow or perform any clear cutting in a woodland, except as authorized under this by-law.

Section 4.2 “An owner of land is deemed to have knowledge of and to have permitted actions that violate this by-law that occur on the portion of the land over which the owner has control.”

The staff report sets out the reasons to protect woodlands

“Clear cutting results in immediate and often irreversible environmental harm, including the loss of tree canopy, disruption of wildlife habitat, increased erosion risk, and impacts to drainage. Unlike other types of by-law infractions, the effects of clear cutting cannot be readily reversed in the short term.”

“The proposed Interim Woodland Preservation By-law supports the City’s climate risk mitigation and adaptation objectives by preserving existing tree canopy, which plays a critical role in carbon sequestration, urban cooling, stormwater management, and erosion control. By limiting large-scale tree removal on an interim basis, the By-law helps maintain ecological functions and reduces the City’s exposure to climate-related impacts while longer-term policy direction is established through the forthcoming Official Plan.”

Municipal Tree Conservation Incentives

Also on Tuesday night’a agenda a motion asking staff to “investigate options for a municipal tree conservation incentive program, and to report back to Council by Q4 2026, including information on municipal best practices and related financial, administrative and implementation impacts.”

“Notice of Cancellation – Special Council Meeting

Please be advised that the Special Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026 has been cancelled. The next regular meeting of Council will take place on Tuesday April 7, 2026.

This meeting is being cancelled to align with the public engagement process underway for the Second Draft of the new Official Plan and the draft Natural Heritage Study. All scheduled delegations will be informed of the cancellation. All reports and supporting documents intended for the Special Council Meeting may be updated and resubmitted in the future.”

The last minute cancellation was a surprise as the special council meeting on the second draft of the Official Plan had been on the Council calendar for months as an information meeting. Apparently, councillors had received many emails and calls from constituents upset about the last minute addition to the special meeting agenda of a staff recommendation to approve four areas of development outside the urban growth boundary for a Council vote while the public consultation period is underway.

Without the public meeting tomorrow, the public will not have the opportunity to hear staff explain the recommendations and changes in second draft or know what the four delegations that were already on the meeting agenda would say: Dustin Greene - Greene Homes; Karen Cross - Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce; Youko Leclerc - FoTenn Planning + Design; and Shelley Hirstwood - Kingston Economic Development Corporation.

Over the last days, staff have been holding small briefing meetings with a few councillors at time giving them an opportunity to ask questions and learn more about the urban boundary expansion and other details in draft 2 of the Official Plan.

It is unknown what impact the cancellation of tomorrow’s special council meeting and the calls for financial information before decisions are made will have on the timing of the third and final Official Plan draft.

The city continues its consultation process on draft 2 and the accompanying natural heritage maps. The deadline for comments is April 21st.

Moving the urban growth boundary means the City is committing to provide city services such as water, sanitary sewer, police, fire, roads, and winter road maintenance to the new areas. Urban expansion has implications for all city residents, businesses, and taxpayers.

The Get Involved Kingston page invites public comments on the second draft of the Official Plan and Natural Heritage Study until April 21, 2026. Laura Flaherty, Project Manager for the Official Plan work is quoted.“We appreciate the time residents spent reviewing the First Draft and we look forward to hearing where we still need to refine policies as we start working on a third draft.” The third draft is due later in May.

The decision to bring the urban growth boundary decision forward to Tuesday’s Council meeting suggests that public input on the urban boundary expansion, considered the most far-reaching decision in an Official Plan review process, is not needed or welcome.

Here are the four recommendations on the Council agenda with the accompanying maps.

That Council supports the Creekford Road draft settlement area boundary expansion as shown in Exhibit A and detailed in Section 3F.1. of Report Number 26-102 for inclusion in the Third Draft of the new Official Plan, subject to any necessary revisions identified through the remainder of the new Official Plan project;

That Council supports the Highway 15 draft settlement area boundary expansion as shown in Exhibit B and detailed in Section 3F.2. of Report Number 26-102 for inclusion in the Third Draft of the new Official Plan, subject to any necessary revisions identified through the remainder of the new Official Plan project;

That Council supports the Taylor Kidd Boulevard draft settlement area boundary expansion as shown in Exhibit C and detailed in Section 3F.3. of Report Number 26-102 for inclusion in the Third Draft of the new Official Plan, subject to any necessary revisions identified through the remainder of the new Official Plan project;

That Council supports the new Highway 2 rural settlement area as shown in Exhibit D and detailed in Section 3F.4. of Report Number 26-102 for inclusion in the Third Draft of the new Official Plan, subject to any necessary revisions identified through the remainder of the new Official Plan project.

Questions that need answers

• Did the City follow the required notice period for a decision-making meeting with respect to an Official Plan amendment? Is this sufficiently covered by the fact that there is a final draft to come?

• Where is the costing information for water and wastewater services to the proposed areas outside the urban boundary? How can Council make an informed decision about expansion without knowing the cost?

• How can Council make an informed decision about the impacts on boundary expansion to the natural heritage system when comments on the natural heritage mapping and recommendations are still underway? What is the impact of the natural heritage information that is now available for the possible expansion areas that were left blank in the first natural heritage report?

• How can staff recommend an urban boundary expansion for employment lands on the Mile Square block (recommendation 3 above) when the area was recently clearcut for agricultural purposes?

• Do City Councillors believe that they can approve the urban boundary expansion recommendations at Tuesday’s meeting and then change their minds later based on more information (e.g. water and wastewater services costs)?

• Is there a potential employment development proposal, currently being considered and not yet shared with the public, that may be influencing the timing of the urban boundary expansion (e.g., an AI data centre or battery storage facility)?

Delegations to the City Council meeting

The agenda for Tuesday’s meeting was published with four delegation slots already filled:

• Dustin Greene - Greene Homes

• Karen Cross - Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce

• Youko Leclerc - FoTenn Planning + Design

• Shelley Hirstwood - Kingston Economic Development Corporation

According to Council rules, two other people/groups can ask the Clerk’s Office to be added to the agenda and will have five minutes to make a presentation to Council. Council may then allow 13 other speakers, each given three minutes, with each Council member allowed to put forward one name.

How to contact your City Councillor

You can find individual Council member contact information on the City website:

You can also email cityclerk@cityofkingston.ca. Any correspondence received at this address is forwarded to Council as part of the meeting agenda package.

The City Events Calendar provides a link to register for tonight’s “open house” meeting — virtual only — about the recommendations on natural heritage that are part of the second draft of the Official Plan.

There is more information about the natural heritage element of the Official Plan work on this Get Involved Kingston page.

People interested in attending tonight’s meeting are asked to register in advance through the Calendar page or use this link.

It was 11pm by the time Council finally debated Councillor Osanic’s motion to put a temporary halt to tree cutting in the City.

Councillor Tozzo used his time to compliment the delegate who sang her sadness about recent clearcutting at the west end of the City.

Councillor Oosterhof spoke about his discomfort over how he would vote and then said he had to support his farmer constituents and they need to be able to cut trees in order to grow food.

Councillor Glenn spoke to the need for the City to recognize changing times and balance competing interests, saying that the Official Plan process that is underway will provide clarity on what natural heritage areas in the City need to be protected.

Councillor Hassam said “I feel ashamed” to be living in a house where a forest once stood and to drive his car on roads. He spoke to the rights of private property owners to do what they want with their land and then concluded by saying he would support a bylaw to temporarily halt clearcutting in the City.

Councillor Amos spoke endearingly about the importance of giving children a chance to experience a forest. He asked legal counsel if there any concerns with the proposed bylaw from a legal perspective. The answer was “no."

Councillor Cinanni said he would support the motion as did Councillor Boehme who mentioned he would be bringing forward a motion to offer farmers carrots in exchange for protecting their woodlands.

The motion passed 12 to 1 with the draft bylaw coming to the next Council meeting on April 7th for approval.

This is the wording that passed:

Therefore Be It Resolved

That Council direct staff to bring forward, at the next Council meeting, a temporary clear cutting by-law to prohibit all clear cutting within the geographic boundaries of the City of Kingston unless expressly authorized by permit or other exemption; and

That Council declare its intention that the prohibition on clear cutting apply effective as of the date of adoption of this motion, and that any bylaw brought forward to implement this direction reflect Council's intent to prevent further clear cutting occurring after the date of this motion; and

That the temporary prohibition on clear cutting remain in effect until the City's new Official Plan comes into force, or until Council otherwise amends or repeals the temporary by-law; and

That the temporary by-law contain a definition of "clear cut" that generally refers to the removal of a majority of trees within an area greater than 0.2 hectares; and

That the Tree By-Law amendments referred to in the February 17, 2026 Council motion be brought back to Council after the expiry of the temporary clear cutting by-law.

Over the past months, residents who live in the Collins Creek, Bath Road, and Taylor-Kidd area have heard the sounds of chain saws and large machinery annihilating a woodland. At this point, an estimated 30 hectares of trees have been lost west of Collins Creek, an area outside the City’s current urban growth boundary.

Despite on-going efforts by residents to work with their City Councillor, Lisa Osanic, to ask the City to make sure the cutting of the significant woodland and forest met all the applicable city, provincial, and federal regulations, the cutting has been continuing.

A news release put out yesterday by the newly-formed Friends of Collins Creek says, “This past weekend, two solid days of cutting extended to land adjacent to the narrow stretch of municipally owned land along Collins Creek. City maps confirm the area has been continuously forested for over 150 years.”

Among the many letters that were sent to City Councillors, Lakeside resident, Celeste Booth wrote to her City Councillor, Wendy Stephen, “This devastation of an old growth forest and important natural heritage corridor raises serious questions about enforcement, oversight, and the effectiveness of our current policies. The situation underscores the urgent need for stronger, enforceable protections for Kingston’s natural heritage.” Booth’s letter concludes, “I am ashamed of our city.”

The rally is being held at the corner of Taylor-Kidd and Coronation Boulevards at 5 pm.

Photos from No Clearcuts Kingston Substack.

The pie chart shows that 70% of the 385 people who answered the survey do not support the creation of a Municipal Services Corporation to manage the City’s water and wastewater services. 21% said they needed more information. Only 9% were supportive.

Between December 4, 2025 and January 19, 2026, the public was invited to read the business case proposing a move from the current Utilities Kingston management of the City’s water and wastewater treatment services into a to-be-created Municipal Services Corporation.

The results of this consultation are now available on Get Involved Kingston.

In summary, the report says, “When asked about the strategic advantages of a public MSC, survey respondents consistently disagreed with all the strategic advantages offered in the business case. In open-ended feedback received in the survey and through emails and CRM submissions, respondents cited concerns about privatization, affordability, and transparency.”

A business case update was prepared by KPMG, dated February 25, 2026.

The main reason behind the change of governance seems to be to finance the costs of expanding water and wastewater services in Kingston. In this article in The Kingstonist, the mayor says that it is “critically important” to increase available industrial land outside the urban boundary to attract businesses here.

The second draft of a new City Official Plan is to be released next week and will include recommendations for new areas of development outside the current city limits.

1. Climate Change Adaptation Plan goes to Council next

Julie Salter-Keane, Manager, Climate Leadership, City of Kingston presented the Climate Change Adaptation Plan to City Committee on February 10, 2026.

Committee recommends Climate Change Adaptation Plan to Council

The Plan identifies 28 strategies to prepare the City for climate changes that, according to the City’s Manager, Climate Leadership, Julie Salter-Keane, will most likely include extreme heat in the summer, heavier rain events that strain stormwater infrastructure, and changing water levels causing shoreline erosion.

Ms. Salter-Kane told the Environment, Infrastructure and Transportation Policies Committee that “our asset of trees is our biggest benefit for our adaptation” and “trees are critical to our resiliency” as they provide “shade and stormwater management.”

She noted that the majority of our trees are on private property. She said that “education and awareness” will be necessary to explain to people the “benefits of keeping trees on your property.”

Chair of the Committee, Councillor Chaves concurred saying “trees are important.”

Ms. Salter-Kane told the committee that the Plan is the result of many meetings and consultations with a broad cross-section of individuals and groups and that more than 740 contributions shaped the Plan.

Highlighting the seriousness of adapting to climate change she reported that a Kingston hospital official sat in on many long meetings because of the concern that “flooding would shut down our operating rooms.”

2. Tree By-Law Amendments wanted before July 2026

Kingston City Council to consider ways to protect the City’s trees at this Tuesday’s Councill meeting

The motion asks staff to develop a bylaw to require a permit for all clearcutting and for financial penalties for removing trees without the required permit .

Moved by Councillor Osanic; Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cinanni

“Whereas trees provide important environmental, ecological, and community benefits, including habitat, erosion control, climate resilience, and protection of adjacent lands; and

Whereas the City recognizes the need to balance environmental stewardship and the preservation of natural features with the protection of agricultural practices that support normal and sustainable farming operations; and Whereas under the current wording of City of Kingston By-Law Number 2018-15, the Tree By-Law, clear cutting may be treated as a normal farm practice, permitting large scale tree removal without the requirement for a tree permit or municipal oversight, including in circumstances where those trees provide important environmental functions for adjacent lands; and

Whereas City staff have observed an increase in the injury or destruction of trees in contravention of the Tree By-Law on both private and public lands;

Therefore Be It Resolved That City staff be directed to review the Tree By-Law and bring forward amendments to Council to require a tree permit for all clear cutting, including on agricultural lands, in order to ensure appropriate municipal oversight of large-scale tree removal, and to make any other consequential amendments that staff consider advisable to improve the enforceability of the Tree By-Law, by the end of Q2 2026; and

That City staff be directed to review the administrative monetary penalties associated with contraventions of the Tree By-Law and to report back to Council by the end of Q2 2026 with any recommended changes to ensure penalties remain appropriate, proportionate, and effective as a deterrent.”

3. The high-speed rail issue

ALTO’s interactive map shows the approximate locations of the northern and southern routes under consideration. The route stops now being considered are: Quebec City, Trois Rivieres, Montreal, Laval, Ottawa, Peterborough, and Toronto. A stop in Kingston is not part of the current plan.

Kingston City Council motion on high-speed rail at this Tuesday’s Council meeting

The motion asks for Council to support the Alto high-speed rail southern route and add a stop in Kingston. Without a stop in Kingston, the motion asks Council to reject the southern high-speed route.

Moved by Mayor Paterson; Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cinanni

“Whereas the federal government has identified Alto High-Speed Rail (HSR) as a nation-building project to deliver faster, more reliable, passenger rail service, strengthen regional connectivity, and support Canada’s climate objectives through a transportation shift; and

Whereas the Alto high-speed rail line is intended to serve major centres and regional hubs along the Toronto – Ottawa - Montréal corridor to maximize ridership, economic impact, and public value; and

Whereas Kingston is a major regional hub in Eastern Ontario, serving as a centre for post-secondary education with Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College and Royal Military College, health care with Kingston Health Sciences and the Cancer Centre of Eastern Ontario, national defence with CFB Kingston, provincial and federal ministry regional offices, several national and international employers and a significant tourism and innovation economy, all of which generate rail demand; and

Whereas Kingston is the fourth busiest VIA Rail station in Canada with established travel demand within the Windsor-Quebec corridor, making us well positioned to support an Alto station that advances regional connectivity and travel-time competitiveness; and

Whereas a stop in Kingston would contribute to Alto’s mandate of supporting strong ridership demand, enabling meaningful shifts from passenger vehicles, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring regional access to high-speed rail in Eastern Ontario; and

Whereas a southern route that is as close as possible to the urban centre of Kingston would be most beneficial to the residents of the City of Kingston and would align with the preferences of surrounding municipalities like South Frontenac; and

Whereas a southern High-Speed Rail route that bypasses Kingston would not serve the region, limit ridership and regional connectivity and offer no benefit to the city or Eastern Ontario;

Therefore Be It Resolved That Kingston City Council call on the Federal Minister of Transportation to enhance Alto’s mandate to include the addition of a Kingston stop on the proposed Alto High-Speed Rail Southern Route between Peterborough and Ottawa; and

That Kingston City Council expresses its support for the proposed southern route for the Alto High Speed Rail line, provided there is a new stop added that is in close proximity to Kingston; and

That Kingston City Council requests that the southern route and planned stop in Kingston be located as close to the urban core of the city as possible; and

That if there is no station in Kingston, then Kingston City Council formally opposes the creation of the Alto Southern Route that would effectively bypass Kingston and offer no value or benefit for Kingston residents or those in Eastern Ontario; and

That a copy of this motion be sent to the Right Honourable Mark Carney, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada, The Honourable Steve MacKinnon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, Martin Imbleau, President and CEO, Alto, Mark Gerretsen, M.P. Kingston and the Islands, Scott Reid, M.P. Lanark-Frontenac, Ted Hsu, M.P.P. Kingston and the Islands, John Jordan, M.P.P. Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, Ric Breese, M.P.P. Hastings - Lennox and Addington, South Frontenac Mayor Ron Vandewal, the Eastern Ontario Mayors' Caucus, and the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus.”

ALTO’s high-speed rail consultations now underway

The deadline for comments to ALTO is March 29, 2026.

ALTO’s in-person consultation near here is on:

Wednesday, February 18, 2026 from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm at

Storrington Lions Club, 2992 Princess Road, Sunbury, (north of Kingston, south of Battersea)

Other ways to provide your comments to ALTO:

• Complete the online survey.

• Provide feedback on the interactive map.

• Submit a written brief.

Residents are also inviting feedback on the southern route:

Facebook conversations: “Alto train southern route discussion forum“ and “Save South Frontenac: No high-speed train in the southern corridor.”

The Save South Frontenac Committee is hosting an Open House for residents looking to discuss and learn more about the possible impacts of high-speed rail in the region.

The Open House will take place at two locations: the Sydenham Library and the Inverary United Church Hall on Saturday, February 21st, from 10am to 2pm.

4. Next Official Plan draft to incorporate natural heritage mapping and recommendations without promised prior consultation

Petition on Change.org asking for people to sign on to protect Butternut Creek

Despite a City consultation plan that promised the final draft of the natural heritage maps and recommendations would be made public in November 2025, without an explanation for the change in approach, the City is now consolidating the natural heritage work into the next draft of the Official Plan.

The second draft of the Official Plan is scheduled for release on March 9th with a special meeting of Council scheduled for March 31st.

The summer consultation on the first draft of the natural heritage plan had blanked out areas, awaiting staff review of ecological reports relating to the properties outside the urban growth boundary where developers want to build.

Community groups wrote to City Council earlier in February with their concerns. So far, only The Kingston Crow has covered the story.

The Kingston Crow

Community groups accuse City of breaking promises

THE CITY OF Kingston has broken faith with an influential network of local community groups by failing to keep its promises around public consultations on natural heritage policy, says Christine Sypnowich as representative of the Coalition of Kingston Communities…

Read more

5 months ago · Anne Kershaw

5. The Future of Lemoine Point Farm in Court Tuesday

Lemoine Point Farm is a 33-hectare waterfront property with one kilometre of shoreline on Collins Bay / Lake Ontario. It includes woodlands, meadows, and over 100-year-old stone buildings. It is within the urban areas of the City, adjacent to the Lemoine Point Conservation Area and Kingston’s Norman Rogers Airport. The City has an opportunity to purchase the Farm from the Estate of Mary Fraser who died in April 2022. The Estate has asked the Superior Court in Toronto to resolve issues arising in the ongoing discussions.

“The Save Lemoine Point Farm group sent out this email earlier today:

The court date between the Estate of Mary Fraser and the City of Kingston is on Tuesday Feb.17th. We were informed that the proceeding is open to the public, and will be available by Zoom at 10AM. Should you have the time and interest, you can link into the proceeding using the Zoom link below.

Please note, however, that there is conflicting information and it may instead start at 10:30AM. Some of us from SLPF group plan to check in at 10AM just in case.”

Link to the hearing on Zoom.
https://ca01web.zoom.us/j/61652198493?pwd=aXVNTGxWb2RoeEI4UlhkcWtVTW1qdz09

Sunday, November 16 at 2 pm

Royal Canadian Legion Branch 560 at 734 Montreal Street (opposite Belle Park).

Hosted by the Coalition of Kingston Communities to celebrate its 10th anniversary, advocating for transparency and accountability in the City’s governance.

Charlie Angus will be on Zoom and will answer questions after his talk.

Town Hall on “The Future of Kingston Memorial Centre”

Sunday, November 23rd, 2:30 to 4:30 pm

At St. Lukes Anglican Church Hall, 236 Nelson St, North of Princess

Hosted by the Williamsville Community Association.

Hear from the Association about recent city developments that will affect the future of the buildings and the site, and share your vision for the future of the Kingston Memorial Centre and its grounds.

City event: Find out about the Integrated Mobility Plan that will become part of the new Official Plan for the City.

November 17, 2025, 6 to 8 pm

From the City’s website on the Integrated Mobility Plan:

• Purpose: To create a blueprint for how people will move around the city to get where they need to go by 2051.

• Scope: The plan covers infrastructure and policies for roads, frequent transit corridors, and active transportation networks.

• Alignment: It is being developed at the same time as the Official Plan to ensure the transportation network aligns with planned growth and land use.

• Goals: To accommodate planned growth sustainably, equitably, and efficiently, while providing options for people of all ages and abilities.

Call the City at 613-546-0000 to get the Zoom link, unless you can figure out how to register on the City website.

“A Rural Open House will be held to present information, answer questions and collect feedback on rural-focused topics contained within the First Draft of the new Official Plan, such as agriculture, rural businesses, rural housing and hamlets.”

The city page does not mention “urban boundary expansion” which will certainly be on the minds of people living in rural areas where developers have asked the city for permission to build.

This Wednesday, October 22 from 6 to 8, Ambassador Ballroom, Double Tree Hotel

“An Open House and Public Information Centre will be held to present information, answer questions and collect feedback on the new Official Plan and the new Water & Wastewater Master Plans and Pollution Prevention & Control Plan projects. This session will also include updates on the Integrated Mobility Plan, ahead of a dedicated Public Information Centre in November.”

These plan details are not currently on the city website.

This Thursday, October 23, from 6 pm, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 216 Ontario Street and on Zoom, if you wish to speak to the Committee. View live on the City’s video channel.

“The purpose of the Community Meeting is to present the staff report summarizing the content and intent of the First Draft of the Official Plan and to seek feedback from the public and members of Planning Committee. Anyone who attends a Community Meeting may present an oral submission, and/or provide a written submission on the report being presented…

The First Draft is a working document intended to spark discussion. Public feedback will shape the Second Draft in early 2026 and the Final Draft planned for mid 2026. This collaborative process is designed to ensure the new Official Plan reflects the shared values and aspirations of the Kingston community.”

The mapping of natural heritage areas to be protected in the Official Plan is not yet available to the public. The city has not reported back on what it heard in response to the draft Natural Heritage Technical Study over the summer.