The City of Kingston Votes 2026: What Did They Actually Vote For?
Campaign platforms tell voters what candidates say they will do. Council records show what elected officials actually supported when decisions were placed before them.
Both matter.
As of August 16, 2026, Kingston’s official candidate list shows four active candidates for mayor: Conny Glenn, Vanessa Mensah, Bryan Paterson and Grant William Bedard. Paterson is the current mayor and Glenn the current Sydenham District councillor. Both therefore have a Council record that can be examined. That fact neither advantages nor disadvantages them; it simply provides evidence that does not exist in the same form for candidates who have not served on this Council.
The question is straightforward: When significant choices came before Council, what positions did Paterson and Glenn actually take?
A final Council vote does not always tell the whole story. A member may first support an amendment that reflects their preferred position. If that amendment fails, they may later support the final motion because the broader objective remains acceptable or because compromise is necessary. Both decisions belong in the public record.
This analysis therefore distinguishes:
- Preferred position — what the member initially sought or supported
- Council decision — whether that position succeeded
- Final position — what the member ultimately accepted or rejected
Kingston operates under Ontario’s Strong Mayor framework. The mayor presents the annual budget; Council considers amendments and continues to vote on policies, bylaws, services and spending. Mayoral decisions under that framework are recorded separately. This article treats mayoral decisions, councillor votes, amendments and final Council decisions as distinct rather than interchangeable.
Housing and Homelessness Financing — September 2023
Council was asked to direct staff to examine financing options for additional housing and homelessness initiatives, including the possibility of a special levy. The original motion, moved by Councillor Gregory Ridge and seconded by Paterson, asked staff to examine “all financial tools and options, including a special levy.”
Glenn joined an amendment seeking to remove the special-levy option. She argued that additional taxation could itself increase financial pressure on residents struggling to remain housed. The amendment failed 8–5, with Glenn among the five supporting it.
After Council decided the levy would remain among the options to be examined, Glenn supported the broader final motion seeking the financing report.
Sequence
- Paterson’s preferred position: examine the full range of financing mechanisms, including a possible levy.
- Glenn’s preferred position: examine financing mechanisms, but remove the special levy from consideration.
- Glenn’s final position: support obtaining the broader financing information.
That sequence is more informative than simply noting that both ultimately supported a report. It also raises a clear 2026 question: if Kingston requires substantially more money for housing, homelessness and infrastructure, where does each candidate now draw the line on taxation?
Firefighter Recruitment — June 2023
Glenn introduced a motion calling for Council to mandate a review of Kingston Fire & Rescue’s firefighter recruitment process. Paterson and several councillors opposed requiring the review because Fire Chief Monique Belair had already indicated an administrative review would take place. Glenn’s motion failed 8–3. The Fire Chief nevertheless confirmed that a recruitment review would proceed administratively.
Glenn’s current campaign material has described “Firefighter testing reform (2023)” as something delivered during her Council record. The failed motion does not prove that no subsequent reform occurred. It does, however, create a legitimate factual question: what specific firefighter-testing or recruitment reform was subsequently implemented, and what role did Glenn’s initiative play in bringing it about?
Introducing a motion is an input. Passing a motion is a decision. Changing the recruitment system is an outcome. They are not the same thing.
Community Standards Bylaw — November 2023
Before the final vote on the Community Standards Bylaw, Councillor Lisa Osanic proposed adding “without reasonable excuse” to the prohibition on public urination and defecation. Glenn supported that amendment. It failed 9–3, with Glenn, Osanic and Brandon Tozzo in the minority.
The amended bylaw then passed 10–2. Glenn voted for it. Paterson also supported the final bylaw.
Glenn’s preferred position was that the bylaw should contain an additional qualification protecting someone with a “reasonable excuse.” Council rejected that qualification. Glenn nevertheless supported the broader bylaw. Neither vote erases the other.
Fines for Food — 2024–2026
Glenn introduced the February 2024 motion that led to Kingston’s Fines for Food initiative, directing a period of parking-ticket revenues to support food-security programs. Council later extended the program for five years. By June 2026 the program was generating about $180,000 annually: roughly $100,000 to food banks and pantries and $80,000 to a vertical-farming project.
Whatever voters think of the policy, the accountability chain is clear: Motion → program → funding → measurable output.
Crossroads Village Sleeping Cabins — July 2024
Kingston’s original mobile sleeping-cabin pilot encountered serious problems, including repeated relocation. When Our Livable Solutions returned with a revised proposal for Crossroads Village on land at Crossroads United Church, the circumstances had changed: a longer-term location had emerged and outside/community financing was being pursued.
Council approved support for the revised concept 12–1, with Councillor Jeff McLaren the sole opponent. Both Paterson and Glenn supported the arrangement. The City’s support included planning/legal assistance, potential capital support and conditional transfer of the existing cabins.
A change of position is not necessarily inconsistency if the proposal itself has changed. The serious question is what changed in the facts that justified the different decision.
Police Services Board — October 2024
Paterson proposed expanding the Kingston Police Services Board from five members to seven. Councillor Jeff McLaren sought to amend that proposal and expand it immediately to nine. Glenn supported the nine-member option. The amendment failed 9–3.
Paterson’s original seven-member proposal then passed 12–0. Glenn also supported the final seven-member board.
Looking only at the final vote would show both voting yes. The complete record shows Glenn preferred immediate expansion to nine while Paterson preferred expansion to seven first. After her preferred option failed, she supported the compromise.
Integrity Commissioner Sanctions — December 2024
Council considered an Integrity Commissioner’s findings that Councillor Jeff McLaren had breached confidentiality provisions of Kingston’s Code of Conduct. The Commissioner recommended a reprimand and a 30-day suspension of pay. Council separated the two sanctions.
The reprimand passed 10–2, with Glenn and Lisa Osanic opposed. The 30-day pay suspension passed 9–3, with Glenn, Osanic and Gary Oosterhof opposed. Paterson supported both sanctions.
Glenn argued that the lengthy investigation had already amounted to sufficient punishment. The record establishes a narrower point: Paterson accepted the Commissioner’s recommended sanctions; Glenn believed the additional punishment was disproportionate under the circumstances. Voters can decide which approach to institutional accountability they prefer.
Memorial Centre Stadium — January 2025
Council was asked whether City staff should open negotiations with a private proponent proposing an approximately $50-million multi-use soccer stadium on public land at the Memorial Centre. The decision was not final approval to build; it was authorization to investigate and negotiate a potential long-term lease.
Council voted 9–3 to proceed. The three opponents were Lisa Osanic, Vincent Cinanni and Brandon Tozzo. Glenn was among the nine supporting further negotiations. Paterson also supported proceeding, stressing that the decision was about exploring the opportunity rather than finally approving it.
The proponent later withdrew the proposal after legal and other difficulties emerged. Subsequent neighbourhood criticism focused on how the unsolicited proposal had reached Council and on limited early public involvement. Both Paterson and Glenn initially supported continuing the process. For Glenn, whose campaign emphasizes earlier public engagement, a fair question is what lessons she took from the Memorial Centre process and what she would do differently as mayor.
Limestone City Co-operative Housing — March 2025
Limestone City Co-operative Housing sought to build approximately 248 units in a proposed $136-million development incorporating co-operative housing and vertical farming on City-owned land at 900 Division Street. Council faced a fundamental choice: continue attempting to make the municipal land available for the co-operative proposal, or sell the property and use the proceeds for other affordable-housing purposes.
Glenn supported continuing with the co-operative proposal. Paterson opposed that approach, arguing that the City needed to consider the opportunity cost of tying up scarce municipal land where financing and ultimate construction remained uncertain. The co-op option failed 7–4, with Glenn among the minority; Paterson supported selling the land.
Neither position can fairly be reduced to “for housing” versus “against housing.” Both claimed an affordable-housing objective. The disagreement concerned how City land and public resources should be used to achieve it.
City Park Baseball Fencing — February 2025
After Kingston invested more than $1 million in the City Park baseball facility for the 2024 Canadian Little League Championships, controversy arose over whether outfield fencing initially understood to be temporary should remain. When Council reconsidered the matter, Glenn supported removing the permanent home-run fence and purchasing temporary fencing instead. Council rejected that approach. The final option—to leave the existing fence in place—passed 9–4, with Glenn one of the four opponents.
Glenn emphasized the City’s previous assurances to neighbourhood residents. The majority emphasized expense, safety and the benefits of maintaining a tournament-quality facility. This is not one of Kingston’s largest financial decisions, but it is useful evidence concerning public trust and commitments made during consultation.
Sydenham Road Homeless Shelter — July 2025
The proposed emergency shelter at 924 Sydenham Road generated substantial opposition, including a petition containing 742 signatures. Councillor Paul Chaves moved to remove the site from consideration. That motion failed 8–5.
Both Paterson and Glenn voted against removing the site, meaning both supported continuing with the planned shelter location. Paterson subsequently proposed that staff review the shelter after six months of operation; Council supported that review requirement.
On this major and controversial homelessness decision, Paterson and Glenn were substantially aligned. That shared responsibility belongs in the record just as clearly as their disagreements.
Confederation Basin Water Park — July 2025
Council considered approximately $3 million in expanded waterfront amenities connected with the Confederation Basin Promenade, including an inflatable water park, swimming facilities and a private contribution tied to naming rights. Paterson supported proceeding.
Glenn first attempted to defer the decision until September so that additional public consultation could take place. Her deferral motion failed narrowly, 7–6. The substantive project then passed 8–5, with Glenn opposed.
In 2026 the inflatable-water-park component was discontinued after the City and private proponent could not reach a final agreement, although other waterfront components continued. The original decision, the consultation dispute and the eventual outcome can all be examined.
92 Napier Street Housing — August 2025
Council faced another significant housing disagreement over a proposal at 92 Napier Street involving four three-storey buildings with a total of 40 bedrooms. City planning staff recommended approval. Glenn opposed the development, arguing that it represented the wrong form and density of housing for the neighbourhood. Paterson supported it and warned that rejecting a development consistent with relevant planning policies created a very high risk of losing an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. Council rejected the application 7–6.
Placed beside the Limestone Co-op decision, the contrast is instructive:
- At Limestone, Glenn supported the proposed 248-unit co-operative project; Paterson opposed proceeding with that particular land arrangement.
- At Napier, Paterson supported the additional housing; Glenn opposed that particular development.
Labels such as “pro-housing” and “anti-housing” are practically useless. Housing decisions involve type, density, location, affordability, neighbourhood impact, municipal risk and provincial planning law. Candidates should explain the principles that determine where they draw those lines.
Child Safety Zones — October and November 2025
Glenn initially brought forward a proposal to create 50-metre child-safety zones around specified areas such as playgrounds, schools and sports facilities, with restrictions involving temporary shelters, drug paraphernalia and open-air drug use. Legal and human-rights concerns emerged during the October debate. Rather than force the original proposal to a likely defeat, Glenn withdrew it.
She returned in November with a more limited proposal: first obtain formal legal advice before deciding whether to amend the bylaws. That revised motion passed 12–1. Paterson supported it and successfully broadened the legal review to include other public places where children gather. His amendment passed unanimously.
The legislative history is: original proposal → legal concerns → withdrawal → narrower proposal → Paterson amendment → 12–1 approval. Voters can decide whether they see it as prudent adaptation, an initially overbroad proposal, or both.
Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Corporation — June 2026
Council considered creating a municipally controlled corporation to oversee Kingston’s approximately $3.2 billion in water and wastewater assets. The proposal was intended in part to give the utility greater borrowing flexibility and separate significant utility infrastructure debt from the City’s own borrowing capacity.
Glenn first sought to change the recommendation so that Council would merely “explore” the municipal service corporation rather than “endorse” it. That amendment failed. Paterson opposed the amendment, arguing that the model had already been explored for approximately two years. Council then voted 8–4 to proceed with endorsement. Paterson voted yes; Glenn voted no.
Other amendments were adopted unanimously requiring continued public ownership, public and Council representation, reporting requirements and additional work on the shareholder agreement.
This is one of the clearest examples of the first-vote principle in the term:
- Glenn’s preferred position: continue exploring rather than endorse.
- Council rejected that position.
- Glenn’s final position: vote against endorsement.
- Paterson’s position: proceed toward the new corporate structure, subject to safeguards and later approvals.
Because Kingston faces major long-term infrastructure requirements, this could become one of the most important policy distinctions of the 2026 campaign.
What the Record Shows — and What It Does Not
After reviewing these decisions, there is no evidence supporting a simplistic story in which Paterson and Glenn are consistently on opposite sides. Sometimes they clearly disagree. Sometimes their initial preferences differ but they ultimately support the same compromise. Sometimes they vote together from the outset. And sometimes one initiates a proposal while the other subsequently helps modify or support it. That is normal government.
The record does, however, show several genuine areas of difference:
- On some housing proposals, Paterson placed greater weight on development feasibility, land opportunity cost or planning requirements, while Glenn placed greater weight on particular housing models or neighbourhood compatibility.
- On some consultation questions, Glenn sought additional delay or adherence to earlier commitments (notably at Confederation Basin and City Park).
- On the water/wastewater corporation, Paterson was prepared to proceed toward a new financing structure while Glenn wanted further exploration rather than endorsement.
Yet on the Sydenham Road shelter and Crossroads Village, both supported substantial homelessness initiatives. That is a far more complicated—and more useful—record than campaign labels provide.
Key differences at a glance
| Issue | Paterson | Glenn |
|---|---|---|
| Limestone Co-op land | Support selling the land | Support continuing with co-op proposal |
| 92 Napier Street housing | Support the development | Oppose the development |
| Water/Wastewater corporation | Endorse proceeding | Prefer further exploration; opposed final |
| Confederation Basin amenities | Support proceeding | Prefer deferral for consultation; then no |
| Integrity Commissioner sanctions | Support both recommended sanctions | Opposed both as disproportionate |
Why We Do Not Calculate a “Voting Together” Percentage
It might be tempting to say “Paterson and Glenn voted together X per cent of the time.” That approach is not recommended. Recorded votes are not a random sample of everything Council does. Many routine measures pass unanimously or without individually recorded votes. Some of the most consequential decisions involve amendments, procedural votes or Strong Mayor powers.
Kingston’s Open Data portal provides Council voting records, but the public dataset is currently marked as updated to April 10, 2025. For later decisions, this article supplemented that material with Council records and contemporaneous reporting. A percentage could produce mathematical precision while concealing political meaning. The issues matter more than the count.
What About Vanessa Mensah and Grant Bedard?
Mensah and Bedard are also current candidates for mayor, but neither is a member of the present Kingston Council. They therefore do not have a comparable 2022–2026 Council voting record. That should not count against them. Their accountability test must instead come from their published platforms and their answers to questions concerning what they will do, what it will cost, who will pay, when it will happen, whether the City has the authority to do it, and how success will be measured. The standard remains the same; the available evidence differs.
Questions the Record Now Creates for Bryan Paterson
- On housing, why did selling the Limestone Co-op property represent the better affordable-housing strategy while approving the Napier Street development was considered important despite neighbourhood objections?
- On consultation, where should a mayor draw the line between further public engagement and making a timely decision?
- On infrastructure, why is the new municipal service corporation preferable to increased taxation, conventional borrowing, higher utility rates or reductions elsewhere?
- Under Strong Mayor budgeting, what maximum total property-tax increase can a mayor realistically promise when external-agency costs may move independently of the municipal portion?
Questions the Record Now Creates for Conny Glenn
- On housing, what principle explains supporting the large Limestone co-operative proposal while opposing the smaller Napier Street development?
- On taxation, if a special levy is undesirable, how would additional housing, homelessness and infrastructure commitments be financed?
- On consultation, what specific procedural reforms would ensure that public involvement occurs before decisions reach the point where a councillor must seek a last-minute deferral?
- On infrastructure, if the water/wastewater corporation should not yet have been endorsed, what financing alternative should Kingston pursue?
- Concerning the firefighter-recruitment issue, what specific reform followed the failed 2023 Council motion and what measurable change resulted?
These are not accusations of contradiction. They ask each candidate to explain the governing principle behind different decisions.
The Most Important Lesson
Our Kingston election project now gives voters four increasingly useful levels of evidence:
- What happened? (The Kingston 2022–2026 Report Card)
- What position did an elected candidate initially prefer? (The amendment, motion or first substantive decision)
- What did that candidate ultimately accept or reject? (The final Council decision)
- What is that candidate promising now? (The 2026 campaign platform)
Put those together: Record → First Position → Final Decision → Promise
Then ask one final question: Does the new promise make sense in light of the previous record?
That is not partisan. It is accountability.
The Responsibility Test
A candidate says housing is a priority? Examine the housing votes. A candidate promises transparency and consultation? Examine what happened when consultation was disputed. A candidate promises fiscal responsibility? Examine taxation, financing structures, land decisions and major capital commitments. A candidate promises public safety? Examine Community Standards, policing governance and shelter decisions. A candidate promises accountability? Examine what happened when accountability itself came before Council.
And when a first vote and a final vote differ? Show both. Do not assume bad motives. Do not erase the first position. Do not conceal the final compromise.
Give voters the complete sequence and allow them to decide what it means.
We provide the facts. The candidates provide their explanations. The voters make the judgment.
Research and Editorial Note — August 16, 2026
This article draws on Kingston’s official Council Voting Records and Mayoral Decision Registry, City Council and budget material, and contemporaneous Kingston-area reporting used to establish the circumstances and individual positions surrounding significant votes. The City’s Council Voting Records dataset is currently marked updated to April 10, 2025; its separate Mayoral Decision Registry remains available for decisions made under Strong Mayor authority. Where an individual’s vote could not be established with sufficient confidence, it has not been attributed. Where a proposal was merely studied or negotiated rather than finally approved or completed, this article says so. Where an initial position differed from a final vote, both have been reported.
No candidate is endorsed, opposed, ranked or graded. The purpose is to give Kingston voters factual information with which to ask better questions and make their own decision.
.png)
