Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Read by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you Read by hand. We read Kitchener's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 11 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Kitchener's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 6 similar Ontario places. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$153,372,698debt at December 31, 2025, up from $79,263,355 a year earlier
Kitchener's audited statements show its debt at $153,372,698 at the end of 2025, against $79,263,355 a year earlier. The cash flow statement shows $86,590,715 of new debt issued and $12,481,372 repaid. The city's own debt-to-reserve ratio (debt divided by reserves, where the city's maximum target is 1.0) went from 0.5 to 0.9. The city says the new debt is for growth-related projects and that its debt charges are well inside its limits. What the documents we read do not show is how the $153 million splits between debt that development charges will repay and debt that taxes or user rates will repay.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
9.6%of taxes billed were unpaid at the end of 2025, up from 8.1% in 2024 (Ministry low-risk line: under 10%)
At the end of 2025 Kitchener was owed $56,437,736 in property taxes, up from $43,887,598 a year earlier. The city's own indicator says that 9.6% of the taxes it billed were unpaid, up from 8.1%. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing treats under 10% as low risk. The city says the rise "reflects the increase to taxes billed in 2025, as well as an increase to the overall ratio of taxes being in arrears", but does not say why more are late. The 2026 budget also counts on more penalty and interest income because of "larger accounts receivable balances".
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
98 vs 3,265planned end-2026 Storm Water reserve against its minimum target, in thousands of dollars
Each of the city's rate-funded businesses has a "stabilization reserve", savings to cover a bad year. The city sets a minimum and a maximum for each. The 2026 reserve table (in thousands of dollars) shows the Storm Water Utility reserve starting 2026 at 3,543, paying 3,576 into operations, and ending at 98 against a minimum of 3,265. The Golf reserve is below zero: (834) at the start of 2026 and (712) at the end, against a minimum of 407. The city explains the stormwater plan: costs on its flood-protection (DMAF) projects have risen, and the stormwater rate is going up 7.4% to fund the city's share. The documents we read do not say when the reserves return to their minimums.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
15,847thousand dollars: the gas delivery dividend to the city, the same in each year of the 2025 to 2030 plan
Kitchener is one of only two Ontario municipalities that own a natural gas utility. Its 2026 budget shows the gas delivery business paying the same dividend to the city, 15,847 thousand dollars, every year from 2025 to 2030, while its own operations and transfers to capital exceed its revenue in 2026 by 4,826 (covered from its stabilization reserve). The city says dividends "help offset the need for property tax increases", and also reports that its Gas Asset Management Plan "identified a gap in funding requirements for the next 10 years". The documents we read do not say how the dividend amount is chosen.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$174 millionthe 2026 budget's figure for the facility; the 2025 budget printed $144M for a facility at the same park
The 2025 budget describes "a $144M for the Kitchener Indoor Recreation Facility" at Schlegel Park, with an indoor pool and a FIFA-sized soccer facility, funded through development charges. The 2026 budget calls the Cowan Recreation Centre at Schlegel Park "a $174 million facility", "fully funded through development charges", that also "received $30 million in grant funding", and says it is being delivered "on time and on budget". The difference, $30 million, is the same as the grant amount, but neither budget says the two figures are measured the same way, and the 2025 budget does not use the name Cowan.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$167,721,382audited 2025 annual surplus, against a statement budget of $135,065,953 (the approved operating budget was balanced)
The audited statements show an annual surplus of $167,721,382 for 2025 against a budget of $135,065,953. Revenue was $683,348,322 against $653,235,408 budgeted; expenses were $515,626,940 against $518,169,455. The city explains that the approved operating budget itself was balanced ("$ -"), and that the statement's budget surplus is made up of accounting adjustments, mostly $102,340,086 of "net transfers to capital and reserve funds". It explains the revenue gap with colder weather (gas), warmer weather and population (water), and more development charge revenue.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$316,108,080the city's investment in Enova Energy Corporation at the end of 2025 (it owns 53.39% of the common shares)
The city's 2025 pay statement shows the Mayor as a director of both Enova Power Corp. and Enova Energy Corp., and six councillors (Scott Davey, Dave Schnider, Paul Singh, Bil Ioannidis, Margaret Johnston and Debbie Chapman) as directors of Enova Energy Corp. Together they received 44,425 in 2025 for Enova Energy Corp. (35,875 in pay and 8,550 in meeting expenses), and the Mayor a further 6,675 for Enova Power Corp. The city owns 53.39% of the common shares of Enova Energy Corporation, which it carries at $316,108,080, and received dividends of $6,448,000 from it in 2025. The city discloses all of this; the documents we read do not say how the seats are assigned or who sets the fees.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
No contraventionOmbudsman of Ontario finding, June 2025, on the August 14, 2023 closed meeting
The Ontario Ombudsman, who is Kitchener's closed meeting investigator, looked into a complaint about the August 14, 2023 special council meeting, where council discussed "City Owned Performing Arts and Entertainment Facilities" in private. In June 2025 the Ombudsman found that council "did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001". He also found that parts of the discussion did not fit an exception on their own but could not realistically be separated from the rest, and said his office "did not receive clear documentation setting out that the information was supplied in confidence". He suggested a best practice for the city. The city's clerk said the report would be shared with council and the public.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
2016the posted policy on council pay was last reviewed in June 2016; its next review date was July 2021
The city's pay statements page links one policy on council pay, GOV-COU-020 "Council Compensation". The copy posted shows "Reviewed Date: June 2016" and "Next Review Date: July 2021", and says "No amendment history to date". It sets pay as a 2003 base salary adjusted each year by the lesser of two staff raises. In 2025 the Mayor's taxable pay was 116,364 and each ward councillor's was 59,865. We found no newer policy or review on the pages we read; one may exist in the city's document repository, which we could not search.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
$3,683,211Grand Total on the 2026 operating budget table, the amount by which net expenses exceed general revenues as printed
The operating budget's summary table totals "General Revenues" of (206,187,712) against "Total Net Expenses" of 209,870,923 for 2026, and prints a "Grand Total" of 3,683,211. For 2025 the table shows a restated budget of nothing but a "Year-End Projection" Grand Total of 1,199,000. The table does not label these amounts. The 2026 budget proposes a 2.2% property tax increase, and the table's "General Levy" line mentions only assessment growth, so the 3,683,211 may be the amount a rate increase is meant to raise; no document we read says so.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
Places keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. Kitchener had $177M saved at the end of 2025, up from $84.7M in 2019. That is 40% of one year's spending. None of the 6 similar places had less, compared with what they spend.
Found automatically from the city's financial reports · 7 sources
$153,372,698debt at December 31, 2025, up from $79,263,355 a year earlier
Kitchener's audited statements show its debt at $153,372,698 at the end of 2025, against $79,263,355 a year earlier. The cash flow statement shows $86,590,715 of new debt issued and $12,481,372 repaid. The city's own debt-to-reserve ratio (debt divided by reserves, where the city's maximum target is 1.0) went from 0.5 to 0.9. The city says the new debt is for growth-related projects and that its debt charges are well inside its limits. What the documents we read do not show is how the $153 million splits between debt that development charges will repay and debt that taxes or user rates will repay.
Why it matters
Debt is repaid with interest by future residents. Kitchener has had little debt for a decade, so a jump this size is a change in how the city pays for things. The city says it is within its limits, so this is a question about the plan, not an alarm.
It could be because…
The city says its debt includes borrowing for growth-related projects whose debt charges "will be funded by future development charges" (the fees builders pay), so taxes may not be affected.
Borrowing now, while a project is built, and repaying from development charges as they arrive over several years is a normal way to build growth projects.
The debt carries interest rates between 1.00% and 4.95%, and a $28,408,836 part is sinking fund debentures (repaid from a fund the Region of Waterloo manages), so the cost may be low.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $153,372,698 will be repaid from development charges, how much from property taxes, and how much from user rates?
What is the planned debt balance at the end of each year to 2029, and what debt-to-reserve ratio would make the city slow down?
If development charges come in lower than planned, which source repays the growth debt?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The statement of financial position lists "Debt (Note 13)" at 153,372,698 for 2025 and 79,263,355 for 2024.
Note 13 breaks the debt into serial debentures of $125,526,587 (2024: $78,954,648) and sinking fund debentures of $28,408,836 (2024: nothing). Principal due in 2026 is $15,648,456 and in 2027 is $12,838,676. "Interest charges for 2025 relating to debt totalled $3,833,682".
The city's explanation: "Municipal debt has increased to $153 million at the end of 2025 from $79 million at the end of 2024. The change in debt is a result of new debt issuance of $87 million offset by repayment of $12 million of existing debt." It lists four parts of the debt: tax-supported capital, enterprises, the Economic Development Investment Fund, and growth-related projects "where the debt charges will be funded by future development charges", and sets its own limit that "Tax supported debt charges will be limited to 10% of the City's own source revenues".
The city's own indicator table prints "Debt to reserve ratio", "Maximum target: 1.0", 0.9 for 2025 and 0.5 for 2024, rated "Below target". It explains: "A ratio of 1 or lower reflects that for every dollar of debt there is at least one dollar of reserves." In the same table, debt charges are 2.4% of revenues in 2025 (1.8% in 2024) against a low-risk line of 5%.
The 2026 budget says: "The City has had decreasing debt levels for the past decade, but will see increasing debt in order to fund growth related infrastructure needed as the city continues to grow." It adds "No Capital Pool debt is being issued in 2026", and that debt for the second Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF 2.0) "will be issued between 2022-2029". The chart of debt by type is an image with no readable figures.
9.6%of taxes billed were unpaid at the end of 2025, up from 8.1% in 2024 (Ministry low-risk line: under 10%)
At the end of 2025 Kitchener was owed $56,437,736 in property taxes, up from $43,887,598 a year earlier. The city's own indicator says that 9.6% of the taxes it billed were unpaid, up from 8.1%. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing treats under 10% as low risk. The city says the rise "reflects the increase to taxes billed in 2025, as well as an increase to the overall ratio of taxes being in arrears", but does not say why more are late. The 2026 budget also counts on more penalty and interest income because of "larger accounts receivable balances".
Why it matters
Taxes that are not paid on time have to be chased, and a city that budgets for more late-payment interest is planning for more people or businesses to pay late. A ratio that keeps rising would cross the Ministry's line within a year or two.
It could be because…
Tax bills grew and a larger bill makes a larger amount outstanding even if payment habits are unchanged.
A few large commercial accounts, or the timing of a due date near year end, can move the ratio.
Households and businesses may be under cost pressure and paying later than before.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $56,437,736 is owed by homes and how much by businesses, and how much was collected in the first months of 2026?
What does the city think explains the rise from 8.1% to 9.6%, and what will it do if the ratio passes 10%?
How much penalty and interest income was actually collected in 2025 against the $4,878,147 budgeted, and what is the 2026 plan if arrears keep rising?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The statement of financial position lists "Taxes receivable (Note 3)" at 56,437,736 for 2025 and 43,887,598 for 2024.
The city's explanation: "Taxes receivable increased to $56 million at the end of 2025 from $44 million at the end of 2024. This reflects the increase to taxes billed in 2025, as well as an increase to the overall ratio of taxes being in arrears. In 2025, the ratio of taxes receivable to taxes levied was 9.6%. The City's ratio remains below the threshold of 10% for the low-risk category". A small chart on the page is partly an image.
The 2026 operating budget plans penalties and interest of (6,210,608) against (4,888,551) in the 2025 restated budget, an increase of 27.04%, with the comment "Budget increase due to higher revenue projection to reflect larger accounts receivable balances."
98 vs 3,265planned end-2026 Storm Water reserve against its minimum target, in thousands of dollars
Each of the city's rate-funded businesses has a "stabilization reserve", savings to cover a bad year. The city sets a minimum and a maximum for each. The 2026 reserve table (in thousands of dollars) shows the Storm Water Utility reserve starting 2026 at 3,543, paying 3,576 into operations, and ending at 98 against a minimum of 3,265. The Golf reserve is below zero: (834) at the start of 2026 and (712) at the end, against a minimum of 407. The city explains the stormwater plan: costs on its flood-protection (DMAF) projects have risen, and the stormwater rate is going up 7.4% to fund the city's share. The documents we read do not say when the reserves return to their minimums.
Why it matters
A stabilization reserve is the cushion that stops a surprise from landing on rates or taxes at once. A planned draw below the cushion's own minimum is allowed, but residents can only judge it if they can see when the cushion is rebuilt, and who covers a negative one.
It could be because…
Stabilization reserves exist to be drawn down in a bad year, and the city says one purpose is to fund "deficits from unexpected circumstances".
Stormwater is paying its share of large flood-protection projects that other governments are also funding, so a planned one-time draw may be cheaper than a larger rate rise.
A reserve that has to be rebuilt by later rate increases may already be in the 2027 to 2030 plan.
Questions you could ask
In which year does the Storm Water reserve return to its minimum of 3,265 (thousand dollars), and what rate increase does that need?
Why is the Golf Enterprise reserve below zero, how long has it been, and who covers a negative balance?
Does the city's reserve policy allow a planned draw below a reserve's own minimum, and who approves it?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The 2026 reserve fund table (in thousands of dollars) prints for Storm Water Utility Stab.: opening balance 3,543, transfer to operating 3,576, ending balance 98, minimum target 3,265, maximum 4,897. For Golf Enterprise Stab.: opening balance (834), ending balance (712), minimum 407, maximum 611. The table is laid out in columns, so the figures are read from the printed table.
The Stormwater operating projection (in thousands) shows 2026 core revenue 32,647, transfer to capital 25,627 (2025: 18,341), expenses 37,214 and "Net Revenue (Expense)" of (3,576), balanced by a "Transfer (to)/from Stabilization Reserve" of 3,576.
The city's explanation: "the City's DMAF program has faced significant cost escalations since the program was initiated in 2018/19", and the stormwater increase of 7.4% "is required to fund the City's share of projects being significantly funded ( approximately $50M ) by other levels of government through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF)."
The city's description of the reserves: "Each enterprise has its own stabilization reserve fund that is used to manage fluctuations in financial operating results from year to year. In years that end with positive results, the surplus funds are held in reserve and are used to fund deficits from unexpected circumstances such as the pandemic."
15,847thousand dollars: the gas delivery dividend to the city, the same in each year of the 2025 to 2030 plan
Kitchener is one of only two Ontario municipalities that own a natural gas utility. Its 2026 budget shows the gas delivery business paying the same dividend to the city, 15,847 thousand dollars, every year from 2025 to 2030, while its own operations and transfers to capital exceed its revenue in 2026 by 4,826 (covered from its stabilization reserve). The city says dividends "help offset the need for property tax increases", and also reports that its Gas Asset Management Plan "identified a gap in funding requirements for the next 10 years". The documents we read do not say how the dividend amount is chosen.
Why it matters
Gas customers pay the rates that fund the dividend, and the dividend lowers property taxes for everyone, including people who do not use city gas. If pipes need more money than the plan provides, that tradeoff matters to both groups.
It could be because…
The city says only two of its seven businesses pay a dividend "based on their governing legislation"; the amount may be a long-standing fixed policy that is reviewed with each rate plan.
Water heater rental income of about 4,000 thousand dollars a year is also moved to the same stabilization reserve, which may be what keeps the plan balanced.
The funding gap in the asset plan may be met by rising transfers to capital (15,382 in 2025, planned 25,487 in 2029) rather than by changing the dividend.
Questions you could ask
How is the yearly dividend amount set, who approves it, and when was it last reviewed against the Gas Asset Management Plan?
How much of the 10-year gas infrastructure funding gap does the capital forecast close, and how much is left to future rates?
What would the dividend have to fall to for gas rates to stay flat while the gap is closed?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Gas Delivery five-year operating projection (thousands of dollars) lists "Dividend Transfer to City" of 15,847 in each of 2025 (budget), 2025 (projected), 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030; "Transfer to Capital" of 15,382 (2025), 18,653 (2026) and 25,487 (2029); and "Net Revenue (Expense)" of (4,826) for 2026, balanced by a transfer from the Gas Delivery Stabilization Reserve.
The city's explanation of dividends: "two of the enterprises (parking and natural gas) pay a dividend to the city (the enterprise owner), which help offset the need for property tax increases."
Under Gas Utility "Recent Challenges", the 2026 budget lists: "Completion of the Gas Asset Management Plan, which identified a gap in funding requirements for the next 10 years and needs to invest in aging gas infrastructure." The capital highlights list "Gas Pipelines ($10.4M in 2026, $101.5M overall" in the capital forecast.
The audited statement of operations shows Gasworks user fees of 105,526,520 (budget 98,298,680) and Gasworks expenses of 80,100,303 (budget 75,983,429) for 2025. The city explains gasworks revenue was higher "due to higher consumption by the City's customers as a result of colder weather".
$174 millionthe 2026 budget's figure for the facility; the 2025 budget printed $144M for a facility at the same park
The 2025 budget describes "a $144M for the Kitchener Indoor Recreation Facility" at Schlegel Park, with an indoor pool and a FIFA-sized soccer facility, funded through development charges. The 2026 budget calls the Cowan Recreation Centre at Schlegel Park "a $174 million facility", "fully funded through development charges", that also "received $30 million in grant funding", and says it is being delivered "on time and on budget". The difference, $30 million, is the same as the grant amount, but neither budget says the two figures are measured the same way, and the 2025 budget does not use the name Cowan.
Why it matters
This is the largest single project in the city's growth plan, and the city's claim is that it is on budget. A reader can only check that if both figures count the same things.
It could be because…
The $144M may be the part paid by development charges and the $174M the full cost, with the $30M of grants added; the numbers fit, but no document we read says so.
The project may have been renamed between budgets, or its scope may have grown (for example the cricket practice nets).
Costs may be counted differently, for instance with or without interest on borrowing.
Questions you could ask
What is the approved total cost of the Cowan Recreation Centre, how is it split between development charges, grants and any borrowing, and is it the project the 2025 budget called a $144M indoor recreation facility?
Is the project on budget measured against the $174 million, and what changes were approved along the way?
If development charges fall short, who repays the borrowing for the centre?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The 2025 budget says the city needs new amenities in the southwest and lists "$16M for the construction of a new library branch in southwest Kitchener, $6M for the Rosenburg Community Centre, and a $144M for the Kitchener Indoor Recreation Facility that will be located at Schlegel Park and will include an indoor pool, FIFA sized soccer facility".
The 2026 budget says: "the Cowan Recreation Centre, a $174 million facility located at Schlegel Park in the city's southwest. Fully funded through development charges, the project also received $30 million in grant funding from the Federal and Provincial governments." It also says the centre is "being delivered using an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) model" to make sure it is "completed on time and on budget", and that its operating costs were 0.9% of the 2026 tax increase on their own.
The audited statements say: "In 2025, development charge revenue mostly related to the Cowan Recreation Centre." Development charge revenue recognized was 54,465,341 in 2025 (22,331,655 in 2024); development charges held for future projects fell to 33,256,103 from 53,495,388.
$167,721,382audited 2025 annual surplus, against a statement budget of $135,065,953 (the approved operating budget was balanced)
The audited statements show an annual surplus of $167,721,382 for 2025 against a budget of $135,065,953. Revenue was $683,348,322 against $653,235,408 budgeted; expenses were $515,626,940 against $518,169,455. The city explains that the approved operating budget itself was balanced ("$ -"), and that the statement's budget surplus is made up of accounting adjustments, mostly $102,340,086 of "net transfers to capital and reserve funds". It explains the revenue gap with colder weather (gas), warmer weather and population (water), and more development charge revenue.
Why it matters
A large number labelled "surplus" can sound like spare cash. Most of it here is money set aside or spent on buildings and pipes, and the city publishes the reconciliation, so this is context, not a gap in its explanation.
It could be because…
The surplus counts revenue that cannot be spent freely: development charges, capital grants, and gifts of roads and pipes from builders ($15,305,094).
The city does not budget for amortization (the yearly wearing-out of assets), so the budget is adjusted for the statements and the adjustments are listed in Note 22.
A cold winter and a warm summer raised gas and water sales above plan.
Questions you could ask
What was the result against the approved (balanced) operating budget in 2025, and where is that reported to council?
How much of the 2025 surplus is cash that the city can spend, and how much is development charges, grants and contributed assets?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The statement of operations shows 2025 total revenues of 683,348,322 (budget 653,235,408), total expenses of 515,626,940 (budget 518,169,455) and an annual surplus of 167,721,382 (budget 135,065,953; 2024: 143,846,392).
Note 22 reconciles the budget: "2025 Approved operating budget surplus $ -", then adjustments including "Net transfers to capital and reserve funds 102,340,086", "Reserve budget revenues net of expenses 69,480,939", "Amortization of tangible capital assets (64,571,592)" and "Contributions of tangible capital assets 15,302,843", to a "Consolidated financial statement budget surplus $ 135,065,953".
The city's explanation of revenue: "Gasworks revenue was higher than budget by $7 million and increased by $14 million from the prior year due to higher consumption by the City's customers as a result of colder weather", and water, sewer and storm water revenue "was greater than budget by $10 million". It adds: "The annual surplus resulting from revenues exceeding expenses provides funding for the City's capital rehabilitation and replacement projects and growth-supporting new capital investments."
$316,108,080the city's investment in Enova Energy Corporation at the end of 2025 (it owns 53.39% of the common shares)
The city's 2025 pay statement shows the Mayor as a director of both Enova Power Corp. and Enova Energy Corp., and six councillors (Scott Davey, Dave Schnider, Paul Singh, Bil Ioannidis, Margaret Johnston and Debbie Chapman) as directors of Enova Energy Corp. Together they received 44,425 in 2025 for Enova Energy Corp. (35,875 in pay and 8,550 in meeting expenses), and the Mayor a further 6,675 for Enova Power Corp. The city owns 53.39% of the common shares of Enova Energy Corporation, which it carries at $316,108,080, and received dividends of $6,448,000 from it in 2025. The city discloses all of this; the documents we read do not say how the seats are assigned or who sets the fees.
Why it matters
The same people who govern the city, and decide on budgets, rates and development that affect a local electricity company, also sit on its boards and are paid for it. That is common where a city owns a utility, and it is disclosed here, but residents may want to know how the two roles are kept apart.
It could be because…
A shareholder usually puts its own representatives on the board of a company it owns, and council members are the shareholder's elected voice.
The fees are published in the yearly pay statement as the Municipal Act requires.
The other municipalities that joined the 2022 merger may also have directors, so Kitchener's seats may follow an ownership agreement.
Questions you could ask
How are council's seats on the Enova boards assigned, who sets the director fees, and are they reviewed?
How does a director who is also a councillor handle a council decision that affects Enova, and are those declared?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Schedule 5 lists Directors of Enova Power Corp.: Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 5,250 remuneration and 1,425 meeting expenses, total 6,675. Directors of Enova Energy Corp.: Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 5,250, 1,425, 6,675; Councillor Scott Davey 6,125, 1,900, 8,025; Councillor Dave Schnider 4,375, 950, 5,325; Councillor Paul Singh 6,125, 1,425, 7,550; Councillor Bil Ioannidis 4,375, 475, 4,850; Councillor Margaret Johnston 4,375, 1,425, 5,800; Debbie Chapman 5,250, 950, 6,200; totals 35,875, 8,550 and 44,425.
Note 8: "The City obtained a 53.39% share of the common shares and 92.25% of the Class A special shares." The investment is 316,108,080 at the end of 2025 (313,240,059 in 2024), made up of common shares of 174,183,807, long-term notes receivable of 70,997,576, and share of net income net of dividends. In 2025 the city's share of net income was 9,653,446 and "Dividends received during year" were (6,448,000).
No contraventionOmbudsman of Ontario finding, June 2025, on the August 14, 2023 closed meeting
The Ontario Ombudsman, who is Kitchener's closed meeting investigator, looked into a complaint about the August 14, 2023 special council meeting, where council discussed "City Owned Performing Arts and Entertainment Facilities" in private. In June 2025 the Ombudsman found that council "did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001". He also found that parts of the discussion did not fit an exception on their own but could not realistically be separated from the rest, and said his office "did not receive clear documentation setting out that the information was supplied in confidence". He suggested a best practice for the city. The city's clerk said the report would be shared with council and the public.
Why it matters
Closed meetings are allowed only for listed reasons. An independent investigator cleared this one, but the documentation point is a reminder to check, and it concerns how the city runs four public venues.
It could be because…
The city had promised the venue operators confidentiality for the financial information they supplied, which is a normal reason to meet privately.
The Ombudsman accepted that the open parts were too closely tied to the private parts to separate.
The city may already have changed how it records confidentiality; we could not read its later council minutes.
Questions you could ask
When did council receive the Ombudsman's report, and did it adopt the suggested practice of confirming confidentiality with third parties?
How many closed sessions did council hold in 2025 and 2026, and how often did it report back in public?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
"My investigation determined that council for the City of Kitchener did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 14, 2023." The report also says "The Ombudsman is the closed meeting investigator for the City of Kitchener."
The Ombudsman wrote that "my Office did not receive clear documentation setting out that the information was supplied in confidence." His best practice: "before relying on the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party at section 239(2)(i), the City should confirm with the third party whether or not the information was supplied in confidence".
On the report's release: "The Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk indicated that my report would be shared with council and made available to the public at an upcoming council meeting."
2016the posted policy on council pay was last reviewed in June 2016; its next review date was July 2021
The city's pay statements page links one policy on council pay, GOV-COU-020 "Council Compensation". The copy posted shows "Reviewed Date: June 2016" and "Next Review Date: July 2021", and says "No amendment history to date". It sets pay as a 2003 base salary adjusted each year by the lesser of two staff raises. In 2025 the Mayor's taxable pay was 116,364 and each ward councillor's was 59,865. We found no newer policy or review on the pages we read; one may exist in the city's document repository, which we could not search.
Why it matters
Council members set rules that affect their own pay. A policy that is past its own review date, and whose purpose and definitions say "To be included at next review", is harder for residents to compare with what is actually paid.
It could be because…
A newer version may exist but not be linked from the pay statements page.
A policy that works as written (pay moves with the lesser of two staff raises) may not need to change, and the review date may just have passed without an update to the file.
Pay for the term starting in 2026 may be reviewed after the October 26, 2026 election.
Questions you could ask
Is there a newer council compensation policy than the June 2016 version, and where is it posted?
Who decides council pay for the term that starts after the October 26, 2026 election, and is there a public review?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The policy header prints "Approval Date: December 9, 2002", "Reviewed Date: June 2016", "Next Review Date: July 2021" and "Last Amended:" blank; the purpose and definitions say "To be included at next review." Clause 4c: "Effective with the election of City Council in 2003, the Mayor and Councillors receive an annual salary adjustment equal to the lesser of the annual adjustment received by City staff classified as M-band or classified as non-union employees". Clause 4a sets base salaries of $62,200 and $32,000 from January 1, 2003.
Schedule 1 of the 2025 statement shows taxable remuneration of 116,364 for the Mayor and 59,865 for each ward councillor, with employment benefits of 22,226 for the Mayor and between 8,284 and 13,881 for the councillors, a total of 857,411.
$3,683,211Grand Total on the 2026 operating budget table, the amount by which net expenses exceed general revenues as printed
The operating budget's summary table totals "General Revenues" of (206,187,712) against "Total Net Expenses" of 209,870,923 for 2026, and prints a "Grand Total" of 3,683,211. For 2025 the table shows a restated budget of nothing but a "Year-End Projection" Grand Total of 1,199,000. The table does not label these amounts. The 2026 budget proposes a 2.2% property tax increase, and the table's "General Levy" line mentions only assessment growth, so the 3,683,211 may be the amount a rate increase is meant to raise; no document we read says so.
Why it matters
A balanced budget is a legal requirement and the table is the page most residents would look at. An unlabelled total that is not zero leaves a reader unsure whether the budget balances, and by what.
It could be because…
The levy line may be shown before the 2.2% rate increase, which would raise roughly this amount (the arithmetic is close but the document does not state it).
The 2025 projection of 1,199,000 may be covered by reserves or by year-end gapping and other savings that appear later.
The city may present the final balanced budget in another schedule we did not read.
Questions you could ask
What is the Grand Total of 3,683,211 on the 2026 operating table, and what raises it?
What covered the 1,199,000 year-end projection for 2025, and what was the final 2025 operating result?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The comparative budget table prints TOTAL NET EXPENSES of 199,762,564 (2025 restated), 201,938,564 (2025 year-end projection) and 209,870,923 (2026); GENERAL REVENUES TOTAL of (199,762,564), (200,739,564) and (206,187,712); and GRAND TOTAL of "-", 1,199,000 and 3,683,211. The "General Levy" line is (164,944,570), (164,944,570) and (167,748,631), with the comment "Budget increase due to assessment growth."
Places keep savings (called reserves) to pay for new trucks, roof repairs and surprises. Kitchener had $177M saved at the end of 2025, up from $84.7M in 2019. That is 40% of one year's spending. None of the 6 similar places had less, compared with what they spend.
Does Kitchener have enough saved for repairs and emergencies?
$0$50M$100M$150M$200M
$177M
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Savings (reserves)
2019
$84.7M
2020
$98.6M
2021
$118M
2022
$129M
2023
$136M
2024
$161M
2025
$177M
Why it matters
With little saved, a broken bridge or a storm has to be paid for with a sudden tax increase or a loan. Low savings can also mean past budgets were balanced by spending savings instead of facing the real cost.
It could be because…
The city spent savings on purpose, on projects that were planned and saved up for.
Some savings were used to match grant money, which brings in more than it costs.
The city has a plan to rebuild its savings.
Questions you could ask
Why does the provincial return give a lower reserves-to-spending ratio (40% of one year's spending on this site) than the 35% in the city's statements, and which expenses does each count?
How much of the 358,024,193 in portfolio investments is already promised to projects, deferred revenue or other owners?
Does the city plan to set aside a reserve for the 25,330,900 retirement benefit liability?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Kitchener?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The city's own indicator table prints "Reserves to expenses", "Low-risk threshold: 20%", 35% for 2025 and 35% for 2024, rated "Low-risk", and explains the Ministry treats a ratio above 20% as low risk, 10% to 20% as moderate risk.
Note 18 lists total reserve funds of 177,206,550 at the end of 2025 (161,208,056 in 2024): 173,462,471 set aside by council (capital 88,954,964; stabilization 63,272,379; program specific 9,614,506; corporate 11,620,622) and 3,744,079 held by consolidated entities. The same note shows "Other" surplus of 32,469,713 (2024: 64,135,619).
Outside the reserve funds, the city held portfolio investments of 358,024,193 at the end of 2025 (316,768,217 in 2024) and net financial assets of 345,740,987. The city says its net financial assets per person are above the average of the 128 Ontario municipalities in a 2025 study by BMA Management Consulting Inc. Some of the investments are money owed on to others (for example obligatory reserve funds of 83,424,781), so this is not all spare.
On the retirement benefit liability of 25,330,900 the notes say: "The City holds no reserve to meet this liability." Reserve funds do exist for sick leave (6,228,665) and WSIB (2,750,788).
Council sets a minimum and maximum balance for each reserve; for example the Tax Stabilization reserve is planned to end 2026 at 24,929 (thousand dollars) against a minimum of 8,601 and a maximum of 25,802.
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy