A motion asking the provincial government to pause the municipal boundary adjustment process between the County of Brant and the City of Brantford was withdrawn during a County Council meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
The motion stemmed from ongoing discussions about a proposed boundary adjustment that would transfer the Brantford Municipal Airport and approximately 1,317 acres of surrounding land from the County to the City.
Although the Brantford Municipal Airport is currently owned and operated by the City of Brantford, the lands currently fall within the boundary of the County of Brant.
A November 2025 Airport Board recommendation asked that the City of Brantford request that the provincial government examine potential restructuring options for the Airport lands and surrounding area. It was later approved by City Council and a request was submitted under Section 174 of the Municipal Act to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
On March 11, 2026, the County of Brant received official communication from the Ministry directing that negotiations begin between the two municipalities. County of Brant Council formally received this communication on March 24, 2026. The correspondence established a deadline of June 30, 2026, for both municipalities to reach an agreement.
The two municipalities later announced on Wednesday, May 27, that they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining draft terms for a municipal boundary adjustment involving the Brantford Municipal Airport and nearby lands.
Ever since the news came to light, many residents have expressed their concerns about the situation. The recently formed Brant Civic Accountability Association (BCAA), in particular, has questioned why the deal is being pushed forward ahead of the upcoming municipal election this fall.
Amid ongoing public debate, County Councillor Jennifer Kyle introduced a notice of motion to ask the provincial government to pause the municipal boundary adjustment process between the County and the City during the June 16 Administration and Operations meeting. The item was scheduled to be considered by Council during last week’s meeting.
Ahead of the discussion, BCAA founder Travis Welch delegated to the County, once again highlighting concerns around timing and public consultation.
“Residents have written letters, spoken with elected officials, and participated in public discussions throughout both municipalities, and one message has consistently emerged. Many residents want newly elected councils and mayors to participate in decisions of this magnitude. That is not an unreasonable request,” said Travis Welch, BCAA founder and board member. “Municipal elections are only months away. The province has confirmed to BCAA that any boundary adjustment would ultimately require ministerial approval, and because of the municipal election cycle, would not take effect until 2027 at the earliest. The City of Brantford has yet to hold its statutory public consultation meeting. Both municipalities will soon adjourn for the summer, and both municipalities are expected to enter lame duck status later in August, further raising the question of why a matter of this magnitude cannot be considered by newly elected councils only weeks later.”
Welch continued, “The timing of the City’s statutory public consultation meeting also raises additional concerns. The meeting is expected to occur at the beginning of July, when many families are focused on summer activities, children are out of school, and residents are preparing or already taking summer vacations. For a decision with potentially generational implications for municipal boundaries, governance, taxation, infrastructure obligations, airport ownership, and again, future development. Many residents question whether the timing will maximize meaningful public consultation or inadvertently limit it this upcoming summer.”
When it was later time to discuss Kyle’s proposed resolution, she took the time to address her motion and its purpose.
“When I brought forward this notice of motion, I did so because I believed that it was important to formally acknowledge the concerns many residents had raised about the process. I do continue to believe those concerns are legitimate and deserve to be raised, and I certainly don’t regret putting forward this resolution,” she said. “The purpose of the motion, though, was to ensure those concerns were brought forward and discussed publicly, and I do believe that that objective has been achieved. My understanding is that we already have folks who are preparing to participate in the upcoming statutory public meeting. As those residents are now preparing to participate, I believe it’s important that we preserve every opportunity for them to be heard as this process continues.”
Kyle went on to say she believed the timing of the motion could interfere with opportunities for public input, and decided to withdraw the item.
“If the motion was to pass tonight, and no response was received from the province before the statutory timeline takes effect, there would be a risk that that opportunity for those folks to speak and to be heard would be lost,” she said. “The County has advocated vigorously, and through the good work of our CAO, and the negotiation team on behalf of our residents, throughout the process, and that advocacy will absolutely continue. For these reasons, I would actually like to withdraw the motion for tonight.”
Councillor Ella Haley, who has been advocating for residents that could be affected by the boundary adjustment, then stated that she didn’t quite understand, and asked that Kyle explain why she was withdrawing the motion.
CAO Alison Newton responded, saying that if the process were put on hold at this time, the statutory public meetings would, in effect, be canceled, ultimately taking away the opportunity for residents to be heard.
Haley asked if they could negotiate to push the public meetings (scheduled for the week of July 6) back, stating that giving residents more time to get information about the proposal would be more democratic.
“The public didn’t get a public meeting, and they need more information. They’re very frustrated by the [June11] open house, and so I liked the motion that Councillor Kyle put forward,” she said. “I would like to support it by saying that the residents have not had enough time to fully understand the proposal, to ask questions and provide meaningful impact. …I support this draft motion because it gives them a bit more time, it’s more democratic.”
Councillor Robert Chamber then called a point of order, saying the motion had been withdrawn and that they could no longer discuss it, ultimately putting the item to bed.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
