• 2,610 aware participants visited the project page to learn more

• 77 participants engaged with the City for the first time on Get Involved Kingston

• Most often from the following districts: Pittsburgh (14.7%), Collins-Bayridge (11.1%), and Portsmouth (10.3%)

• Diverse in age, with 22.1% of respondents between the ages of 55-64, another 22.1% being between 35-44, 18.9% between the ages of 65-75, 15.6% between the ages of 45-54, 14.2% between the ages of 25-34, 5.7% over the age of 75, and 1.4% between the ages of 18-24

• Primarily full-time residents of the city (95%)

• Primarily part of two-member households (45.9%), followed by three-member households (17.7%) and four-person households (17.2%)

• Primarily part of a household with an annual income of $100,000 - $149,000 (29.3%)

What we heard

Consultation activities identified that participants expressed a strong preference for maintaining current service levels at a slight increase to household costs, with a willingness to pay more for improvements in specific areas such as sidewalks, pathways, cycling infrastructure, roads, and natural assets like the City’s urban tree canopy. There is a notable emphasis on the maintenance and upkeep of transportation assets over “non-essential” service categories. Respondents suggested to explore alternative funding sources. Overall, the public sentiment indicates a desire for cost-effective levels of service that maintain the status-quo and highlights the community’s interest in transportation asset categories.

Summary of Survey Questions (Q1-3, 5-11)

Figure B: Question 2 Responses

For Roads, a majority of respondents selected “Dissatisfied” (181 responses), followed by “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (91 responses), “Satisfied” (69 responses), and “N/A” (43 responses). For Sidewalks, pathways and cycling infrastructure, a majority of respondents selected “Dissatisfied” (189 responses), followed by “Satisfied” (102 responses), “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (85 responses), and “N/A” (8 responses). For Intersections and pedestrian crossings, a majority of respondents selected “Satisfied” (155 responses), followed by “Dissatisfied” (129 responses), “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (96 responses), and “N/A” (4 responses). For Public Transit Buses & Shelters, a majority of respondents selected “N/A” (123 responses), followed by “Satisfied” (96 responses), “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (85 responses), and “Dissatisfied” (80 responses). For Parking equipment, lots and structures, a majority of respondents selected “Dissatisfied” (133 responses), followed by “Satisfied” (118 responses), “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (115 responses), and “N/A” (18 responses).

Q3: How satisfied are you with other services you use in the City of Kingston? Rank your satisfaction of each service from 1 “Dissatisfied - Service needs improving” to “3 - Satisfied – Leave service as is”. For services that you do not use, please select “N/A”.

Figure C: Question 3 Responses

In nearly every category, respondents indicated they were satisfied with current levels of service, selecting “Satisfied (leave service as is)” as the majority answer. ‘Service – Transportation Services (Assets - Wildlife Protection Infrastructure)’ was the only category where respondents indicated a different majority answer, selecting “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, potentially indicating confusion over the asset category and its meaning.

Q5: Which of the following options would you most like Kingston to pursue to pay for infrastructure assets to deliver services?

A large majority of respondents (62.0%) indicated that they would prefer to “Increase taxes slightly – maintain services”. 27.9% of respondents indicated that they would prefer the City “Maintain taxes at the same level – reduce (decrease) service levels somewhat”. 5.2% responded that they would prefer the City “Decrease taxes but significantly cut service levels”, and 4.9% declined to answer.

Figure D: Question 6 Responses

Q7: Scenario 1 (Recreation Centre Closure): A recreation centre is worsening in condition such that it will need significant repair. Using the assumption that you use this facility at a moderate frequency, which of the following options would you prefer?

A large majority of respondents (58.1%) indicated a preference to “Increase usage fees to repair the recreation centre to maintain current service”. 24.0% of respondents indicated a preference to “Pay an increase in tax dollars to repair the recreation centre to maintain current service”. 11.2% of respondents selected to “Close the facility and use an alternative recreation centre”, and 6.8% of respondents indicated a preference to “Limit the types of activities at the recreation centre”.

Q8: Scenario 2 (Roads): The road network is deteriorating, and there is insufficient funding to be able to maintain all the paved roads in fair condition. Which of the following options would you prefer?

A majority of respondents (46.1%) indicated a preference towards an “Increase in the tax rate in order to afford to maintain paved roads in good condition”. 34.4% of respondents indicated a preference to “Maintain Arterial and Collector roads (high traffic) in good condition and local roads (low traffic) in poor condition”. 18.0% of respondents selected to “Reduce the Level of Service from paved to surface treated and/or gravel but maintain the overall network in good condition”, and 1.6% indicated a preference to “Continue to use very poor condition road surface as is”.

This scenario was also asked a “quick poll” question on the webpage as an easy, anonymous way to engage. Of the 39 users that contributed to the poll, 43.6% chose “Maintain Arterial and Collector roads (high traffic) in good condition and local roads (low traffic) in poor condition.” 33.3 % chose ““Increase in tax rate in order to afford to maintain paved roads in good condition.” 20.5% respondents chose “Reduce the Level of Service from paved to surface treated and/or gravel but maintain the overall network in good condition” and 2.6% selected “Continue to use very poor condition road surface as is.”

Q9: Scenario 3 (Playground Closure): An outdoor play structure at a park is deteriorating in condition. This presents a public safety issue and must be closed until repairs can be made. Which of the following options would you prefer?

A majority of respondents (42.4%) indicated a preference to “Prioritize play equipment replacement over building other new park amenities to reduce the tax/resource impact”. 30.7% of respondents indicated a preference towards “A small increase in tax dollars/additional resources to repair the play structure to a condition where it is safe for the public and maintain the old infrastructure for longer periods of time”. 14.1% of respondents chose to “Permanently remove the play structure”, while 9.1% of respondents chose “A larger increase in tax dollars/additional resources to replace the entire play structure with one of a similar size and play value”. Only 3.6% of respondents chose “An increase in tax dollars/additional resources to replace the entire play structure with a new but smaller structure”.

Q10: It is expected that as the cost of living and inflation will continue to rise, so will the costs for the City of Kingston to provide services. Increases in service levels may require an increase in funding. Based on the possible funding and service level outcomes, please indicate your preference for maintaining, increasing or decreasing the service levels for each of the service areas / assets.

Figure E: Responses to Question 10

In every category, respondents indicated a majority preference to “Maintain current service (likely pay more $$)”. The three categories with the highest number of responses for “Improve service (likely pay more $$)” are ‘Sidewalks, pathways and cycling infrastructure’, ‘Roads’, and ‘Service – Natural (Assets – Urban Tree Canopy, forests, shoreline, beaches, wetlands, watercourse etc.)’, in that order.

Q11: There may be circumstances when the City of Kingston will need to make decisions on where to allocate funding with limited resources. Please rank services that should be prioritized for funding, 1 being the most important service to you, 13 being least important.

Respondents ranked the services in the following order, from most to least important:

Summary of comment themes (Q4)

When asked to share reasoning behind ranking their satisfaction with services, 200 users provided comments. Overall, feedback is line with the results seen in questions 2 and 3, with an emphasis on the maintenance and upkeep of transportation assets over other assets. Comments were tagged by asset/service category themes. Note that many comments mentioned multiple asset themes.

Transportation Assets

• Roads (74 comments): poor condition of roads, calls for consistent road maintenance, repairs of potholes and resurfacing of major streets
• Sidewalks and Cycling Paths (67 comments): improved bike lanes, better connectivity, repairing damaged sidewalks, improving maintenance
• Parking (37 comments): parking lots downtown in poor condition, desire for more parking facilities, some issues with payment systems
• Public Transit (34 comments): desire for more efficient, accessible transit, dedicated bus lanes, improved shelters, improved maintenance and service schedules
• Intersections and Pedestrian Crossings (32 comments): concerns about unsafe intersections, timing of traffic lights, calls for improved winter maintenance, more visible crosswalks, illumination

Environmental Assets

• Parks and Trails (59 comments): better maintenance of exisiting parks, requests for more amenities like splash pads and rinks, support of planting more trees and community gardens
• Natural Assets (35 comments): need for more trees and better upkeep of existing trees, concerns about removal of mature trees, appreciation of tree planting program, calls to prioritize sustainabel development, desire for more green spaces
• Shoreline Protection (25 comments): concerns about impact of development on shoreline, need for better maintenance, ask for enhance public access to waterfront and connectivity of shoreline pathways
• Wildlife Protection (7 comments): confusion of meaning of asset category, environmental concerns about impact of development on wildlife

Facilities and Designated Locations

• Indoor Recreation and Marinas (41 comments): need for more facilities with specific mentions of pools and programming, upgrades to current facilities, concerns about marina infrastructure
• Arts and Culture (17 comments): mixed feelings about the City’s investment in arts and culture, call for better support for artists, improved and accessible public culture amenities
• Heritage Services (15 comments): better maintenance and usage of heritage sites (City Hall, the Frontenac County Courthouse, MacLachlan Woodworking Museum), concerns about heritage designations for private property

Other Assets/Comment Themes

• Solid Waste (40 comments): focus on service decline (not assets), call for better bins and hydraulic trucks, more recycling bins in public spaces
• Assets – General (28 comments): praise for general state of infrastructure, some repairs and upgrades needed, ask for focus on essential spending and better distribution across neighbourhoods
• Other (56 comments)
  • Planning/Development: desire for more sustainable development practices, integrating green spaces into new builds, concerns about new developments being car-dependent, impact of high-rises on the City’s historical character and natural views
  • Costs/Budget: concerns about overspending, inefficient budgeting and calls for fiscal responsibility
  • Public Restrooms: ask for more year-round public restrooms (in parks, at City Hall) and for better maintenance of current facilities.
  • Libraries: desire for additional hours and funding for libraries.

Summary of comment themes (Q17)

The final question asked participants for any additional comments on the asset management plan and 195 users answered this question. Overall, feedback received emphasizes the need to prioritize essential services like transportation assets. Some comments express concerns about the City’s ability to maintain service levels and the impact of inflation on costs. There are also strong calls for cost-effective services and fiscal responsibility, and other comments that ask for improvements across multiple asset categories.

Comments were tagged by asset/service category themes. Note that many comments mentioned multiple asset themes. A summary of each theme is below.

• Budget Management (63 comments): concerns about budget management, calls for greater fiscal responsibility, worries about high taxes and suggestions to reallocate funds, desire for more transparency and public input in budget decisions, some suggestions to explore alternate funding sources and support for increased user feeds, emphasis on tax equity and support for low-income residents
• Roads (38 comments): concerns about condition of roads, strong support to prioritize roads as an essential service
• Assets – General (37 comments): need for better prioritization, funding strategies, community involvement, and transparency in managing general assets, suggestions that some assets should not be categorized together, as they service different user groups, satisfaction with City services, concerns about ability to maintain current service levels
• Sidewalk and Cycling Paths (23 comments): emphasis on the importance of active transportation, calls for better upkeep of sidewalks and bike infrastructure
• Public Transit (18 comments): focus on service (more routes, reliable transit), desire for more shelters and benches at bus stops
• Parks and Trails (18 comments): protecting green spaces, better maintenance of parks and trails, dog park cleanliness, parks in new neighbourhoods
• Indoor Recreation and Marinas (16 comments): facility upgrades, better maintenance, perceived excessive spending, call for more rinks and pools
• Parking (12 comments): concerns for surface-level lots in favor of other parking infrastructure, lack of parking downtown, suggestions to for parking in new development plans, increasing parking fees for revenue generation
• Natural Assets (10 comments): increase tree cover to combat rising temperatures, preserving existing trees, appreciation of tree planting efforts, criticism of cutting down natural assets for development
• Emergency Services (10 comments): need for more fire stations and a few comments with concerns about the increased police budget
• Intersections and Pedestrian Crossings (8 comments): current traffic light programming leading to traffic congestion, concerns pedestrian safety and intersection design
• Arts and Culture (6 comments): concern about focusing on arts and culture services over essential assets, suggestions for increasing public art and some support for higher user fees or privatization
• Solid Waste (6 comments): focus on essential services, including solid waste, praise for current solid waste system, calls for better recycling program
• Heritage Services (3 comments): concerns about prioritizing development over heritage preservation, suggestions for revenue generation (user fees, renting out buildings for events or filming and leveraging partnerships)
• Shoreline Protection (3 comments): protect existing shoreline and keep developments away from the water, suggestion for better promotion of shoreline protection assets
• Wildlife Protection (3 comments): emphasis on protecting wildlife and diverse ecosystems, some confusion about asset meaning

Pop-up Events

Staff hosted four pop-up sessions across the City, where facility users from different neighbourhoods and demographics could stop by and learn more about asset management, take the survey on the spot and participate in an activity related to service level improvement.

80 people discussed asset management with staff at facility pop-ups, with 58 sticky notes added as part of the engagement activity, where attendees were asked to submit which services they felt should be decreased, maintained, or improved:

• Services to decrease (likely pay the same $ or less): 0 submissions
• Services to maintain (likely pay more $$): 24 submissions
  • Transportation assets (6): Transit (3), Roads (1), Intersections (1), Waaban Crossing (1)
  • Facilities (10): Rec facilities (3), Kingston East Community Centre (2), Rideau Heights Community Centre (1), Tett Centre (1), Grand Theatre (1), Heritage Services (1), Artillery Park (1)
  • Natural assets and parks (7): Parks (3), Trees (1), City Park (1), Lemoine Point (1), Park Benches (1)
  • Solid Waste (1)
• Services to improve (pay more $$$): 34 submissions
  • Transportation assets(20): Transit (8), Roads (6), Sidewalks (3), Cycling lanes (2), Parking (1)
  • Facilities (6): Libraries (2), Pools (2), Artillery Park (1), Community spaces and meetings rooms (1)
  • Natural assets and parks (6): Outdoors courts (2), dog parks (2), KP Trail at Belle Park (1), Tree canopy (1)
  • Public Works (2): Snowplows (1), Garbage (1)

Other Comments (Ballot Boxes and Ideas Tool)

Ballot boxes were placed at the front desk at the front desk of Rideau Heights Community Centre (5 comments), Artillery Park Aquatic Centre (7 comments), INVISTA Centre (6 comments) and Kingston East Community Centre (2 comments). One submission was also provided via email to the customer experience team.

The question prompted facility users to provide feedback about the assets at each facility, or City-owned assets more generally. Some comments spoke to more than one theme. A total of 21 comments were submitted. Feedback received included comments on: