What we’ve learned so far - public engagement update Jan. 17-Feb. 13, 2025

Public engagement on the proposal to build a multi-sport stadium on the Memorial Centre site is benefitting from significant community input. Since launching engagement and opening the Get Involved page on Jan. 17:

• More than 5,800 people have visited the page, with most visitors clicking on a link in our emails or on Facebook posts to get to the page
• 490 online surveys have been completed, with additional surveys completed by email, mail and in-person
• Over 250 questions have been submitted by email and on the engagement platform.
• Four news and engagement updates were published
• Approximately 50 people came to the in-person drop-in session at the Memorial Centre on Feb. 12.
• Staff met with 10 different sports user groups and event organizers for 1-hour structured interviews.
  • Note: staff have updated the number of consulted groups from 17 to 10.

The engagement team is working to respond to as many questions as possible, and we recognize that not all questions are being responded to as quickly or in as much detail as engagement participants prefer, but we assure everyone that all questions are being collected and will be shared back to the community and Council. Unfortunately, due to the volume of questions we are receiving and the compressed timeline, not all questions will receive a detailed individual response. Answers to repeated and similar questions will be directed to an FAQ section, which is under development.

The engagement team is also receiving feedback from residents who are concerned about the lack of transparency in the process, and hearing from some residents who are having technology challenges on the engagement platform. Here is how we are working to address that feedback:

• Clarifying that staff are engaging on the Memorial Centre site specifically, as directed by Council.
• Minor adjustments are being made to the survey to increase clarity and address concern of unintended influence on response selections. The options presented will remain the same.
• Sharing survey results to date
• Continuing to provide input opportunities through email, in-person and mail, and providing additional paper surveys to residents to share with their friends, families and neighbours.

Commonly heard concerns in order of frequency

Over the past few weeks, and as the amount of input we receive increases, feedback themes are changing. This is reflected in both the interim survey results and input received through email. Changing feedback themes below reflect input received online between Jan. 17-Feb. 12.

Disruption from traffic, noise, parking and lighting (280 comments)

Concerns about increased traffic congestion and traffic safety, parking issues, and the impact on local streets are prevalent. Two examples of verbatim comments are:

• "The stadium will generate a lot of car traffic which will disrupt the neighborhood. Plus a lot of noise! Has this been addressed with the residents?"
• "Extremely concerned about traffic flow. Currently terrible flow York to Division. Lights don’t change even if cars waiting. Pine to York consistently sees car go through stops. Parking terrible during fair. Can’t see to go around corners."

Green space and parkland concerns (237 comments):

A significant number of comments express concerns about the impact of the stadium project on green space and parkland in Williamsville, and lands being leased to a private developer.

• “This location adversely affects the enjoyment of local residents to the facilities, many of whom are living on a lower income, and rely on the pool and waterpark and green space for their health and well-being.”
• “This is public park land and using it for private purposes is a dangerous precedent!”
• "I am concerned about the intensification of the city in Williamsville with 4 more 10 story buildings being built that open green space will be important for the health and wellbeing of the residents.”

Proposal opposition (138 comments)

Staff have been directed by Council to consider the Memorial Centre site specifically for this stadium proposal, however it is important to reflect community feedback as part of the engagement process. Staff note a significant amount of feedback contains opposition to a stadium in the Memorial Centre location. An example of a verbatim comment is:

• "There’s no mention of the dramatic way in which this stadium would negatively affect the quality of life and property values of the people living in the three streets bordering the Memorial Centre property. Their lives will become hellish for no reason apart from a stranger’s bid to start a business that could be located in several other parts of the city."

Stadium and professional soccer support in an alternate location (97 comments)

Participants are voicing support for professional soccer and a stadium in Kingston and questioning why only the Memorial Centre site is being considered and consulted on. Supporters of a stadium highlight the need for more indoor sports facilities and the positive impact on youth and adult sports organizations. Two examples of verbatim comments are:

• "Excited to have a pro sports team here! It will be great for the city!"
• "Our city is clearly lacking in turf fields and facilities for sports needing turf and year round access."

Impact on existing facilities (69 comments)

Participants share their concerns about the impact of a stadium on the Fall Fair, phased removal of barns, Farmers Market, sports fields, running track and dog park. One example of the verbatim feedback is:

• "Placing it in that location shows a decided lack of concern about the residents in the area. The removal of the barns would also have a detrimental affect on both the Kingston Fall Fair, as well as the Memorial Centre Farmers Market, which is frankly one of the best farmers markets I’ve ever attended. The sense of community found there is unlike anything I’ve experienced elsewhere."

Financial viability (51 comments)

Engagement participants have expressed doubts about the financial viability of the project and the potential burden on taxpayers if the stadium is not successful. Two examples of verbatim comments are:

• “How likely is a stadium to actually pay for itself and not require constant financial support from the city?”
• “What is the funding source from this developer? This developer has no history or experience shared in similar projects and was established in April 2024. What assurances are there that once a shovel is in the ground, the project will be completed and the city will not be financially responsible for any penalties/delays?”

Community consultation and transparency (15 comments)

Some residents feel that the consultation process has been inadequate, and that the City is not genuinely considering public input. Feedback from participants note barriers to participation, frustration with the consultation process and lack of transparency in decision making. Three examples of verbatim comments are:

• "Why is the survey so difficult to find and why is it so biased?"
• "Btw I find this forum v unhelpful for gathering info. You are asking for questions, not listening to concerns, a v starting point."
• "Looking at the "responses" on the feedback page is incredibly disappointing and seems to imply that the city just doesn't care about anyone's input and is going to go ahead with this plan anyway. The non-answers are very telling"

Next steps

The project team is continuing due diligence work, which includes traffic, parking and servicing feasibility memos, business case review and continued public consultation with the community. This work is to fulfill the direction provided by Council:

That staff be directed to conduct community consultation on the proposed relocation of the dog park within the field at the back of the property, the loss of some sport field uses, impacts to the circular track at the back of the property, and on the identification of alternate options/locations for the annual Agricultural Fair; and

That staff be directed to report back at the March 18, 2025 City Council meeting on the proposed terms of a land lease, that will include consideration of community feedback; and

That Council direct staff to identify options, including a phased-in implementation, to continue to support the operations of organizations making use of the existing barns at the Memorial Centre site, and report back as part of the due diligence process.