.png)
A Factual Pre-Election Report Card for Kingston, Ontario Canada Voters
Before Kingston voters compare what candidates for mayor are promising for the next four years, perhaps there is an even more fundamental question to ask:
What actually happened during the last four?
What happened to property taxes?
How much did municipal spending increase?
Did Kingston build more housing?
Did housing become more affordable?
Did homelessness decline?
How much public money was spent addressing homelessness—and who actually supplied that money?
Did investment in roads and infrastructure keep pace with deterioration?
Did transit recover?
Did municipal efforts to recruit family doctors produce measurable results?
And when major projects were announced, were they actually completed?
These are not questions about political personalities.
They are questions about results and responsibility.
This report does not endorse or oppose Mayor Bryan Paterson, any individual councillor, or any candidate seeking office in 2026.
Nor should every City-wide result automatically be credited to—or blamed upon—one elected official.
Council acts collectively. Professional staff administer programs. Police and other boards have separate responsibilities. Housing and homelessness involve the County of Frontenac, non-profit organizations, private developers, Ontario and Ottawa. Healthcare is principally a provincial responsibility.
Our purpose is narrower:
Establish what can be verified about Kingston's record during the present municipal term; identify the public resources committed; compare those inputs with measurable outcomes wherever possible; disclose where information remains incomplete; and leave the judgment to Kingston voters.
First: What Period Are We Actually Measuring?
Kingston's next municipal election will be held Monday, October 26, 2026. Ontario municipal council terms run for four years; the present Ontario council term began November 15, 2022 and ends November 14, 2026, while the newly elected 2026 council term will run from November 15, 2026 through November 14, 2030.
That creates two important accounting rules.
2022 is primarily our baseline.
Most of calendar 2022 occurred before the current Council took office.
We therefore should not attribute the 2022 municipal budget or most 2022 outcomes to the Council elected that October.
The first full annual operating budget adopted during the present Council term was the 2023 budget, approved March 21, 2023 at $429,374,207 for the General Municipal tax-supported operating budget.
2026 is not yet complete.
This report is being prepared on August 14, 2026.
The present Council remains in office until November 14, and full-year 2026 audited results obviously cannot exist before voters cast their ballots on October 26. Therefore, wherever this report refers to 2026, those figures are identified as approved budgets, current rates, project status or latest available results—not final year-end outcomes.
This is properly a pre-election report card, not a final post-term audit.
Spending Is Not the Same as Results
Before looking at individual issues, another distinction is essential.
If Council allocates $10 million to housing, that is an input.
If homes are built and occupied, that is an output.
If housing becomes more available or affordable as a result, that is an outcome.
Likewise:
A motion passed is not necessarily a project completed.
Money budgeted is not necessarily money actually spent.
A housing permit is not a completed home.
A shelter bed is not permanent housing.
A project approved is not a project delivered.
And provincial or federal money administered through City Hall is not automatically money paid by Kingston property taxpayers.
Throughout this report, we attempt to keep those distinctions clear.
Property Taxes: What Did the Same House Experience?
Annual headline tax increases can be difficult to compare because different years may present municipal, capital and external-agency components differently.
There is a more tangible approach:
Hold the assessment of the same house constant and apply Kingston's actual final residential tax rates.
Kingston has different fire-service tax rates in its Central, West and East areas. The published 2024 residential total rates were 0.01478321 Central, 0.01401663 West and 0.01365320 East. In 2025 they became 0.01551784, 0.01477511 and 0.01437088 respectively; in 2026 they are 0.01605435, 0.01533257 and 0.01491279. These totals incorporate the applicable municipal, fire, garbage and education components for the residential category; garbage is not levied on condominiums.
Using an unchanged assessment of $328,099 solely as a comparison:
| Same $328,099 Assessment | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Change 2024–2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central | ~$4,850 | ~$5,091 | ~$5,267 | +$417 / 8.6% |
| West | ~$4,599 | ~$4,848 | ~$5,031 | +$432 / 9.4% |
| East | ~$4,480 | ~$4,715 | ~$4,893 | +$413 / 9.2% |
This is not intended to represent every Kingston homeowner's actual bill.
It deliberately freezes the property's assessed value so that we can see what changing tax rates alone would do.
For 2026, the City's headline tax increase is 3.75%, consisting of 1.35% municipal tax-rate increase, 1% for capital purposes and 1.4% for external agencies.
That distinction also matters.
There is only one taxpayer writing the cheque, but not every portion of that cheque is controlled in exactly the same way by the mayor and Council.
So the relevant 2026 election question is not merely:
Did property taxes increase?
They did.
The better question for every candidate is:
What annual property-tax increase do you consider sustainable during 2027–2030, and under what circumstances would you exceed it?
Municipal Spending: A Larger Operating Budget
The first full tax-supported operating budget of the present Council term was $429.37 million in 2023.
For 2026, the City's municipal operating budget is $530.4 million, accompanied by a $135.8-million capital budget. The 2026 capital program includes $75 million for transportation and related infrastructure and $10 million for affordable and supportive housing.
That represents a substantial increase in nominal operating dollars during the term.
It does not by itself prove either waste or good management.
Inflation affects wages, construction, fuel, equipment and contracts. Population and service demands change. External agencies create costs. New services may be added.
The proper question is therefore:
As the amount of money being spent increased, what measurable improvements did residents receive?
That is the test we apply throughout this report.
Housing: Kingston Built More
Housing is one area where the evidence establishes substantial physical activity.
In January 2024, the federal government awarded Kingston $27.6 million through the Housing Accelerator Fund. Kingston's plan contains nine initiatives, and the federal agreement was intended to fast-track approximately 890 additional housing units over three years.
Ontario subsequently reported that Kingston broke ground on 966 homes in 2024, equal to 145% of its provincially assigned annual target.
In 2025, Kingston recorded another 1,011 housing starts, exceeding that year's provincial target by 26%.
These are housing starts.
They should not be confused with:
permits issued,
projects approved,
or
homes ultimately occupied.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate substantial housing construction activity.
Affordable Housing: Keep the Categories Separate
Another important lesson from reviewing Kingston's housing record is that governments often report several different housing categories together.
We should not.
There is an important difference between:
permanent affordable housing,
supportive housing,
transitional accommodation,
residential treatment beds,
and
emergency shelter beds.
All can serve legitimate purposes.
They are not interchangeable.
Kingston's affordable-housing programs include municipal capital assistance to private and non-profit housing providers in exchange for long-term affordability commitments. The City says the minimum affordability period under its capital investment program is 20 years.
The 2026 budget also includes the previously noted $10 million for affordable and supportive housing.
The proper accountability question is therefore not merely:
How many housing spaces did government announce?
It is:
How many permanent affordable homes were actually completed and occupied, how many supportive or transitional spaces were delivered, and what did each category cost?
More Housing Does Not Automatically Mean Affordable Housing
Kingston's housing-start numbers demonstrate increased supply.
That is important.
But increased supply does not, by itself, establish that ordinary families, young people, seniors or lower-income residents can afford the resulting rents or purchase prices.
The City itself distinguishes government-supported affordable units from ordinary private-market rental housing; its affordable-housing program defines qualifying units through below-market rents and long-term affordability agreements.
That means every candidate promising “affordable” or “attainable” housing should eventually answer:
Affordable at what monthly rent?
Affordable at what purchase price?
Affordable to what household income?
And how many such homes will actually exist by 2030?
Otherwise the word “affordable” can mean almost anything.
Homelessness: Better Measurement, But the Problem Remains Large
Homelessness is perhaps the clearest test of the difference between government activity and government outcome.
Kingston's By-Name List is a continuously updated list of known individuals experiencing homelessness. The City's open-data description makes clear that it is a monthly measure of known individuals, rather than a one-day census of every homeless person in the community.
By early 2026, community reporting based on the local By-Name List identified approximately 572 individuals experiencing homelessness.
There is an important qualification.
Kingston has substantially improved the quality of its homelessness data. In April 2026, the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness recognized Kingston for achieving Quality By-Name Data 4.0 and meeting federal Coordinated Access requirements. Better identification and tracking can itself cause more people to become visible in the data.
So we should not claim that every increase in the By-Name List represents an equivalent number of newly homeless people.
But neither should we obscure the central outcome:
Hundreds of known individuals continue to experience homelessness in Kingston and the surrounding service area despite substantial expansion of services and public spending.
The next Council therefore inherits an unresolved problem.
What Has Homelessness Cost?
This is one area where a large headline total could easily mislead voters.
Kingston is the local housing and homelessness service manager, but money comes from several places:
Kingston municipal funds
Frontenac County recovery
Ontario
Ottawa
and sometimes other sources.
The spending also includes fundamentally different items:
annual shelter operations
property acquisition
building renovation
supportive housing
transitional housing
and broader affordable-housing investments.
One of the clearest examples comes from the City's published shelter funding.
For the 2025 shelter system, the City identifies:
$1,482,562 in municipal funding, including Frontenac County recovery
$3,408,416 from Ontario's Homelessness Prevention Program.
That is approximately $4.89 million in shelter funding.
But it would be wrong to write:
“Kingston taxpayers spent $4.89 million.”
A substantial majority of that particular funding came from Ontario.
That distinction is essential.
A Better Homelessness-Funding Table
The public record allows us to classify the money more carefully:
| Expense/Funding | Source | How It Should Be Reported |
|---|---|---|
| Shelter operating funding | Kingston/Frontenac + Ontario | Separate municipal/County and provincial portions |
| Provincial Homelessness Prevention Program | Ontario | Not Kingston property-tax money |
| Federal Housing Accelerator / related federal programs | Canada | Not Kingston property-tax money |
| Property purchases | Capital expenditure | Separate from annual shelter operations |
| Renovations/construction | Capital expenditure | Separate from operations |
| Supportive housing | Housing program | Separate from emergency shelters |
| Transitional housing | Temporary housing program | Separate from permanent affordable housing |
| Affordable housing | Housing capital/program spending | Not automatically homelessness-only spending |
That may seem like accounting detail.
It is actually fundamental to an honest discussion about taxpayers' money.
We should follow three rules:
Do not count the same provincial or federal dollar twice.
Do not call senior-government funding Kingston municipal-tax spending.
Do not treat the purchase of a capital asset as though it were simply an annual operating expense.
For those reasons, I do not recommend publishing one supposedly precise four-year “cost of homelessness” number unless the City produces a reconciled ledger that eliminates overlaps among these categories.
The Real Homelessness Question Is About Results
Once funding is properly separated, the more important question remains:
What changed?
If public spending increased:
How many people entered permanent housing?
How many remained housed six or twelve months later?
How many individuals moved through shelters and transitional housing?
How many remained chronically homeless?
How many returned to homelessness?
Those should ultimately become the outcome measures.
The existence of another shelter is an input.
A person permanently leaving homelessness is the outcome.
That is what the next mayor and Council should be required to measure publicly.
Roads: The $35-Million Commitment
The City's 2023–2026 Strategic Plan included a particularly useful promise because it attached a dollar amount:
Invest an additional $35 million over four years to repair roads in poor condition.
The 2024 capital budget expressly identifies $8 million of that $35-million commitment as part of approximately $30 million invested that year in roads, bridges and stormwater.
The 2026 capital budget contains $75 million for transportation and related infrastructure, but that broader total includes considerably more than the special road-repair initiative.
This is one place where the public record we reviewed does not give us a clean year-by-year reconciliation of the special $35 million.
We therefore should not state either:
“The entire $35 million was spent.”
or
“Council failed to spend the $35 million.”
We cannot presently prove either proposition from one reconciled public table.
Verification Note
Council committed to invest an additional $35 million over four years to repair roads in poor condition. Published budget material expressly identifies $8 million of that commitment in 2024, while later budgets contain substantial road and transportation investments. However, this review has not located a single public reconciliation showing exactly how much was budgeted and spent against the special $35-million commitment in each of 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. The final amount is therefore left unconfirmed rather than estimated.
That is a limitation in the evidence—not a political conclusion.
Infrastructure: The Bigger Problem Goes Far Beyond $35 Million
The larger infrastructure picture may be far more consequential.
Kingston's 2025 Asset Management Plan Updates and Financial Strategy puts the current capital replacement value of the assets covered by the analysis at approximately $8.3 billion. The analysis excludes Utilities Kingston's water, wastewater, natural-gas and water-heater assets.
The City's forecasted capital budget provides an average of approximately $78.7 million annually for asset renewal, compared with a target annual reinvestment benchmark of approximately $182.6 million. The City's analysis calculates that fully maintaining current service levels would require substantially more—about $282.1 million annually on average—and projects a $3.7-billion state-of-good-repair backlog by 2035 under the current forecasted-budget scenario.
The City's proposed alternative would increase average annual renewal investment to approximately $127.9 million, reducing—but not eliminating—the projected backlog.
These are forecasts, not bills due tomorrow.
But they reveal a fundamental reality facing the next Council:
Kingston cannot promise indefinitely to improve infrastructure, keep every existing service, avoid additional revenues, avoid debt and keep taxes low without confronting the arithmetic.
Choices will be necessary.
Taxes?
A larger infrastructure levy?
User fees?
Borrowing?
Development charges?
Senior-government grants?
Delayed replacement?
Reduced services elsewhere?
The City's own asset plan specifically recommends developing a long-term infrastructure financing strategy and discusses dedicated revenue tools including the existing 1% infrastructure levy.
This may ultimately be one of the most important issues in the 2026 election.
Transit: A Measurable Recovery, With Work Still to Do
Kingston Transit recorded 6.1 million annual riders in 2023. The City's Transit Service Review describes that as part of substantial long-term ridership growth.
That is a measurable outcome.
The City is nevertheless undertaking a comprehensive service review addressing frequency, boundaries, accessibility, availability, directness and reliability.
So the transit record should not be reduced either to:
“Transit succeeded.”
or
“Transit failed.”
The evidence supports a more useful conclusion:
Ridership recovered substantially, while service design, reliability and future expansion remain active issues.
The next step in accountability should be publication of consistent annual measures:
ridership
service hours
on-time performance
cancellations
fare revenue
municipal subsidy
and
cost per passenger trip.
Then residents can evaluate both usage and efficiency.
Physician Recruitment: An Example of What Accountability Can Look Like
Kingston's family-physician recruitment program is one of the clearest examples of public spending linked to measurable results.
As of June 2024, the City reported:
17 new doctors recruited
continued care for 11,200 patients of retiring doctors
approximately 4,100 new patients accepted
and a total municipal investment of approximately $3 million.
People can legitimately debate whether municipalities should have to spend local tax dollars filling gaps in a healthcare system primarily controlled by Ontario.
But from an accountability perspective, this program provides what taxpayers should request elsewhere:
Money → Program → Result
How much did we spend?
What did government do?
How many people benefited?
Whether one agrees with the policy or not, the results can be evaluated.
Public Safety: Where the Evidence Is Incomplete, Say So
Public safety is important, but the available multi-year statistics require caution.
A cyber incident affecting Kingston Police disrupted portions of its information and statistical systems during the term, making simple full-year comparisons problematic.
The correct response is not to ignore public safety.
It is also not to manufacture a trend from periods that are not directly comparable.
So this Report Card should take the conservative position:
Police budgets and staffing can be evaluated, but no definitive four-year crime trend should be presented until a genuinely comparable reconstructed statistical series is available.
Sometimes “the data are insufficient” is the most responsible conclusion.
Major Projects: Announced, Started or Actually Completed?
One of the most useful distinctions voters can make is between:
announced
studied
approved
funded
under construction
and
completed.
Governments understandably discuss projects at every stage.
But voters should not confuse stages.
Confederation Basin Promenade
The Confederation Basin Promenade provides a particularly clear example.
The project remains in detailed design. The City currently says planning and design work will continue, with construction anticipated to begin in 2027. Its broader parks-project schedule currently lists an anticipated completion in 2028.
Status:
Not completed during the present Council term.
Planning/design continuing.
Construction and completion now extend into the next Council term.
This does not tell voters whether the project itself is good or bad.
It simply tells them where it actually stands.
Other Capital Projects Should Be Reported the Same Way
The principle should apply universally:
If the facility is open—say it is completed.
If construction is underway—say it is under construction.
If Council has only approved funding—say it is funded.
If staff are still designing it—say it is in design.
If an expected completion date changes—publish both the original and revised date.
That is much more useful than putting everything under the heading “delivered.”
Major-Project Accountability Could Be Much Simpler
The next Council could improve transparency considerably by publishing a single table for every major capital project:
| Accountability Item | Publicly Report |
|---|---|
| Original approved budget | $_____ |
| Current approved budget | $_____ |
| Original completion date | _____ |
| Current completion date | _____ |
| Amount spent to date | $_____ |
| Current stage | Design / Procurement / Construction / Complete |
| Reason for major delay | _____ |
| Reason for major cost increase | _____ |
Such a table would make it much easier for taxpayers to distinguish government activity from government delivery.
Leadership Continuity: A Fact Voters Can Judge for Themselves
One event during the current municipal term should also be recorded factually without attaching a political conclusion to it.
In 2025, Mayor Bryan Paterson took a leave of absence from City Council during the federal election campaign while seeking a seat in Parliament.
He subsequently returned to the mayor's office.
This Report Card does not characterize that decision as either right or wrong.
The fact simply creates a reasonable question that can be put equally to anyone seeking the office in 2026:
Will you commit, barring extraordinary circumstances, to serving the complete 2026–2030 term if elected mayor?
The voter can decide how important the answer is.
The Kingston 2022–2026 Record at a Glance
| Area | What the Evidence Shows |
|---|---|
| Reporting period | Current Ontario municipal term runs Nov. 15, 2022–Nov. 14, 2026; 2026 data are therefore necessarily incomplete before Election Day |
| Property taxes | On the same frozen $328,099 assessment, published rates produce roughly an 8.6%–9.4% increase from 2024 to 2026 depending on fire area |
| Operating budget | $429.37M in 2023 → $530.4M in 2026 |
| 2026 capital budget | $135.8M |
| Housing supply | 966 housing starts in 2024; 1,011 in 2025 |
| Federal housing support | $27.6M Housing Accelerator Fund agreement |
| Affordable housing | Public investment and new units are being delivered, but permanent, supportive, transitional and shelter categories should be reported separately |
| Homelessness | Approximately 572 known individuals were recorded in early 2026; data quality has improved, but homelessness remains substantial |
| Shelter funding | 2025 shelter funding included ~$1.48M municipal/County and ~$3.41M Ontario HPP money |
| Road commitment | $35M additional commitment exists; $8M is explicitly identified in 2024, but complete four-year reconciliation has not been located |
| Infrastructure | ~$8.3B asset base covered by 2025 analysis; forecast renewal funding remains well below identified long-term requirements |
| Transit | 6.1M annual riders in 2023; comprehensive service review underway |
| Physician recruitment | $3M investment; 17 doctors recruited by June 2024; 11,200 retiring-doctor patients maintained and ~4,100 additional patients accepted |
| Public safety | Spending can be assessed, but cyber-related statistical disruption limits clean four-year crime comparisons |
| Major projects | Record includes projects completed or advanced, as well as projects such as Confederation Basin whose construction/completion moved beyond the current term |
The table contains no grade.
No candidate ranking.
No political winner or loser.
It simply establishes a factual starting point.
What Can We Fairly Say?
Several conclusions appear well supported.
Kingston built more housing.
Housing starts were substantial and exceeded provincial annual targets in both 2024 and 2025.
Housing affordability remains a separate question.
A city can increase supply without automatically making every new home affordable to lower- or middle-income households. Kingston's own programs distinguish long-term affordable units from ordinary market housing.
Homelessness remains unresolved.
Kingston improved its data systems and continued investing in shelters and housing services, but hundreds of known individuals remain homeless.
Infrastructure presents a significant long-term financial challenge.
The City's own 2025 modelling identifies a large gap between forecast renewal spending and what would be required to maintain current service levels.
Transit usage recovered substantially.
The City's service review records 6.1 million annual riders in 2023, while also identifying the need for continued modernization of service standards.
Physician recruitment produced measurable results.
The City can identify the money invested, doctors recruited and patients served.
Some capital initiatives will extend beyond the current Council term.
Confederation Basin is one clear example, with construction now anticipated to begin in 2027 and completion shown in the City's project inventory for 2028.
What We Should Not Say
The evidence does not justify saying:
“Nothing was accomplished.”
That would ignore measurable housing construction, transit use, physician recruitment and other work.
Nor does it justify saying:
“Everything promised was delivered.”
That would ignore unresolved homelessness, long-term infrastructure pressures, incomplete commitments and projects moving beyond original timelines.
It would also be misleading to add every municipal, provincial and federal housing or homelessness dollar together and describe it as a Kingston property-tax cost.
And where data are incomplete, such as the precise year-by-year reconciliation of the special $35-million roads commitment, we should say exactly that.
Credibility comes partly from knowing when not to make a claim.
The Most Important Lesson: Spending Is Not the Result
Perhaps the strongest conclusion from this entire exercise is this:
Never ask only what government spent. Ask what changed because it spent it.
Kingston spent money on housing.
How many homes were actually produced?
Kingston and other governments spent money addressing homelessness.
How many people became permanently housed?
Kingston spent money recruiting physicians.
How many doctors arrived and how many patients gained care?
Kingston invests in roads and infrastructure.
What physical condition will taxpayers receive for that investment?
Kingston funds major projects.
Were they completed at the promised cost and by the promised date?
That is the difference between accounting for money and accounting for government.
Questions This Record Creates for Every Mayoral Candidate
This Report Card should not end the election discussion.
It should begin it.
Property Taxes
What maximum annual property-tax increase will you seek, and under what circumstances would you exceed it?
Spending
What new spending are you proposing, and what existing expenditures—if any—would you reduce to pay for it?
Infrastructure
Kingston's own asset analysis identifies a major long-term renewal funding gap. How will you finance it: taxation, a larger infrastructure levy, borrowing, user fees, development charges, senior-government grants, lower service levels, reductions elsewhere, or some combination?
Roads
Will you publish annually how much is spent on normal road maintenance and how much represents additional strategic road investment?
Housing
How many homes will your policies actually produce by 2030, and how many will meet a clearly defined affordability standard?
Homelessness
What measurable reduction in homelessness will you commit to achieving by 2030, what will it cost, and which government will finance each component?
Transit
What ridership, reliability, fare and municipal-subsidy targets will you establish?
Healthcare
Will the City continue physician incentives, and if so, how many doctors and newly attached patients should taxpayers expect for the money?
Major Projects
Will every major capital project publicly disclose original cost, current cost, original completion date, current completion date and amount spent?
Full-Term Commitment
If elected mayor, will you commit to serving the complete 2026–2030 municipal term except in extraordinary circumstances?
Accountability
Will you publish an annual report listing each campaign promise as completed, underway, delayed or unfulfilled, together with the money spent and measurable result?
Those questions should be put to every candidate.
Kingston's Record Is Not a Political Slogan
The evidence does not produce a convenient one-line judgment.
There are measurable accomplishments.
There are unresolved problems.
There are substantial expenditures.
There are programs where outcomes can be demonstrated.
There are other programs where activity is easier to measure than results.
There are completed projects.
There are projects carrying into the next term.
And there are areas where the public information remains incomplete.
That is the reality of governing a city.
The role of this Report Card is not to simplify that reality until it fits a political argument.
It is to present it as fairly as possible.
From the Record to the 2026 Election
This Report Card should now become the factual bridge between our individual candidate analyses and the final comparison of the four mayoral platforms.
The sequence matters.
First:
What happened during the present term?
Then:
What does each candidate propose to do next?
Then:
What will it cost?
Then:
Who pays?
Then:
When will it happen?
Then:
What measurable result should Kingston expect by 2030?
Only after voters have those answers does the political judgment properly begin.
The Responsibility Test
Democracy does more than give citizens an opportunity to cast a ballot.
It asks them to make a judgment about who should exercise public authority.
Kingston residents should not have to make that judgment on slogans alone.
Nor should commentators make the decision for them.
Voters deserve:
Facts.
Costs.
Results.
Timelines.
Unresolved problems.
And questions that require real answers.
The 2022–2026 record contains all of them.
Some measurable indicators improved.
Some serious problems remain unresolved.
Some public spending produced identifiable results.
In other areas, the relationship between money spent and results achieved is much less clear.
Some projects were delivered.
Others continue into the next term.
And in several areas, the public record itself could be easier for taxpayers to follow.
That is the factual starting point.
Now the people seeking Kingston's mayor's office should explain what they intend to do with the next four years.
Then the decision belongs exactly where it should:
With the voters of Kingston.
Research and Editorial Note — August 14, 2026
This is a pre-election report, not a final audited review of the complete 2022–2026 Council term. The current Ontario municipal term does not end until November 14, 2026, while Kingston voters go to the polls on October 26. Accordingly, 2022 is generally used as the starting baseline, 2023 as the first full budget year of the current Council, and 2026 figures are identified as approved budgets or the latest available information rather than final year-end results.
The analysis relies primarily on City of Kingston budgets, tax-rate schedules and bylaws, housing and homelessness material, asset-management reports, project information, Ontario housing-start data and other official public records.
Where figures measure different things—such as permits, housing starts, affordable homes, transitional spaces and shelter beds—they have been kept separate.
Where provincial or federal money flows through City-administered programs, it has not automatically been characterized as Kingston property-tax spending.
Where project timetables have changed, the change is identified without assuming that a delay was either justified or unjustified.
Where a figure could not be responsibly reconciled—most notably the full year-by-year accounting against the additional $35-million road-repair commitment—it has been identified as incomplete rather than estimated.
No mayor, councillor or candidate is endorsed, opposed, ranked or assigned personal responsibility for system-wide results in this Report Card. Its purpose is to give Kingston voters a factual baseline from which to evaluate the promises being made for 2026–2030.
