A local resident’s post in a Kingston community group hit a nerve: taxes up roughly $1,000 a year, little visible improvement in their neighbourhood, infrastructure headaches, and now a councillor talking about studying no-fee transit.
That frustration is understandable — but the most useful next step is separating three things that often get blended together:
- what Kingston actually spends (and on what),
- what’s driving tax increases, and
- how a “free transit” idea would be paid for — and what it might crowd out.
What the City is budgeting (and what it implies for your bill)
Kingston’s 2025 municipal budgets include a $506.9 million operating budget and a $131.3 million capital budget, alongside a 6.3% property tax increase (the City notes this includes 1% for capital investment and also includes increases related to external agencies).
Translation for taxpayers: the operating budget pays for the recurring “keep the city running” costs (labour, contracts, service delivery), while the capital budget is where roads, fleet, facilities, and major repairs live. When residents say “nothing improved in my area,” they’re often feeling a mismatch between (a) where capital dollars actually went and (b) what their local priorities are.
A second important point: in Kingston, “external agencies” are a meaningful part of the tax story. The City’s 2024 budget document notes that agencies and boards make up just over 25% of the overall municipal operating budget net tax requirement. That matters because residents can be told municipal services are being restrained while agency/board pressures still move the tax needle.
The biggest accountability stress test in 2025: policing costs
If you want to understand why taxes can rise even when residents don’t feel service improvements, look at cost drivers that are difficult to “opt out” of.
Kingston Police’s 2025 operating budget request totals about $54.1 million net, up from $47.5 million in 2024 (a reported increase of about $6.5 million / 13.74%). The police report attributes major drivers to newly settled collective agreements (wages/benefits/compensation) and other pressures including new legislative requirements under Ontario’s Community Safety and Policing Act (in effect April 1, 2024).
Whether a resident agrees with the policing approach or not, the budget reality is this: large, wage-heavy services move quickly when contracts reset. Police also note salaries/wages/benefits are the dominant expenditure category (they report non-discretionary items represent the vast majority of their budget).
This is the kind of cost pressure that can crowd out “visible” neighbourhood improvements unless council explicitly protects those capital lines.
Utilities are another household cost escalator (even when they’re not property tax)
Utilities Kingston publishes its own budget outlook: for 2025, gross operating expenses are expected to increase about 8% (to $46.58 million) and for 2026 the gross operating budget includes a further 5% increase (to $49 million), citing rising costs and needed investments to improve services.
This isn’t your municipal property tax bill — but it is part of your total “cost of living in Kingston” bill. When residents feel squeezed, they don’t separate taxes from water/wastewater/other rate-supported costs; they feel the combined hit.
Now to the flashpoint: studying “no-fee transit”
Kingston Transit is not small. The City’s own engagement material states ridership reached 6.1 million annual riders in 2023 and the City is in the middle of a Transit Service Review that will shape service standards and network planning into 2026.
So what happens if Kingston studies “free transit” or “no-fee ridership”?
Here’s the non-ideological budget math that council should be forced to put on one page:
- Current fares exist (adult cash fare is $3.50; adult monthly pass $83, etc.).
- If you reduce fares to zero (or near zero), you must replace fare revenue with:
- higher property taxes,
- higher transfers/subsidies (provincial/federal), or
- service reductions / deferred capital / reduced maintenance elsewhere.
“Free transit” can be a valid policy choice, but it is never a free choice. For taxpayers, the accountability question is not “do you like free transit?” It’s: what is the funding plan, and what gets deprioritized to pay for it?
Where spending and accountability tend to break down
Residents’ “blank cheque” perception usually grows from predictable gaps in municipal governance. Here are the most common ones to watch for in Kingston’s budget cycle:
- One-time money used to fund ongoing expectations
If a program is funded by reserves or one-time contributions, it may look affordable in-year but creates pressure later when the one-time funding disappears. - Big-ticket wage resets that quietly restructure the whole budget
When major services reset compensation, the increases can be “explained” but still leave less room for roads, sidewalks, and neighbourhood-level fixes. - Capital planning that isn’t legible at the district level
A city can truthfully say it spent heavily on capital, while a specific district sees little. The fix is not just “spend more,” it’s publish capital delivery by district and by asset condition. - Studies without decision gates
A study can be legitimate — or it can be a delaying tactic. Every study should have a cap on cost, a timeline, and pre-defined decision points (what evidence triggers “go/no-go”).
What Kingston taxpayers should demand — specifically — before council goes further on no-fee transit
If you want accountability, ask for these three items to be tabled publicly alongside any motion:
- A fare-replacement price tag
“How much fare revenue would be lost under each scenario (fully free, youth expansion, low-income expansion, off-peak free) and how is it replaced?” - A trade-off statement
“What budget line is reduced or deferred to pay for it, if taxes aren’t raised?” - A measurable outcome promise
“What will improve (ridership, access to jobs, congestion, emissions), by how much, and by what date — and what happens if it doesn’t?”
Without those, “no-fee transit” becomes symbolism paid for by the same taxpayers who are already telling council they’re tapped out.
The immediate action window: Kingston’s 2026 budget meetings
If residents want to turn frustration into leverage, the most effective moment is budget week — not social media week.
The City has posted the 2026 budget presentation schedule: meetings begin 6:00 pm on January 19–21, 2026 at City Hall, and residents can submit written comments or request delegation status.
Show up with a short, disciplined ask:
- “Publish capital spending and road/sidewalk state by district annually.”
- “For any new program (including transit fare changes), publish the funding source and the offset.”
- “Adopt a rule: no new ongoing program funded by one-time money unless council votes on a replacement plan.”
Bottom line
The post’s core complaint isn’t really about transit. It’s about trust: taxes rising, core infrastructure still feeling behind, and decisions that can look performative if the dollars and trade-offs aren’t made explicit.
Kingston can study no-fee transit. But taxpayers should insist on the receipts: full cost, full funding plan, and explicit trade-offs — in writing — before the City commits to anything that widens the gap between what residents pay and what they feel they get back.
Leave a Reply