Hill Street Dog Park: Community Evidence Report

The observations support a review of how the park is configured, while preserving useful separated space. Across 747 observations from July 3 to November 2, 2026 (partial day), the main area accounted for 5,582 of 6,641 dog sightings (84.1%). It was occupied in 97.6% of snapshots. The small-dog area was occupied in 41.4%; in 433 observations (58.0%), it was empty while the main area had dogs.

Recent observations continue to show higher use of the small-dog area. The small-dog area's share was 15.9% across the full sample and 25.5% in the latest rolling four-week window. Its mean count rose from 0.5 dogs per snapshot in July to 1.1 in August to 2.3 in September to 2.7 in October, continuing into a partial November (1.4, n=10). The report continues to treat the pattern as changing, rather than assuming early-summer use will continue unchanged.

Dog size does not fully explain area use, and counts do not establish safety. Observers recorded 963 small-dog sightings within the main area's total, compared with 1,059 sightings of dogs of any size in the separated area — a gap that has now closed cumulatively and reversed in the recent window (see Section 8). Reported tension or conflict occurred in 49 snapshots (6.6% of 747 answered) and coincided with higher average dog counts. These observations do not establish that fencing caused conflict, that a given occupancy is unsafe, or that small dogs do not need separated space.

The next decision needs both better documentation and wider user input. On September 17, the City supplied a drawing labelled “As-Built” identifying different area figures (0.30/0.71 acres, ≈30%/70%) from the earlier preliminary drawing (0.26/0.80 acres, ≈25%/75%); its measurement method has not been independently verified. Depending on the assumed area and the observation period, calculated use per acre changes substantially — from roughly equal in the latest four weeks under a 20% assumption (0.73×), to a little over 2× cumulatively under the as-built assumption (2.23×). Confirmed dimensions, access and amenity assessment, the user survey, and the community vote should inform the City's review together. This interim report does not select a winning proposal.

All observation figures in this edition are calculated from a CSV export of the public observation data covering observations through November 2, 2026. The last included observation was November 2 at 10:32 a.m. Eastern Time; November 2 is a partial day, since collection continues. This update recalculates every observation-derived figure in the report (Sections 1, 3–11, 13, 16–17); it does not review the City-reply, area-record, milestone, ballot or voting-status material in Sections 12, 14, 15 and 18–20, which should be checked separately for its current status. Current voting status

This report brings together community observations, public records and the current consultation process to support a review of Hill Street Dog Park’s configuration. Its central question is how a limited neighbourhood park can provide useful separated space while meeting the needs of everyone using the main area.

The Hill Street Dog Park Community Coalition supports retaining a separated option for dogs and owners who need one. Counts help describe where dogs were observed; they do not establish why owners chose an area, the amount of space each dog needs, or the best final design. Those questions require user input and practical assessment.

This is an interim publication during community voting. The observation snapshot is dated, and no final voting or survey outcome is implied. The coalition is a volunteer community initiative independent of the City of Hamilton. Coalition purpose and process

An observation is one community-submitted snapshot of the two areas at a stated time. A dog sighting is a dog counted within a snapshot. Summing sightings can count the same dog again on another occasion; it does not measure unique dogs, visits or hours of use. An occupied snapshot has at least one dog in the relevant area.

Unless otherwise stated, this report uses the site's primary park-use sample: 597 current records submitted within 30 minutes, plus 150 historical records whose submission delay cannot be reliably reconstructed. Together these are 747 observations. A further 34 retrospective records remain valid but are included only in sensitivity comparisons.

The two maxima occurred in different snapshots. Small dogs recorded in the main area are already part of its total and are never added again. Percentages are rounded once from exact counts. Sources: observation data and published methodology.

The main area accounted for 84.1% of all dog sightings, with an average of 7.47 dogs per snapshot compared with 1.42 in the small-dog area. This is a cumulative description of the moments recorded over the study period.

The difference is not simply the result of a few very busy snapshots: the main area had more dogs in 666 of 747 observations (89.2%), the small-dog area had more in 60 (8.0%), and counts were equal in 21 (2.8%). Median counts were 7 and 0 respectively.

These figures make the distribution of usable space a reasonable subject for review. They do not imply that land should be allocated in exact proportion to recorded dog counts. Separation, avoidance of stressful interactions, accessibility and space to move can have value even at low occupancy. Data source

The main area was occupied in 729 observations (97.6%); the small-dog area in 309 (41.4%). Both were occupied in 296 snapshots. The main area alone was occupied in 433, the small-dog area alone in 13, and neither area in five.

Two similar percentages describe different things: the small-dog area was empty in 438 of 747 observations (58.6%), including the five when the entire park was empty. It was empty while the main area had dogs in 433 (58.0%).

This is evidence of unused separated space during many recorded moments alongside active use of the main area. It is not evidence that the enclosure was unused for most operating hours. A voluntary snapshot sample cannot determine the duration of either condition. Data source

The cumulative split conceals a material change. In the latest rolling 28-day window, 324 of 1,272 sightings (25.5%) were in the small-dog area, compared with 1,059 of 6,641 (15.9%) in the full sample. The recent window contains 124 observations and runs from October 5 to the November 2 capture; November 2 is a partial day.

The rolling window overlaps the monthly periods and the cumulative sample; these rows must not be added together. The November row's small sample (n=10) should be read with that limit in mind. In the rolling window, the small-dog area was empty in 45 of 124 snapshots (36.3%), compared with 58.6% overall.

The rising recorded use has continued across October and into November, not just held at its September level. It could reflect changing attendance, different observation times or contributors, awareness of the enclosure, or several factors together. The data do not isolate an explanation. The recent result should receive equal consideration when assessing future space needs. Data source

Records cover 121 of 123 calendar days from July 3 through November 2, but that broad coverage does not mean continuous monitoring. July 4 and October 11 have no included observation. The 5–8 p.m. period supplied 308 of 747 observations (41.2%); overnight coverage is sparse, with none from 2–4 a.m. or 6–7 a.m.

Across the recorded snapshots, the 11 a.m.–noon hour averaged 11.90 dogs across both areas (31 observations), and 6–7 p.m. averaged 11.38 (129 observations). These are observed hourly means, not forecasts of how busy any particular visit will be. At 11 a.m.–noon, the means were 10.35 main and 1.55 small; at 6–7 p.m., they were 9.88 and 1.50.

Weekdays and weekends had similar combined means: 8.94 dogs across 514 weekday snapshots and 8.79 across 233 weekend snapshots. Their small-area shares were 15.4% and 17.2% respectively. This broad comparison is descriptive; differences in which hours were observed can still matter.

The chart focuses on 7 a.m.–9 p.m., where each hourly bin has at least 12 observations. Continued collection should deliberately cover less-observed periods, quieter visits and both areas, without creating repeated submissions for the same moment. Data source

Observers recorded 963 small-dog sightings in the main area, occurring in 452 of 747 snapshots (60.5%). That is now slightly fewer than the 1,059 sightings of all dogs in the small-dog area — a comparison that favoured the main area at the September 25 snapshot (788 vs. 627) and has since flipped. These are different groups: the second count includes dogs of any size and should not be labelled “small dogs.” In the latest 28-day window, the gap is much wider: 114 small-dog sightings were in the main area versus 324 dogs of any size in the separated area. That recent change is relevant alongside the cumulative finding.

The pattern supports asking owners what drives their area choice: available companions, space, shade, access, comfort, dog temperament or other reasons. Observation counts alone cannot identify those motivations or establish a preference among all small-dog owners.

The data also contain 50 large-dog sightings in the small-dog area, or 4.7% of that area's total. Physical occupancy includes those dogs. Their presence does not by itself establish a rule violation or an inappropriate use; posted eligibility and dogs' individual needs must be considered.

The September 15 edition flagged one historical record where the recorded small-dog count in the main area exceeded the main-area total. This edition's data-quality check found no such inconsistency in the current dataset; it did identify and exclude one accidental duplicate submission from July 14 (Section 16). Data source

The same numeric thresholds provide a straightforward comparison:

Counts of at least 10 appeared on 94 of the 121 observed dates in the main area and 12 dates in the small-dog area. These are days with at least one qualifying snapshot, not the percentage of time spent at those occupancies. The busiest combined snapshot is now a tie at 29 dogs: the August 3 record (26 main, 3 small, 11:31 a.m.) that held the all-time peak through the September 25 edition is matched by a new October 7 snapshot (12 main, 17 small, 5:43 p.m.). That October 7 snapshot is also the small-dog area’s own new busiest recorded moment, surpassing the September 16 edition’s previous high of 15.

The dashboard also uses count-based labels such as “light,” “moderate” and “busy.” Its numerical cutoffs differ by area. This report therefore uses explicit dog counts for cross-area comparisons. Neither those labels nor the thresholds above are independently established limits on safe occupancy. Data source · Dashboard definitions

Tension or conflict was reported in 49 of 747 observations (6.6%). The mean total dog count was 12.6 when conflict was reported and 8.6 when it was not, a difference of 4.0 dogs. As of the September 25 snapshot (a location breakdown is not available in this update's data export): among the 37 reports with a location, 35 identified the main area, one the small-dog area and one both; two reports had no location.

The question records an observer's report of tension or conflict. It does not distinguish all severities, establish an injury or identify independently adjudicated incidents. Repeated observations could refer to overlapping activity. The available data also lack dog-hours of exposure, so these percentages cannot be interpreted as each dog's risk.

Higher dog counts create more opportunities for interaction and for observers to notice it. Dog characteristics, supervision, gate activity and other conditions may also matter. This association does not show that the divider caused conflict, or that a different fence line would prevent it. The sample starts after the June installation and supplies no comparable pre-installation baseline.

The practical implication is to assess entrances, circulation and usable space alongside observed occupancy and user experience. Do not turn the average occupancy in conflict reports into a “safe” density threshold. Data source

Observations tagged sunny/clear or cloudy/overcast continued to show more sightings in the main area. Mean total counts were 9.43 for sunny/clear (406 snapshots), 8.89 for cloudy/overcast (143), 6.09 for very hot (55) and 3.85 for rain (20). Their small-area sighting shares were 14.5%, 14.7%, 7.5% and 1.3% respectively.

Weather tags can overlap, so these sample counts are not mutually exclusive and must not be summed. Older records also use different wording for similar conditions. Very small categories, such as wind or smoke, cannot support strong comparisons. These observations span summer and most of September; they cannot establish winter use or isolate weather effects from time of day and contributor choices. Data source

The preliminary City-supplied drawing labels a total off-leash area of 1.06 acres, divided into 0.26 acres for the small-dog area and 0.80 acres for the main area. The labelled small-dog share is 24.5%. On September 17, 2026, the City supplied a further drawing labelled “As-Built,” identifying 0.30 acres (30%) for the small-dog area and 0.71 acres (70%) for the main area — a total of 1.01 acres, 0.05 acres less than the preliminary drawing’s total. Preliminary drawing · As-built drawing · Councillor Wilson’s reply

The public descriptions differ:

The coalition reports that the built divider sits farther east than the preliminary drawing shows. Its impression that the present enclosure is closer to one-third is not a survey measurement. The public record reviewed for this report does not establish independently confirmed as-built dimensions: the City has now stated as-built figures, supplied September 17, 2026, but their measurement method has not been independently verified by the coalition, and the 0.05-acre difference between the preliminary and as-built totals is unresolved. Any per-acre comparison therefore needs explicit assumptions; a range of scenarios is not a verified measurement range. Drawing concerns and follow-up

The site reports a September 30, 2025 creation date in the preliminary drawing’s PDF metadata, six days after the original petition began. That timing raises a records question. It does not establish when design work started, when approval occurred or that anyone acted improperly. Source context

The table holds recorded counts fixed and varies the small-dog area's assumed share of the total. Each entry is the ratio of mean dogs per acre in the main area to mean dogs per acre in the small-dog area. A ratio of 1 means equal observed use per acre under that assumption. The City's September 17 as-built figures are used as the primary assumption in this edition; the preliminary-drawing, one-third and 20% figures remain as labelled sensitivity scenarios, not verified measurements. (This section recalculates the ratios from the updated observation means; it does not revisit the area assumptions themselves — see the note on scope above.)

For example, using the as-built drawing's 0.71-acre main area and 0.30-acre small-dog area, the full-sample means become 10.52 and 4.73 dogs per acre per observation. Using the preliminary drawing's 0.80-acre main area and 0.26-acre small-dog area instead produces 9.34 and 5.45.

The cumulative main-area intensity is still higher in all four scenarios, though the gap has narrowed since the September 25 edition as small-dog-area use has grown. In the latest four-week sample, intensity is now below parity per acre under the 20% assumption (0.73×, meaning more intensive use of the small-dog area) and only modestly higher under the as-built assumption (1.24×) — both well below the cumulative 2.23×. This qualification materially changes how a single headline density ratio should be read.

These are arithmetic scenarios, not measured boundaries, confidence intervals, safe capacities or predictions of behaviour after a change. The as-built figures are the City's own stated numbers, not an independently verified survey. The actual area could differ from every description. Even equal dogs per acre would not prove that needs are equally served. Observation data · June 19 description · Preliminary drawing · As-built drawing

• September 24, 2025: The original petition sought dedicated small-dog space; it did not specify the final constructed configuration. Timeline and original petition link
• February 23, 2026: The Public Works Committee approved a motion for fencing and signage within the existing boundary, with a funding cap of C$25,000 including contingency and HST. It recorded 457 petition signatures as of January 7. Motion · Approval reported by Ward 1
• February 27, 2026: Ward 1 described a roughly one-third allocation and separate entrances. Newsletter
• June 5–19, 2026: A June 5 update scheduled construction for June 10; a June 19 update announced reopening and described a 20% allocation. Before · After
• July 12–28, 2026: The coalition’s records-request cover letter was dated July 12. The City’s July 28 acknowledgement recorded receipt on July 27, under FOI #26-256. Cover · Acknowledgement
• July 30–August 12, 2026: A drawing was supplied, followed by coalition requests for clarification on August 5, 10 and 12. Timeline
• August 13, 2026: A community meeting discussed the layout, evidence and alternatives. Meeting summary
• August 22, 2026: The user survey launched to examine reasons behind area choices. Survey · Launch record
• September 11, 2026: Community solution submissions closed. Submissions
• September 17, 2026: Councillor Wilson replied with a drawing labelled “As-Built,” identifying 0.30/0.71 acres (≈30%/70%), and said a buried gas line prompted the fence-alignment change from the preliminary drawing. Reply
• September 25, 2026: An interim report analyzed 576 community observations from July 3 to September 25. That edition
• September 27, 2026: Voting closed. 70 ballots were cast. Options C, B and D received the most support and are the three alternatives going to the City. See the results
• November 3, 2026: This report is refreshed with observations through November 2 (partial day) and the vote results above. This report

The ballot presents seven community-proposed options:

These are concepts for comparison, not construction plans or coalition endorsements of every feature. Their boundaries and proportions are approximate. City assessment would still be required.

Participants may support up to three options, without ranking them. Each selected option receives one support count. Published percentages should use valid ballots as the denominator and may sum above 100%. The process aims to identify three alternatives for City consideration; it is an informal preference poll, not a representative survey or a City referendum. Options and voting method

Voting ran from September 14 to September 27, 2026, and closed with 70 ballots cast. Options C, B and D received the most support (38, 26 and 15 ballots respectively) and are the three alternatives going to the City. Full results, every option's count

This edition's analysis starts from a CSV export of 782 validated, deduplicated observation records covering July 3 to November 2, 2026. A further check for this edition identified one additional near-duplicate the export had not caught — a July 14 entry at 5:00 p.m. submitted 33 seconds after an identical prior entry at 4:59 p.m., same counts in both areas — which was treated as a single accidental double submission and excluded, leaving 781 records for analysis. Of those, 597 are current records inside the 30-minute rule, 150 are historical records and 34 are retrospective. Primary usage therefore contains 747 records, not all 781. This edition has not independently re-verified the upstream submission and data-quality-exclusion counts described in earlier editions (the raw API submission count and specific moderation decisions behind them); those earlier figures are not restated here pending that verification.

The 30-minute threshold is the project's analysis rule, not a universal scientific standard. Retrospective records are not presumed false. Historical records are retained because their original submission delay cannot reliably be reconstructed, not because they are known to have met the threshold. Among the 631 current records with usable timing, the median recorded delay is two minutes.

The tracker allows submissions up to 24 hours after observation and asks contributors to wait 20 minutes between new observations. Those entry rules are separate from the 30-minute analytical cutoff. Tracker · Published methodology

This is a voluntary community sample. Contributors and dogs may recur, observation times are uneven, and the public data do not support a count of unique contributors or weighting by observer. Optional responses may have been normalized in older records; a zero in an exported field is not proof that every original question was actively answered. Conflict answer flags are present for all 747 included records, but that alone does not resolve historical questionnaire completeness.

The data check found no duplicate observation IDs, negative or invalid counts, missing observation times, or future observations. One record (August 5) had a supplied delay that did not precisely match the gap between its two timestamps, by under two minutes — immaterial to every statistic in this report and noted here for transparency rather than corrected. The check found no small-dogs-in-main-area count exceeding the corresponding main-area total (a single such inconsistency was flagged and noted in the September 15 edition; it is no longer present in the current dataset). These checks assess the exported records; they do not independently verify what happened at the park. Data source

Removing historical records or including later submissions changes the precise shares, but the main area remains the majority in each comparison. The 34 retrospective records considered alone have a substantially higher small-area share, 38.8% (107 of 276 sightings). Their different pattern is a reason to display sensitivity results, not a basis to dismiss those records as inaccurate.

Allowing delays up to 60 minutes while retaining historical records gives a small-area share of 16.1%; up to two hours gives 16.7%; all validated records give 16.9%. This robustness check addresses the timing rule only. It does not remove self-selection, repeated observations, changing attendance or seasonal limitations.

The same records contribute to several rows, so the samples are not independent groups and should not be added together. No population margin of error or significance test is asserted for this voluntary sample. Data source

A useful review should assess each option against the same criteria: safe separation where needed; usable running and play space; entrance capacity and double-gate arrangements; accessible movement; water, shade and seating; clarity of operating rules; maintenance; and cost, including possible reuse of fencing. Observed dog shares should inform that assessment without automatically becoming target land shares.

Voting has since closed and the full results, including every option's count and the counting method, are published separately. Survey findings should identify the respondent groups represented and the number answering each question. Vote results and counting method · Survey interpretation

The requested records should clarify the measured area and location of each enclosure, the approved construction drawing, and whether the completed installation was checked against that design. The community also needs to understand what consultation, usage evidence and needs assessment informed the allocation; which alternatives were considered; and how access, circulation and amenities were evaluated.

The absence of those answers from the public material reviewed here does not establish that no assessment or consultation occurred. It identifies information needed to evaluate the decision and future options. The published authorization is a funding ceiling; final expenditure should be confirmed separately. Records requested · Project motion

1. Keep observing. Record the counts actually present, including quiet periods and occasions when the small-dog area is busy. Follow the tracker waiting period and avoid repeated reports of the same moment. Ongoing observations keep this evidence current as the City's review proceeds. Submit an observation
2. Broaden participation. Invite users of both areas, occasional visitors and people who have stopped attending to explain their needs through the survey. Counts cannot substitute for those experiences. No survey results are asserted in this edition because no public result table was available in the material reviewed. User survey
3. Advance the three selected alternatives. Voting closed September 27 with 70 ballots cast; Options C, B and D received the most support. Present those three alternatives to the City alongside this evidence and the unresolved measurement and design questions in Sections 12, 18 and 19. Full vote results
4. Ask others to support the review. The petition expresses support for reconsideration and consultation. Its signatures serve a different purpose from observations or option votes and should be reported separately. Sign or share the petition
5. Keep this report current. As the City's review of Options C, B and D proceeds, republish this evidence with updated observations and note any City response, consultation, or decision as it happens.

The aim is a park configuration that works well for different dogs and owners. The evidence supports asking better design questions and evaluating alternatives transparently; it does not supply a single answer to every user's needs.

Observation snapshot. A CSV export of the public observation data, covering observation dates July 3–November 2, 2026 (partial day). The report freezes that export. Every observation-derived finding in this edition uses it (Sections 1, 3–11, 13, 16–17). Sections 14, 15, 18 and 20 were updated separately from the published vote results, not from this CSV. Section 12 (the City's drawings and area measurements) was not reviewed in this update. Export content hash (SHA-256): 81d04bbad813548e427735a1ac607bed13d5c6f3312bffff525ca94b0f4157d9.

Calculation definitions. Sighting share = sum of an area's dog counts divided by the sum across both areas. Mean count = that area's summed counts divided by observations in the stated sample. Occupancy rate = snapshots meeting the stated condition divided by sample observations. Density ratio = (main mean ÷ assumed main acres) ÷ (small mean ÷ assumed small acres); the as-built basis converts the City's square-metre labels (1,232 m² / 2,868 m²) to acres at 1 acre = 4,046.8564224 m². The recent window is 28 × 24 hours ending at retrieval. Local dates and hours use America/Toronto. Quantiles use linear interpolation.

Method and records. Dashboard and methodology; tracker; timeline; media and source documents; preliminary reference drawing; City as-built drawing, September 17, 2026; Councillor Wilson's September 17 reply; Ward 1 newsletters of February 27, June 5, and June 19, 2026. Other primary documents are linked beside the relevant milestones.

Interpretive scope. This is a coalition publication based on publicly available records, not a City report, an independently administered census or a causal evaluation. Meeting recollections, public comments and coalition site observations do not become verified measurements by being included in a report. The September 9 media package remains a separate historical edition. No private survey responses, individual identities or ballot records are reproduced here.

Prepared for publication by the Hill Street Dog Park Community Coalition, Hamilton, Ontario. Interim edition 1.2 · November 3, 2026 (observation data refresh of the September 25, 2026 edition 1.1, archived here). Contact: [email protected].