CITY OF KINGSTON INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL … · The letter outlined the main reasons for discontinuing the enumeration of student residences and campuses as follows: “ the

CITY OF KINGSTON INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-057 TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Hal Linscott, Director of Legal Services and City Solicitor RESOURCE STAFF: John Bolognone, City Clerk George Wallace, Senior Special Projects Manager DATE OF MEETING: January 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Supplementary Report – Electoral District Boundary Review (Total Population / Post-Secondary Students) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 20, 2012, Council received Report No. 12-375 which provided information respecting the ongoing review of the City’s current electoral district boundaries and presented Council with a preferred and two alternate options for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries in advance of the 2014 municipal election. During Council’s discussion of the Report, two main themes were identified respecting staff’s methodology in determining the options for re-dividing the existing boundaries. Those themes related to staff’s use of a projected number of electors rather than total population and that the total number of post-secondary students had not been factored into the review process. As a result, Council amended the Report recommendation to include the following: “THAT staff be directed to seek advice on how the complete population numbers, including post-secondary students and children, may best be reflected in the district boundaries;”. (Note: Council’s full motion can be viewed on pages 6 & 7 of this Report.) Further to Council’s direction “to seek advice”, staff undertook a number of concurrent initiatives, including the following: Outreach to Ontario Municipalities with Post-Secondary Institutions Staff sent a communication to every Ontario municipality with a post-secondary institution requesting information regarding their use of electors or total population and Census or MPAC data in their review of electoral districts, whether or not they adjust their population numbers to account for post-secondary students, and what special initiatives they undertake in order to include post-secondary students on their Elector’s List. Responses were received from 14

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL Report No.: 13-057 January 8, 2013

- Page 2 -

municipalities (in some cases responses were not provided to all questions). The responses received indicated the following:

• Six municipalities used total population, one municipality used electors, and three municipalities used both;

• Three municipalities used Census data, two used MPAC data, and four used a combination of both;

• Seven municipalities did not adjust their figures to account for post-secondary students, two municipalities adjusted their figures, and one municipality adjusted their figures but not specifically for post-secondary students; and,

• The responding municipalities identified a variety of initiatives to try to include the post-secondary students on the Elector’s List including: setting up revision offices on campus; sending staff to the institutions to complete revision forms; setting up polling locations or advance polls on campus; distributing pamphlets; liaising with university administration and associations; and, advertisements about the Elector’s List.

Six municipalities that used the foregoing initiatives commented that the response from students to attend the revision office/booth, fill out forms, utilize the advance polls or polling stations on campus, or otherwise participate in the election, has been negligible. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Consultation Staff also contacted the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to inquire further about the decision to no longer conduct an enumeration of student residences. A copy of the letter that had been provided to municipalities in advance of the 2010 election is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The letter outlined the main reasons for discontinuing the enumeration of student residences and campuses as follows: “the timing of student registration, reluctance of some colleges/universities in releasing student information to MPAC, and non-requirement for colleges/universities to collect/store information pertaining to student citizenship, indicate that efforts expended in this area would not have an impact on the quality of the Preliminary List of Electors provided to municipalities”. The response from MPAC also confirmed that student residences/campuses will not be included in the Institutional Enumeration efforts for upcoming elections. The response also noted that the City could include similar numbers based on the occupancy of the student residence buildings on each campus. Distribution Based on Total 2011 Census Population Staff completed an analysis of the preferred and alternate options based on total 2011 Census population data. Included in this Report are revised tables and maps for Options 1 – 3 inclusive that show both total population and the projected number of eligible electors for each of the re-divided electoral districts. The total 2011 Census population counts for each of the re-divided districts resulted in variances from the average population for all districts that compared favourably with the variances based on the projected number of electors derived from the Census and MPAC data. Using the total 2011 Census population counts as the basis for re-dividing the existing districts, no adjustments would appear to be necessary to the preferred and alternate options as presented in Council Report 12-375. However, as noted in Report 12-375,


- Page 3 -

the 2011 Census counts would only include those post-secondary students that listed Kingston as their permanent place of residence. Post-Secondary Student Populations Staff also contacted the City’s three post-secondary institutions to determine the availability of data to enable staff to plot where students live and then allocate the student populations to the total 2011 Census population for each of the re-divided districts. While some data was available, staff was cautioned about the reliability of the data based on the address information kept on file by the post-secondary institutions. Some of the address information was based on the date of admission and reflected the student’s home town and not their temporary location while attending school. While students are encouraged to update their address information, it is on a voluntary basis only. Staff was able to obtain information on the occupancy of the various student residence buildings on the post-secondary campuses and has included those numbers in the total population counts. These numbers would essentially equate to the previous enumeration initiatives by MPAC for student residence buildings. Queen’s has indicated that they are going to try to update current address data for the students starting in January, 2013, but that is likely to take a few months to complete. Staff will continue to work with the post-secondary institutions to try to refine the available data, however, it should be recognized that the inclusion of post-secondary students in the total population counts (aside from the residence buildings) is a “best guess” only. As outlined in Report 12-375, one of the established electoral district review criteria recognized that in order to balance representation by population with ensuring effective representation, a degree of variation from the average of all the districts of plus or minus 25% would be acceptable. With the inclusion of the post-secondary student estimates, neither the preferred nor alternate options as presented to Council in Report 12-375 meet this established review criteria. Revised Options 1 – 3 inclusive (See Exhibits E to G attached) show the re-divided districts based on total 2011 Census population plus the post-secondary student estimates. This necessitated some relatively minor boundary adjustments to the preferred and alternate options as presented to Council in Report 12-375, particularly to the districts including and surrounding the Queen’s Main Campus. For all of the Revised Options, the variance from the average total population for all re-divided districts in each option is within the 25% threshold above or below the average. In accordance with Council’s November 20th motion, information will be presented at the public meetings and posted on the City’s website respecting both the preferred and alternate options as contained in Council Report 12-375 as well as Revised Options 1-3 based on total population counts including the post-secondary student population estimates.


- Page 4 -

Contact with Watson & Associates Following the November 20th Council meeting, Staff also contacted Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. respecting the information contained in Council Report 12-375 in terms of the methodology and analysis that was used in preparing the options for re-dividing the electoral districts, particularly with regard to the matters of using total population figures and including the post-secondary students. Watson & Associates has partnered with Dr. Robert Williams to undertake ward boundary review studies. Staff received some helpful advice and suggestions and will be continuing the dialogue with Watson & Associates throughout the remainder of the process and prior to preparing the final report to Council. Update on Public Consultation The Council-approved review process provides for presentation of the preferred and alternate options for re-dividing the electoral district boundaries at four public meetings. Staff will also present Revised Options 1-3 at the public meetings. The public meetings have been scheduled as follows:

• Monday, January 14, 2013 – Kingston East– Gore Road Fire Hall; • Wednesday, January 16, 2013 – Kingston Central – Memorial Hall, City Hall; • Monday, January 21, 2013 – Kingston North – Glenburnie Fire Hall; and, • Wednesday, January 23, 2013 – Kingston West – Invista Centre, RONA Room.

All public meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be an open house format with a formal presentation by staff at 7:00 pm. Information respecting the preferred and alternate options and the Revised Options will be posted on the City’s website. This will include Council Reports12-375 and 13-057, copies of the preferred and alternate options presented in Report 12-375, copies of Revised Options 1-3, a copy of the public meeting notice and a comment/survey that can be completed and submitted on-line. Once the public consultation process is completed, staff would again meet with the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) to review the public’s comments. In consultation with the TAT, staff would consider revisions to the options, as deemed appropriate, based on the public comments. Based on the further discussions with the TAT, staff would submit a further report to Council in March, 2013, which report would include the recommended option for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries for the 2014 municipal election. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information purposes only.


- Page 5 -

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES: _______________________________________ Hal Linscott, Director of Legal Services and City Solicitor _______________________________________ Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer

CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS:

Cynthia Beach, Sustainability & Growth

Lanie Hurdle, Community Services N/R

Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services N/R

Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston N/R

(N/R indicates consultation not required)


- Page 6 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide supplementary information in response to Council’s direction to staff to seek advice on how to best include total population, including children and post-secondary students, in the review of the City’s electoral district boundaries. Background On November 20, 2012, Council received Report No. 12-375 which provided information respecting the Council approved process for reviewing the City’s current electoral district boundaries. The Report included a preferred and two alternate options for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries and also outlined the next steps in the process. During Council’s discussion of the Report, two main themes were identified respecting staff’s methodology in determining the options for re-dividing the existing boundaries. The first theme related to staff using a projected number of electors rather than total population when calculating distribution across the re-divided districts. At the centre of this discussion was the premise that “effective representation”, not representation by population, is the common law standard for electoral district boundaries in Canada. Elected Councillors represent all of their constituents, not just those eligible to vote. Therefore, in order to achieve “effective representation” Council was of the opinion that total population, not just eligible electors, should be the basis for determining distribution across the re-divided districts. The second theme was that the total number of post-secondary students had not been factored into the review process. As noted in Report 12-375, both the Census data and the MPAC data only include those post-secondary students with a permanent Kingston address or who have filed documentation with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). It was acknowledged that the post-secondary students at Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College and Royal Military College collectively comprise a significant portion of the City’s population and that given the concentration of student populations in certain districts, the numbers shown for the preferred and alternate options for re-dividing the electoral districts could be significantly different if all post-secondary students were included. This was also addressed in the context of achieving “effective representation”. As a result, Council passed the following motion, which amended the recommendation in Report 12-375, to direct staff to seek advice on how to best include total population, including children and post-secondary students, in the review of the City’s electoral district boundaries:

“THAT Council receive the preferred option and two alternate options for re-dividing the City’s electoral district boundaries for the 2014 municipal election, as proposed by the City Clerk in consultation with the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) and provide notice of Council’s intent to pass a By-law to re-divide the City’s existing electoral district boundaries; and


- Page 7 -

THAT staff be directed to seek advice on how the complete population numbers, including post-secondary students and children, may best be reflected in the district boundaries; and

THAT in accordance with the Council approved process: a) the preferred and two alternate options as outlined in this report be presented by staff at

4 public meetings (one in each of the east, west, north and central areas of the City) in order to obtain public comment on the options;

b) information respecting the options be posted on the City’s web site in order to obtain public input respecting the preferred and two alternate options;

c) following completion of the public consultation, staff shall meet with the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) to review the public input respecting the preferred and two alternate options for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries and consider any revisions to the options in order to address the public input; and,

d) following the consultation with the TAT, staff shall present a further report to Council in February or March 2013, which report would include the recommended option for re-dividing the electoral district boundaries for the 2014 municipal election.”

It was generally agreed that this additional information would be gathered as part of the “public consultation” stage of the electoral district boundary review process, thereby maintaining the proposed timeline for Council to consider a further report and recommendations from staff and approve the recommended option for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries by the end of March, 2013. Discussion Further to Council’s direction “to seek advice”, staff undertook a number of concurrent initiatives. This included: contacting every municipality in Ontario with a post-secondary institution to determine how they conduct electoral district boundary reviews and try to engage post-secondary students; obtaining further information from MPAC respecting the decision to discontinue student residence enumerations; analyzing the preferred and alternate options based on total Census population; contacting the three post-secondary institutions regarding enrolment numbers and the availability of information to plot where students live; and, contacting Watson and Associates to discuss the content of Council Report 12-375. Each of these initiatives is discussed in detail in the following sections. Outreach to Other Ontario Municipalities with Post-Secondary Institutions Staff sent an e-mail communication to all Ontario municipalities with a post-secondary institution requesting information respecting the municipality’s use of Census and MPAC data and how post-secondary students are factored into their electoral district numbers. The four questions posed and summaries of the responses received are outlined below. A total of 14 responses have been received to date (Note: not all respondents provided answers to each question). 1) In conducting your electoral district (ward) boundary reviews, do you base your

analysis on total population or the number of eligible electors per district?


- Page 8 -

Total Population – Toronto, Hamilton, Barrie, Timmins, Oakville, and Greater Sudbury; Eligible Electors – Windsor; Both – Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener, and Guelph; No Wards (At Large Elections) – Cobourg and North Grenville; and, No Boundary Review – St. Catharines. “We used number of eligible electors because in the end the MPAC figures were what candidates were using to determine their spending limits. All calculations use the number of eligible electors. Our consultant recommended this.” (Windsor) “We used both total population and eligible electors so we could compare both figures. For purposes of the final report, we used total Pop.” (Kitchener) 2) In determining the population and/or number of electors per district, do you rely on

Census data or on the data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), or a combination of both?

Census Data – Barrie, Timmins and Greater Sudbury; MPAC Data – Windsor and Cobourg; and, Combination of Both – Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener, Oakville and Guelph. “MPAC data is totally unreliable. I use the Federal census which is a little more accurate and add 5%. A private consultant’s figures have our population at about 7% higher than the 2011 Federal census.” (Timmins) “Combination of both. We also rely on the “Best Planning Estimates” (which are based on the census data) provided by the region with regard to future growth anticipated.” (Oakville) “We have been using Census data which is more accurate than our MPAC lists have been, particularly in the last election.” (Greater Sudbury) 3) In determining the population and/or number of electors per district, do you adjust

the numbers from the Census or MPAC data to account for the post-secondary students that do not list their permanent place of residence as being your municipality and which are therefore not captured by the Census or MPAC data?

No – Hamilton, Barrie, Oakville, Greater Sudbury, Kitchener, Sault Ste. Marie and Waterloo; Yes – Windsor and Guelph; and, Figures adjusted, but not specifically for students – Timmins. “By reviewing the above considerations and the Supreme Court ruling in the Ottawa case, which established effective representation as a key component to ward boundary review, and the fact that MPAC no longer tracks students at university I don’t believe we would make it a huge


- Page 9 -

issue.” (Hamilton) “I believe we did leave some room for these figures, but it was never enough to warrant a boundary change.” (Windsor) “At the time there were few student residence facilities at the college and university. We would have accounted for students who voted through the revision form process by using the final voter figures.” (Sault Ste. Marie) “We do make an adjustment as noted in question 2 but primarily because of a variety of factors, i.e. people not filling out forms, people absence from city during census review, students from other communities etc.”. (Timmins) “We didn’t account for any post-secondary student population however; we were cognizant of the college’s location and it’s possible effect on that particular ward.” (Kitchener) “Yes. We use the estimated student population and apply to the area.” (Guelph) “The specific issue of university students and children hasn’t come up in the context of wards. We have taken more of an approach of looking at patterns of growth and development to predict where there may be a need for some capacity in the ward boundary side to allow for future year growth”. (Greater Sudbury) “We’ve done several ward reviews, but we don’t really account for students other than keeping a general awareness that certain wards will have large student populations (who generally don’t vote).” (Waterloo) 4) Do you undertake any special initiatives to try to ensure that as many post-secondary

students as possible are included on the Voter’s List for your municipal elections? “In the past we have set up a revision office for a couple of days at the University. They complete revision forms and we add them to the voter’s list. They would then vote at a special advance poll on the campus. Even with this service turnout for the revision and the voting has been negligible.” (Hamilton) “Yes, we do leave pamphlets, etc. for the students to complete, but very few ever do.” (Windsor) “We liaise with the associations at each institution to assist us in getting students to ensure they are on the list.” (Sault Ste. Marie) “In 2010, we had a booth at our College to encourage students to add their names to the Voter’s List/check they were on the Voter’s List, encourage them to vote. We held an advance voting opportunity at the College. Few students added themselves to the Voter’s List and the


- Page 10 -

individuals who used the advance voting opportunity were mainly professors or other staff at the College and a few residents. I believe we had less than 10 students vote at the College (and less than 100 voters in total). I am aware that other municipalities (Hamilton) have experienced similar turnout and are considering whether they will expend resources to hold voting opportunities or information booths at their post secondary institutions in the future – given the results.” (Barrie) “No, unlike Kingston we do not have a large post secondary student population.” (Timmins) “The college population housed at the college is small therefore we do not undertake any special initiatives other than supplying forms to the student association.” (Kitchener) “Provide alternate internet and telephone voting initiated for greater accessibility for all persons at home or away to vote.” (Cobourg) “No special initiatives other than advertisements to ensure everyone is on the voters list. We did do some outreach with the local college in 2006 and 2010 but there was very little interest and turnout at the voting locations as a result.” (Oakville) “We have sent staff to the university to fill revision forms and polling locations on campus at the student centre in the past.” (Guelph) “As you know, MPAC does not capture the student population. We check with the Universities to get an estimate of how many students are living on campus in residences, but we also know a number are under age and/or not Canadian citizens. Off-campus students are impossible to track. We have not found an effective way to include students in the population count for ward purposes. We work more closely with the Universities, both the Administration and Student Federations, during the election period in an effort to increase turnout, but those efforts have not resulted in any significant student turnout.” (Waterloo) Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Consultation Staff contacted the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to inquire further about the decision to no longer conduct an enumeration of student residences/campuses. The communication also inquired about a cost estimate to conduct the enumeration and whether or not MPAC would conduct the enumeration if the City covered the cost. Respecting the decision to discontinue the student residence enumeration, MPAC indicated that the decision was not based on cost but rather was based on a lack of sufficient time to collect the information for inclusion on the Electors List. The response included a copy of the letter that had been provided to municipalities in advance of the 2010 election (see Exhibit D). The letter outlined the main reasons for discontinuing the enumeration of student residences and campuses as follows: “the timing of student registration, reluctance of some colleges/universities in releasing student information to MPAC, and non-requirement for colleges/universities to collect/store


- Page 11 -

information pertaining to student citizenship, indicate that efforts expended in this area would not have an impact on the quality of the Preliminary List of Electors provided to municipalities”. The response from MPAC indicated that for the purposes of reviewing electoral district boundaries, similar numbers could easily be compiled by the City based on the occupancy of the various residence buildings associated with each of the post-secondary institutions. It was also indicated that any decision by MPAC to conduct a student residence enumeration would have to be on a province-wide basis and that, as noted in the May 2010 letter to municipalities, student residences/campuses will not be included in the Institutional Enumeration efforts for upcoming elections. The response also noted that neither MPAC’s Ontario Population Report nor Statistics Canada’s Census counts include non-residents. However, the MPAC Population by Ward/Poll product does provide both residents and non-residents “which is most likely a more valid metric for use for this purpose/review”. The MPAC Elector Count, including both residents and non-residents was used in Table No. 1 in both this report and in Report 12-375. MPAC Population Counts (July, 2012) are shown in Table 1A of this Report. However, as noted in Report 12-375, the majority of post-secondary students are not captured in the MPAC data unless MPAC has been provided with the names through enumeration forms or other documentation. Distribution Based on Total 2011 Census Population Report 12-375 included a Table for the existing electoral districts showing the number of eligible electors based on the 2010 Election Summary Report and the 2012 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Elector Counts. Staff has revised the Table to also include the total population for the existing electoral districts based on the 2011 Census data, which includes all age groups as well as any post-secondary students who would have listed Kingston as their permanent place of residence (i.e. not all post-secondary students). This table, as well as some of the other following information in this section, is being included for comparison purposes only. In terms of moving forward with the analysis of the options for re-dividing the districts, and to avoid confusion, staff is proposing that total population be the key dataset and the basis of the final recommendation to Council.

Revised Table No. 1 – Current Electoral Districts (Eligible Electors & Total 2011 Census Population)

District Eligible

Electors 2010

Variance from

Average

2012 MPAC Elector Counts

Variance from

Average

2011 Total Census

Population

Variance from

Average 1 (Countryside) 6,743 -3.2% 7,177 (607) -8.3% 10,024 -1.1%

2 (Loyalist-Cataraqui)

9,948 +42.8% 11,093 (346) +41.8% 13,963 +37.7%

3 (Collins-Bayridge) 6,216 -10.8% 6,537 (316) -16.4% 8,705 -14.2%

4 (Lakeside) 7,839 +12.5% 8,532 (189) +9.1% 11,435 +12.8%


- Page 12 -

5 (Portsmouth) 6,991 +0.3% 8,899 (447) +13.8% 10,995 +8.4%

6 (Trillium) 7,970 +14.4% 9,161 (489) +17.1% 12,072 +19.1%

7 (Cataraqui) 6,867 -1.4% 8,154 (391) +4.2% 12,370 +22.0%

8 (Kingscourt-Strathcona)

5,342 -23.3% 5,873 (264) -24.9% 7,940 -21.7%

9 (Williamsville) 5,409 -22.4% 6,103 (791) -22.0% 7,266 -28.3%

10 (Sydenham) 6,663 -4.3% 6,846 (590) -12.5% 5,711 -43.7%

11 (King’s Town) 5,759 -17.3% 6,561 (745) -16.1% 8,793 -13.3%

12 (Pittsburgh) 7,847 +12.7% 8,943 (352) +14.3% 12,411 +22.4%

Total 83,594 93,879 (99,406) 121,685* Average Per

District 6,966 7,823 (8,284) 10,140

Notes: 1. For the 2012 MPAC Elector Counts, the number in brackets is the number of persons that have not

confirmed citizenship and therefore would not be eligible to vote. If proper documentation is filed, the numbers would change accordingly.

2. *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding for each of the Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the existing districts.

Based on total population counts using the 2011 Census data, three of the existing districts (#2, #9 and #10) have a variance (either + or -) in excess of 25% from the average population for all the districts. Three other districts (#7, #8 and #12) have variances that are approaching 25%. The foregoing numbers based on total 2011 Census population reinforce the need to review the existing electoral district boundaries. The following table compares the 2012 MPAC total population counts with the 2011 Census population counts for the existing electoral districts. While the variance from the average for all districts is similar for many of the districts, there are some substantive differences in the total population counts for many of the districts. Overall, the total MPAC population count is approximately 13,000 persons less than the total 2011 Census population of 123,365. Table No. 1A – Current Electoral Districts (MPAC 2012 Population Counts & 2011 Census)

District 2012 MPAC

Population Counts (July 18, 2012)

Variance from Average

2011 Total Census

Population

Variance from

Average 1 (Countryside) 7,751 (619) -11.2% (-9.0%) 10,024 -1.1%

2 (Loyalist-Cataraqui) 12,510 (355) +43.4% (+39.9%) 13,963 +37.7%

3 (Collins-Bayridge) 7,128 (317) -18.3% (-19.0%) 8,705 -14.2%


- Page 13 -

4 (Lakeside) 9,460 (191) +8.4% (+5.0%) 11,435 +12.8%

5 (Portsmouth) 9,903 (459) +13.5% (+12.7%) 10,995 +8.4%

6 (Trillium) 10,049 (488) +15.2% (+14.6%) 12,072 +19.1%

7 (Cataraqui) 8,732 (408) +0.07% (-0.6%) 12,370 +22.0%

8 (Kingscourt-Strathcona)

6,258 (268) -28.3% (-29.0%) 7,940 -21.7%

9 (Williamsville) 6,399 (801) -26.7% (-21.7%) 7,266 -28.3%

10 (Sydenham) 9,254 (599) +6.1% (+7.2%) 5,711 -43.7%

11 (King’s Town) 6,947 (751) -20.4% (-16.3%) 8,793 -13.3%

12 (Pittsburgh) 10,320 (377) +18.3% (+16.3%) 12,411 +22.4%

Total 104,711 (110,344) 121,685* Average Per District 8,726 (9,195) 10,140

Notes: 1. For the 2012 MPAC Population Counts, the number in brackets is the number of persons that have

not confirmed citizenship and therefore would not be eligible to vote. If proper documentation is filed, the numbers would change accordingly.

2. For the 2012 MPAC Population Counts Variance from Average, the number in brackets is the variance based on the total population including the number of persons that have not confirmed citizenship.

3. *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in each of the Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the existing districts.

One of the most significant differences in the foregoing table relates to District #10 (Sydenham). The MPAC count is 9,254 as compared with a Census population count of 5,711. The above referenced response from MPAC noted that because current student names could not be gathered for 2010 as a result of discontinuing the residence enumerations, the MPAC products “included the names of students from earlier election years, most of which were most likely no longer in residence”. There is accommodation for approximately 3,500 students in the residence buildings located on the Queen’s Main Campus. If the names of the students in residence from earlier elections are still included in the MPAC data base, that likely accounts for this difference between the 2012 MPAC population and the 2011 Census count for Sydenham District. Report 12-375 presented the preferred and alternate options for re-dividing the electoral districts and included maps that showed the re-divided boundaries together with tables showing the projected number of eligible electors and the variance from the average for each of the re-divided districts. Staff has revised the maps (See Exhibits A – C inclusive) and the following tables to include the total 2011 Census population and the variance from the average population for all districts.


- Page 14 -

Revised Table No. 2 – Option 1

District Eligible Electors -

2011 Census Projections

Variance From

Average


Variance from

Average

Total Population

2011 Census

Variance from

Average

1 (Countryside) 7,785 -9.8% 7,430 (678) -5.0% 9,065 -10.6% 2 (Loyalist-

Cataraqui) 7,715 -10.7% 7,306 (214) -6.6% 9,775 -3.6%

3 (Collins- Bayridge)

7,901 -8.5% 6,894 (328) -11.9% 9,373 -7.6%

4 (Lakeside) 9,621 +11.4% 8,671 (194) +10.8% 11,523 +13.6% 5 (Portsmouth) 9,670 +12.0% 8,899 (447) +13.8% 10,995 +8.4% 6 (Trillium) 8,536 -1.1% 7,490 (472) -4.3% 10,073 -0.7% 7 (Cataraqui) 7,842 -9.2% 6,647 (258) -15.0% 9,296 -8.3% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 8,780 +1.7% 7,550 (359) -3.5% 9,940 -2.0%

9 (Williamsville) 9,575 +10.9% 10,447 (1,203) +33.5% 10,663 +5.2% 10 (Sydenham) 8,882 +2.9% 8,033 (837) +2.7% 9,584 -5.5% 11 (King’s Town) 8,673 +0.4% 6,756 (316) -13.6% 10,523 +3.8% 12 (Pittsburgh) 8,640 0.0% 7,756 (221) -0.09% 10,875 +7.2%


District 8,635 7,823 (8,284) 10,140

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. Report 12-375 included a discussion of the features and considerations that were common to all of the options and also identified other key characteristics of each option. Respecting Option 1, Report 12-375 noted that “Option 1 achieves an equitable distribution of eligible electors for all districts in accordance with the specified criteria . . . with the exception of the projection for District #9 based on the MPAC data”. Using the 2011 Census population, the large variance for District #9 is eliminated. The variance from the average population for all districts is well within the plus or minus 25% which reinforces the identification of Option 1 as the preferred alternative.




Variance from

Average


Variance from

Average

Total Population

2011 Census

Variance from

Average

1 (Countryside) 7,785 -9.8% 7,430 (678) -5.0% 9,065 -10.6% 2 (Loyalist- 7,330 -15.1% 6,637 (318) -15.2% 9,125 -10.0%


- Page 15 -

Cataraqui) 3 (Collins-

Bayridge) 8,909 +3.2% 8,238 (181) +5.3% 10,752 +6.0%

4 (Lakeside) 9,621 +11.4% 8,671 (194) +10.8% 11,523 +13.6% 5 (Portsmouth) 9,670 +12.0% 8,899 (447) +13.8% 10,995 +8.4% 6 (Trillium) 12,049 +39.5% 10,168 (545) +30.0% 14,400 +42.0% 7 (Cataraqui) 7,338 -15.0% 5,730 (229) -26.8% 9,000 -11.2% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 8,256 -4.4% 7,350 (387) -6.0% 9,385 -7.5%

9 (Williamsville) 8,034 -7.0% 6,750 (579) -13.7% 8,893 -12.3% 10 (Sydenham) 7,610 -11.9% 9,308 (952) +19.0% 8,510 -16.1% 11 (King’s Town) 8,378 -3.0% 6,942 (796) -11.3% 9,162 -9.6% 12 (Pittsburgh) 8,640 0.0% 7,756 (221) -0.09% 10,875 +7.2%


District 8,635 7,823 (8,284) 10,140

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. With respect to Option 2, Report 12-375 noted that it “does not achieve an equitable distribution of eligible electors in accordance with the specified criteria” (see variances for Districts #6 and #7). This continues to be the case if the total 2011 Census population is used as the basis for re-dividing the districts. As shown in Revised Table No. 3, the variance from the average for District #6 (Trillium) would be 42%. For all of the other districts, the variance from the average population for all districts is well within the plus or minus 25%. As a result, the same overall conclusion for Option 2 would be appropriate, i.e. that Option 2 results in a better distribution than the existing electoral district boundaries, but not as good as the population distribution achieved with Options 1 or 3.




Variance from

Average


Variance from

Average

Total Population

2011 Census

Variance from

Average

1 (Countryside) 7,785 -9.8% 7,430 (678) -5.0% 9,065 -10.6% 2 (Loyalist-

Cataraqui) 8,667 +0.04% 7,689 (336) -1.7% 10,601 +4.6%

3 (Collins-Bayridge)

8,909 +3.2% 8,238 (181) +5.3% 10,752 +6.0%

4 (Lakeside) 9,621 +11.4% 8,671 (194) +10.8% 11,523 +13.6% 5 (Portsmouth) 9,670 +12.0% 8,899 (447) +13.8% 10,995 +8.4%


- Page 16 -

6 (Trillium) 9,618 +11.4% 8,242 (611) +5.4% 11,524 +13.7% 7 (Cataraqui) 8,673 -0.04% 6,756 (316) -13.6% 10,523 +3.8% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 7,829 -9.3% 6,695 (470) -14.4% 8,851 -12.7%

9 (Williamsville) 6,961 -19.4% 6,112 (172) -21.9% 8,019 -20.9% 10 (Sydenham) 8,365 -3.1% 9,358 (1,064) +19.6% 9,373 -7.6% 11 (King’s Town) 8,882 +2.9% 8,033 (837) +2.7% 9,584 -5.5% 12 (Pittsburgh) 8,640 0.0% 7,756 (221) -0.09% 10,875 +7.2%


District 8,635 7,823 (8,284) 10,140

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. As noted in Report 12-375, Option 3 achieves a distribution of eligible electors in accordance with the specified criteria, although some of the variances were relatively close to the 25% threshold (particularly Districts #9 and #10). Using the total 2011 Census population as the basis for re-dividing the districts results in a more equitable population distribution with only one district (#9) having a variance approaching the 25% threshold. Overall, Option 3 provides a population distribution that is better than the current electoral district boundaries or Option 2, but not as good as the population distribution achieved with Option 1. Revised Tables 2-4 inclusive demonstrate that using the total 2011 Census population counts results in variances from the average population for all districts that compare favourably with the variances based on the projected number of electors derived from the Census and MPAC data. As a result, no adjustments would appear to be necessary to the preferred and alternate options as presented in Council Report 12-375. However, as noted in Report 12-375, the 2011 Census counts would only include those post-secondary students that listed Kingston as their permanent place of residence, not all post-secondary students. Post-Secondary Student Populations As noted in Council Report 12-375, students at Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College and Royal Military College comprise a significant portion of the City’s population. Post-secondary students live throughout the City but populations are more concentrated in those districts in which the post-secondary institution is located or in the districts directly adjacent thereto. The majority of post-secondary students are not captured in either the Census or MPAC data. Council’s motion directed staff to seek advice on how post-secondary students could best be reflected in the district boundary review. Staff contacted each of the three post-secondary institutions to inquire about total enrolment numbers, the number of students housed in on-campus residence buildings and the availability of information to track where the students lived


- Page 17 -

off-campus. The following information was received respecting each of the City’s post-secondary institutions. St. Lawrence College Information provided by St. Lawrence College in December 2012 indicated that the total enrolment at the Kingston Campus is 5,200 full-time students and more than 10,000 part-time students. Information obtained in 2011 indicated that approximately 36% of full-time students at St. Lawrence list their permanent place of residence as Kingston. On that basis, approximately 1,870 full-time students would be from Kingston and 3,330 full-time students would be from outside of the Kingston area. Being a community college, it is expected that the students with a permanent Kingston address would be distributed across all of the electoral districts. Residence buildings on campus provide accommodation for 600 students (453 rooms – 147 double occupancy rooms, 306 single occupancy rooms). The balance of the students requiring housing while attending school would be accommodated off-campus in private sector dwellings in the neighbourhoods surrounding the College. St. Lawrence College provided a print-out of the full-time students based on their Postal Code according to the address on file with the College. Those designated on the print-out as “HOME” denoted a permanent residence, while those designated as “MAIL” represented a temporary residence. For approximately 98% of the students, the listed Postal Code represented a “HOME” address that would have been provided at the time of admission. Included were many international or non-local Postal Codes that represented the student’s home country or town. Information on a student’s temporary address while attending the College is not required and is not currently available. GIS Staff plotted the location of the Postal Codes within the City based on the print-out provided by the College and the number of students within each district is included on Revised Options 1-3 attached to this report (See Exhibits E-G inclusive). The numbers generated from the print-out were adjusted to account for the 600 students in the on-campus residence buildings (the print-out included only 6 students showing the residence building Postal Code). Given the on-campus residence buildings and the concentration of post-secondary students in the residential neighbourhoods on the east side of Portsmouth Avenue across from the campus, it is expected that District #5 would contain the highest number of post-secondary students attending St. Lawrence College, and that is reflected in the adjusted totals on Revised Options 1-3. The post-secondary student totals shown for each electoral district on Revised Options 1-3 include a wide-spread distribution of St. Lawrence College students across all of the re-divided electoral districts. However, those students seeking temporary accommodation while attending the College are more likely to seek locations that are in close proximity to the College. This leads staff to conclude that a large percentage of the St. Lawrence students that are included in the post-secondary student totals shown on Revised Options 1-3 are likely students with a permanent Kingston address and who may already be included in the total Census population numbers.


- Page 18 -

In terms of future enrolment numbers, St. Lawrence College indicated that it is projected to experience 1-2% growth, projected until 2022. Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) Based on information obtained from RMCC in 2011, the total number of graduate and undergraduate students was approximately 1,400. Since RMCC is a training institution for Canadian Forces Officers from across Canada, very few of the students would be from Kingston. Residence buildings for the students are provided on campus. According to the RMCC website, “Single rooms are normally provided for Fourth Year officer cadets. Other senior cadets are allocated single rooms on a space available basis. First Year officer cadets are quartered in double rooms. . . . Cadets of the UTPNCM program do not live in residence. Officer cadets who are married or have common-law status may request permission to live out”. Based on this information, 1,350 post-secondary students at RMCC have been included in the total population counts for District #12 on Revised Options 1-3. Staff were not able to obtain any information respecting future enrolment projections or targets for RMCC. Queen’s University According to the 2012-2013 Enrolment Report as of November 1, 2012, the total Queen’s university enrolment is as follows: Degree Programs Full-time 20,264 Post Grad Medical/Pre-Post Visiting Medical 456 Part-time 1,421 School of Religion/Theological College FT/PT 27 Total Degree Programs 22,168 Non-Credit Programs School of English 121 Continuing Teacher Education 1,576 Total Non-Credit Programs 1,697 Total Degree and Non-Credit 23,865 The information provided by Queen’s in December, 2012 indicated that the university does not collect or track permanent addresses. The University has two addresses on file. This includes a “Current Mail Address” and the students are “encouraged” to update that address whenever there is a change. The other is the “Address on Admission” which does not change and may not reflect the student’s permanent address. According to the information now on file, 9,843 students (approximately 40%) listed their “current” address as Kingston. Queen’s has indicated


- Page 19 -

that they are going to try to update current address data for the students starting in January, 2013, but that is likely to take a few months to complete. Staff is continuing to work with Queen’s to try to refine the available data. A print-out based on Postal Code information is expected early in the new year. Once received, GIS Staff will plot the location of the students based on their Postal Codes and compare the results with the estimates that have been used in Revised Options 1-3. Queen’s University provides a number of on-campus student residence buildings. Accommodation is provided for 3,278 students on the Main Campus with two new residence buildings that will accommodate an additional 550 students proposed by 2015. On the West campus, 600 students are accommodated in the existing residence building. A total of 54 students are also being housed in the Confederation Place Hotel. Other Queen’s-owned accommodation in the West Campus Area includes the John Orr Tower (125 1-BR Units) and the An Clachan Complex (260 1-BR, 2-BR & 3-BR Units). Student families and couples are given priority for the John Orr Tower and An Clachan Complex units. In the area of the Main Campus, Queen’s owns a number of properties that provide accommodation ranging from bachelor apartments to 8-BR houses. For the purposes of the total population counts shown on Revised Options 1-3, the actual counts for the existing residence buildings and Confederation Place Hotel have been included. Also, an estimated population of 800 has been included for the John Orr Tower and An Clachan Complex. In terms of the off-campus students, staff has estimated the number of students based on such things as proximity to the Main Campus, known student housing areas, etc. On that basis, for Revised Option 1, 1,300 Queen’s students were allocated to District #8, 4,200 to District #9, 2,500 to District #10 and 500 to District #11. For Revised Option 2, 500 Queen’s students were allocated to District #7, 1,500 to District #9, 4,000 to District #10 and 2,500 to District #11. For Revised Option 3, 500 students were allocated to District #7, 1,300 to District #8, 4,200 to District #10 and 2,500 to District #11. All of the foregoing amounts are in addition to the number of students living in the residence buildings or at the Confederation Place Hotel. In terms of future enrolment projections or targets, it was indicated that no firm decisions have been made about future enrolment at Queen’s. A Strategic Enrolment Management Group has been struck to develop an enrolment plan for the University. Initially, the Group will develop an enrolment plan for 2013-14, along with projections for the two subsequent years. According to the “Institutional Vision, Proposed Mandate Statement and Priority Objectives” Report submitted to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in the fall of 2012, the current plan is for a “steady-state increase of 2000 additional students in undergraduate study by 2018”. For Options 1-3 inclusive as presented in Report 12-375, the following Tables 2A, 3A and 4A compare total population distribution across the re-divided electoral districts based on the total 2011 Census population and the total 2011 Census population plus the post-secondary student estimates. As shown in Table 2A, for Option 1 the inclusion of the post-secondary student


- Page 20 -

estimates results in the total population for District #9 (Williamsville) exceeding the average total population for all the districts by 60.7%.

Table No. 2A – Option 1 (Includes Post- Secondary Student Estimates)

District Total Population

2011 Census Variance from

Average 2011 Census

Population Plus Post-Secondary

Students


1 (Countryside) 9,065 -10.6% 9,377 -19.1% 2 (Loyalist-

Cataraqui) 9,775 -3.6% 9,928 -14.3%


9,373 -7.6% 9,542 -17.6%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0% 5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 10,073 -0.7% 10,244 -11.6% 7 (Cataraqui) 9,296 -8.3% 9,447 -18.5% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 9,940 -2.0% 10,614 -8.4%

9 (Williamsville) 10,663 +5.2% 18,614 +60.7% 10 (Sydenham) 9,584 -5.5% 12,746 +10.0% 11 (King’s Town) 10,523 +3.8% 11,190 -3.4% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%

Total 121,685* 139,022 Average Per

District 10,140 11,585

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. As shown in Table 3A, for Option 2 the inclusion of the post-secondary student estimates results in the total population for District #6 (Trillium) and District #10 (Sydenham) exceeding the average total population for all the districts by 26.3% and 45.8% respectively.


District Total Population 2011 Census


2011 Census Population Plus Post-Secondary

Students



Cataraqui) 9,125 -10.0% 9,273 -20.0%


- Page 21 -

3 (Collins-

Bayridge) 10,752 +6.0% 10,946 -5.5%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0% 5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 14,400 +42.0% 14,633 +26.3% 7 (Cataraqui) 9,000 -11.2% 9,644 -16.8% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 9,385 -7.5% 9,537 -17.7%

9 (Williamsville) 8,893 -12.3% 10,563 -8.8% 10 (Sydenham) 8,510 -16.1% 16,896 +45.8% 11 (King’s Town) 9,162 -9.6% 10,833 -6.5% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%


District 10,140 11,585

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. As shown in Table 4A, for Option 3 the inclusion of the post-secondary student estimates results in a variance from the average total population for all districts of -29.7% for District #9 (Williamsville) and +47.6% for District #10 (Sydenham).





Students



Cataraqui) 10,601 +4.6% 10,773 -7.0%


10,752 +6.0% 10,946 -5.5%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0% 5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 11,524 +13.7% 11,715 +1.1% 7 (Cataraqui) 10,523 +3.8% 11,190 -3.4% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 8,851 -12.7% 9,713 -16.2%

9 (Williamsville) 8,019 -20.9% 8,142 -29.7% 10 (Sydenham) 9,373 -7.6% 17,100 +47.6% 11 (King’s Town) 9,584 -5.5% 12,746 +10.0% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%


- Page 22 -


District 10,140 11,585

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. As outlined in Report 12-375, one of the established electoral district review criteria recognized that in order to balance representation by population with ensuring effective representation, a degree of variation from the average of all the districts of plus or minus 25% would be acceptable. With the inclusion of the post-secondary student estimates, neither the preferred nor alternate options as presented to Council in Report 12-375 meet this established review criteria. As a result, staff undertook a further review of the preferred and alternate options in order to identify possible boundary adjustments to achieve a more equitable distribution of the total population (including the post-secondary student estimates) in accordance with the established electoral district review criteria. Revised Options 1 – 3 inclusive (See Exhibits E to G attached) show the re-divided districts based on total 2011 Census population plus the post-secondary student estimates. The following Tables 5-7 inclusive show the population distribution and the variance from the average population for all the districts for each of the Revised Options. For comparison purposes, the Tables show the population distribution based on both total 2011 Census population only and the 2011 Census population plus the post-secondary student estimates. In order to achieve a more equitable distribution of the total population including post-secondary students, it was necessary to make some adjustments to the electoral district boundaries shown on the preferred and alternate options as presented to Council in Report 12-375. In most cases, the boundary adjustments affected the districts including and surrounding the Queen’s University Main Campus. For each of the re-divided electoral districts shown on Revised Options 1-3, the variance from the average total population for all the districts is within plus or minus 25% of the average. Revised Option 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Table No. 5 below summarizes the distribution of total population under Revised Option 1. Including the post-secondary student estimates, District #7 would have the highest population (13,505) and District #1 would have the lowest population (9,377). The variance in the total population between District #5 and District #1 and the average for all the districts would be +16.6% and -19.1% respectively, which meets the accepted review criteria of plus or minus 25% from the average.


- Page 23 -

Table No. 5 – Revised Option 1 (Includes Post- Secondary Student Estimates)




Students



Cataraqui) 9,775 -3.6% 9,928 -14.3%


9,373 -7.6% 9,542 -17.6%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0% 5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 10,073 -0.7% 11,414 -1.5% 7 (Cataraqui) 9,296 -8.3% 13,505 +16.6% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 9,940 -2.0% 11,739 +1.3%

9 (Williamsville) 10,663 +5.2% 12,761 +10.2% 10 (Sydenham) 9,584 -5.5% 12,246 +5.7% 11 (King’s Town) 10,523 +3.8% 11,190 -3.4% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%


District 10,140 11,585

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. Further to the discussion regarding the considerations / features common to all options and the key characteristics applicable to Option 1 as outlined in Report 12-375, Revised Option 1 has the following characteristics: • Districts #6, #7, #8 and #9 have been re-divided in order to achieve an equitable and

effective population distribution; • The district boundaries were further re-divided, for the most part, using major north-south

and east-west roads. The only exception is a portion of the new boundary between Districts #8 and #9 which follows Census Dissemination Area boundaries;

• The distribution of future residential development potential essentially remains unchanged from that presented in Report 12-375 except that the majority of the redevelopment potential associated with the Williamsville Main Street Area is now within District #8 rather than District #9;

• The Williamsville community of interest and ratepayer association area is now split between Districts #8 and #9;


- Page 24 -

• Option 1 achieves an equitable distribution of total population for all districts in accordance

with the specified criteria that the degree of variation from the average of all the districts be plus or minus 25%;

• However, District #7 has the highest total population and also has considerable short-term residential growth potential that will result from the build out of the Cataraqui North Neighbourhood and short to mid-term residential growth potential from the Cataraqui Mills development which could lead to a greater imbalance in total population when compared with some of the other districts;

• District #5 has the second highest total population but also has limited residential development potential in the short- to mid-term;

• District #2 has one of the lowest total populations but also has the highest residential growth potential that will result from the development of the Cataraqui West Neighbourhood;

• District 1 has the lowest total population and also has very limited residential development potential. As a result, the variance from the average population for all districts will likely continue to approach and perhaps surpass the 25% threshold for future elections;

• At this point, future growth in the post-secondary student population associated with Queen’s University is estimated at approximately 350 students per year until 2018, which increase should be easily accommodated within the proposed electoral district boundary configuration; and,

• Option 1 results in an overall total population distribution in each district that is significantly better than the population distribution with the current electoral district boundaries, is better than the population distribution with the preferred and alternate options as presented in Report 12-375, and that is preferable to Revised Option 2, but is not as good as the overall distribution with Revised Option 3.

Revised Option 2 is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Table No. 6 below summarizes the distribution of total population under Revised Option 2. Including the post-secondary student estimates, District #5 would have the highest population (13,270) and District #2 would have the lowest population (9,273). The variance in the total population between District #5 and District #2 and the average for all the districts would be +14.5% and -20.0% respectively, which meets the accepted review criteria of plus or minus 25% from the average.





Students



Cataraqui) 9,125 -10.0% 9,273 -20.0%


10,752 +6.0% 10,946 -5.5%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0%


- Page 25 -

5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 14,400 +42.0% 12,537 +8.2% 7 (Cataraqui) 9,000 -11.2% 11,368 -1.9% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 9,385 -7.5% 11,633 +0.4%

9 (Williamsville) 8,893 -12.3% 11,644 +0.5% 10 (Sydenham) 8,510 -16.1% 12,856 +11.0% 11 (King’s Town) 9,162 -9.6% 12,068 +4.2% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%


District 10,140 11,585

Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts.

Further to the discussion regarding the considerations / features common to all options and the key characteristics applicable to Option 2 as outlined in Report 12-375, Revised Option 2 has the following characteristics: Districts #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 and #11 have been re-divided in order to achieve an equitable

and effective population distribution; The district boundaries were re-divided, for the most part, using major north-south and east-

west roads. The only exceptions are the new boundary between Districts #7 and #11 and a portion of the boundary between Districts #9 and #10 which follows Census Dissemination Area boundaries;

The Williamsville ratepayer association area remains intact within the new District #9 boundaries;

Communities of interest (e.g. the Downtown BIA and the Williamsville Main Street Area) are now wholly accommodated within a single re-divided district (Districts #11 and #9 respectively);

The distribution of future residential development potential essentially remains unchanged from that presented in Report 12-375 except that all of the redevelopment potential associated with the Williamsville Main Street Area is now within District #9 rather than split between Districts #9 and #10 and the former Davis Tannery Potential Redevelopment Site moves from District #11 to District #7;

At this point, future growth in the post-secondary student population associated with Queen’s University is estimated at approximately 350 students per year until 2018, which increase should be easily accommodated within the proposed electoral district boundary configuration;

District #2 has the lowest total population, but also has the highest growth potential that will result from the development of the Cataraqui West Neighbourhood, the build out of the Cataraqui North Neighbourhood and short to mid-term growth potential from the Cataraqui


- Page 26 -

Mills development; District 1 has the second lowest total population and also has very limited residential

development potential. As a result, the variance from the average population for all districts will likely continue to approach and perhaps surpass the 25% threshold for future elections;

District #5 has the highest total population but also has limited residential development potential in the short- to mid-term;

Option 2 achieves an equitable distribution of total population for all districts in accordance with the specified review criteria that the degree of variation from the average of all the districts be plus or minus 25%; and,

Option 2 results in an overall total population distribution in each district that is significantly better than the population distribution with the current electoral district boundaries, is better than the population distribution with the preferred and alternate options as presented in Report 12-375, but is not as good as the overall population distribution with Revised Options 1 and 3.

Revised Option 3 is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Table No. 7 below summarizes the distribution of total population under Revised Option 3. Including the post-secondary student estimates, District #5 would have the highest population (13,270) and District #1 would have the lowest population (9,377). The variance in the total population between District #5 and District #2 and the average for all the districts would be +14.5% and -19.1% respectively, which meets the accepted review criteria of plus or minus 25% from the average.


District Total Population

2011 Census Variance from

Average 2011 Census

Population Plus Post-Secondary

Students



Cataraqui) 10,601 +4.6% 10,773 -7.0%


10,752 +6.0% 10,946 -5.5%

4 (Lakeside) 11,523 +13.6% 11,700 +1.0% 5 (Portsmouth) 10,995 +8.4% 13,270 +14.5% 6 (Trillium) 11,524 +13.7% 11,715 +1.1% 7 (Cataraqui) 10,523 +3.8% 11,190 -3.4% 8 (Kingscourt-

Strathcona) 8,851 -12.7% 11,739 +1.3%

9 (Williamsville) 8,019 -20.9% 10,955 -5.4% 10 (Sydenham) 9,373 -7.6% 12,761 +10.2% 11 (King’s Town) 9,584 -5.5% 12,246 +5.7% 12 (Pittsburgh) 10,875 +7.2% 12,350 +6.6%

Total 121,685* 139,022 Average Per 10,140 11,585


- Page 27 -

District Note: *The Total 2011 Census population for the City of Kingston is 123,365. However, the total shown in the above table (121,685) is the result of random rounding in the individual Dissemination Areas, which Areas were used to calculate the population in each of the re-divided districts. Further to the discussion regarding the considerations / features common to all options and the key characteristics applicable to Option 3 as outlined in Report 12-375, Revised Option 3 has the following characteristics: • Districts #8, #9, and #10 have been re-divided in order to achieve an equitable and effective

population distribution; • The district boundaries were further re-divided, for the most part, using major north-south

and east-west roads. The only exception is a portion of the new boundary between Districts #8 and #10 which follows Census Dissemination Area boundaries;

• The ratepayer association areas associated with both Williamsville and Sydenham Ward continue to be divided between Districts #8 & #10 and Districts #10 and #11 respectively;

• The distribution of future residential development potential essentially remains unchanged from that presented in Report 12-375 except that a greater portion of the redevelopment potential associated with the Williamsville Main Street Area is now split between Districts #8 and #10;

• District 1 has the lowest total population and also has very limited residential development potential. As a result, the variance from the average population for all districts will likely continue to approach and perhaps surpass the 25% threshold for future elections;

• Districts #2 and #9 have the second and fourth lowest total population, but also have substantial residential growth potential that will result from the development of the Cataraqui West Neighbourhood (District #2) and the build out of the Cataraqui North Neighbourhood and short to mid-term growth potential from the Cataraqui Mills development (District #9);

• District #5 has the highest total population but also has limited residential development potential in the short- to mid-term;

• At this point, future growth in the post-secondary student population associated with Queen’s University is estimated at approximately 350 students per year until 2018, which increase should be easily accommodated within the proposed electoral district boundary configuration;

• Option 3 results in an overall total population distribution in each district that is significantly better than the population distribution with the current electoral district boundaries, is better than the population distribution with the preferred and alternate options as presented in Report 12-375, and that is preferable to Revised Options 1 and 2.

Contact with Watson & Associates Following the November 20th Council meeting, Staff also contacted Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to have an informal discussion and obtain further information regarding their concerns with Report 12-375. Watson & Associates has partnered with Dr. Robert Williams, a


- Page 28 -

leading authority in the area of municipal government and electoral systems, to undertake ward boundary review studies. The initial focus of the discussions related to the use of total population figures as the basis for the analysis and how to include post-secondary students in the total population counts. Staff also discussed the overall methodology and analysis that had been used in preparing the options for re-dividing the electoral districts. Staff will be continuing the dialogue with Watson & Associates throughout the remainder of the process leading up to the preparation and submission of a final report to Council that will recommend the option for re-dividing the electoral district boundaries. Update on Public Consultation The Council-approved review process provides for presentation of the preferred and alternate options for re-dividing the electoral district boundaries at four public meetings, one in each of the west, north, east and central areas of the City. The public meetings have been scheduled as follows:

• Monday, January 14, 2013 – Kingston East– Gore Road Fire Hall; • Wednesday, January 16, 2013 – Kingston Central – Memorial Hall, City Hall; • Monday, January 21, 2013 – Kingston North – Glenburnie Fire Hall; and, • Wednesday, January 23, 2013 – Kingston West – Invista Centre, RONA Room.

All public meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be an open house format with a formal presentation by staff at 7:00 pm. Notice of the public meetings was provided in the Kingston Whig-Standard on Tuesday, December 18, 2012. Comment forms will also be available at the meetings for interested members of the public to submit their comments. Information respecting the preferred and alternate options and the Revised options will be posted on the City’s website. This will include Council Reports 12-375 and 13-057, copies of the preferred and alternate options, copies of the Revised Options, a copy of the public meeting notice and a comment/survey that can be completed and submitted on-line. Once the public consultation process is completed, staff would again meet with the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) to review the public’s comments. In consultation with the TAT, staff would consider revisions to the options, as deemed appropriate, based on the public comments. Based on the further discussions with the TAT, staff would submit a further report to Council in March, 2013, which report would include the recommended option for re-dividing the existing electoral district boundaries for the 2014 municipal election. This timeline would ensure that there would be sufficient time to deal with any appeal(s) to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) respecting the City’s By-law to re-divide the boundaries. The OMB process must be completed (i.e. decision received) by December 31, 2013 in order for the re-divided boundaries to be used for the 2014 municipal election. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Municipal Act, 2001 – See Report 12-375.


- Page 29 -

NOTICE PROVISIONS: See Report 12-375. ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: There are no accessibility considerations with this report. This report is available in an alternate format if so requested. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are no financial considerations as part of this report. CONTACTS: John Bolognone, City Clerk (613-546-4291, ext. 1247); George Wallace, Senior Special Projects Manager, Sustainability and Growth Group (613-546-4291, ext. 1864). OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Kevin Arjoon, Deputy City Clerk (613-546-4291, ext. 1262); Phil Healey, GIS Supervisor (613-546-4291, ext. 3255); Steve Orme, GIS Technician (613-546-4291, ext. 1112). EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A – Option 1 to Revise the Electoral District Boundaries (includes total Census

Population) Exhibit B – Option 2 to Revise the Electoral District Boundaries (includes total Census

Population) Exhibit C – Option 3 to Revise the Electoral District Boundaries (includes total Census

Population) Exhibit D – Letter from MPAC dated May 4, 2010 – “2010 Institutional Enumeration, Nursing

Homes, Retirement Homes, Canadian Forces Bases, Campgrounds” Exhibit E – Revised Option 1 (Total 2011 Census Population plus Post Secondary Students) Exhibit F – Revised Option 2 (Total 2011 Census Population plus Post Secondary Students) Exhibit G – Revised Option 3 (Total 2011 Census Population plus Post Secondary Students)

Documents

CITY OF KINGSTON INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL … · The letter outlined the main reasons for discontinuing the enumeration of student residences and campuses as follows: “ the