Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: June 18, 2014 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2014/Regular Council - 18 Jun 2014 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

County Council Meeting June 18, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON Council will resolve into Closed Meeting and will reconvene as regular Council at 9:30 am.

AGENDA Page

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. CLOSED MEETING a) RESOLVED THAT Council enter into closed meeting as authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider; (a) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege - as it relates to disputes regarding the K&P Trial (b) Adoption of the April 16, 2014 County Council Closed Meeting Minutes. (c) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees - as it relates to employee resources

[Addenda] b) RESOLVED THAT Council rise from closed session without reporting.

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Minutes of Meeting held May 21, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014] RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of County Council held on May 21, 2014 be adopted as circulated.

6. DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS

Page 1 of 251

Page 7. PROCLAMATIONS 8. BRIEFINGS a) Mr. Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning, will introduce Mr. David Smallwood, Forest/Field Operations Manager, Quinte Conservation who will provide County Council with a briefing on the Emerald Ashe Borer, including background on EAB in Ontario, how other municipalities prepared and what assistance Quinte Conservation can provide municipalities within the watershed.

b) Mr. Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning will provide County Council with a briefing regarding the Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs report, being Information Reports, clause a).

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. RECOMMEND REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 11-13

a) 2014-098 Emergency and Transportation Services 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the refurbishing of one (1) ambulance for fiscal 2015 and the purchase of one (1) new ambulance for fiscal 2015, in accordance with the Council approved Useful Life Cycle Schedule of an ambulance. b) Staff Briefing: Ms. Alison Vandervelde, Communications Officer will provide a briefing to County County Council regarding the Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014.

14-16

[Addenda] c) 2014-105 Corporate Services Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014

Page 2 of 251

Page 10. RECOMMEND REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Recommendation: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receives the Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014 Report; AND FURTHER THAT Council endorses the proposed revised format for Sustainable Actions 2014, as it will provide clarity and focus for the County’s sustainability initiatives while capturing the priorities of the many and diverse communities of the Frontenacs; AND FINALLY THAT Council supports the development of a 2015 Workplan for the Sustainability Advisory Committee to include the facilitating/encouraging of community-driven priorities as will be identified in Sustainable Actions 2014.

17-19

d) 2014-104 Corporate Services Request to Declare Lands as Surplus for the Purpose of Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Request to Declare Lands as Surplus for the Purpose of Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way report; AND FURTHER THAT in accordance with By-law 17-1995 the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a by-law later in the meeting to declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way to Mr. Ron Moore; AND FURTHER THAT Council of the County of Frontenac authorize staff to execute the necessary legal agreements and planning applications to provide the above-noted legal Right-of-Way to the adjacent landowner subject to the following conditions: All No Trespassing signs placed on County property by the landowner be removed by the landowner; ● All surveying and legal fees be borne by the landowner ●

AND FURTHER THAT the Clerk be directed to give public notice of Council’s intention in accordance with By-law No. 17-1995.

Page 3 of 251

Page 11. INFORMATION REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 20-179

180-183

a) 2014-101 Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs

b) 2014-107 Corporate Services May Monthly Absenteeism Report Card

12. MOTION TO MOVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

THAT Council adjourn and meet as Committee of the Whole Council. 13. COMMITTEE OF WHOLE COUNCIL 184-197

a) 2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback This report will be facilitated by Mr. Todd MacDonald, Performance Concepts Inc. Recommendation: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Performance Concepts Consulting Inc. – County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback Report for information; AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the draft County of Frontenac Strategic Plan provided by Performance Concepts Consulting Inc, attached to this report as Appendix A, as amended. b) The following motion was deferred at the May 21, 2014 County Council meeting to the Committee of the Whole 2014-081 Corporate Services Reserve and Reserve Funds RESOLVED THAT Council adopt the following reallocations of the reserves as follows:

1. Strategic Planning goals –$2.1M as follows: ● $100,000 allocated to Waste Management Planning,

Page 4 of 251

Page 13. COMMITTEE OF WHOLE COUNCIL $1.5M allocated to Seniors Projects Econ Dev $500,000 2. Capital Asset Management requirements - $200,000 3. Capital Commitments under cost sharing agreements –$340,000 4. Frontenac Renovates allocations - $380,000 5. Land Acquisition Trails –$30,000 6. Future CIPs – $154,000 7. Cheerio Project – $100,000 ● ●

198-239

c) 2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) – Request for Proposals and Preliminary Pro Forma Cash Flow Recommendation: Note: Subject to Council allocating funding to Senior’s Issue as recommended in the current draft Strategic Plan, staff would recommend the following motion: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive report 2014103 - Senior’s Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) – Request for Proposals and Preliminary Pro-Forma Cash Flow; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposals for a Business Plan for the Frontenac Islands Senior’s Housing Business Plan, (to a maximum upset of $25,000) plus costing for second and subsequent iterations and that the Warden and Clerk be authorized to sign a contract with the successful consultant; AND FURTHER THAT funding for the business plan be taken from monies allocated by County Council for Senior’s projects based upon the formula noted in the report; AND FINALLY THAT the successful Consultant report back to County Council on the project by October 15, 2015.

14. MOTION TO RETURN TO COUNCIL

THAT Council revert from Committee of the Whole Council, to Council. 15. ADOPTION OF REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

Page 5 of 251

Page 15. ADOPTION OF REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL

THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole Council be adopted and that the necessary actions be enacted. 16. REPORTS FROM EXTERNAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES a) Kingston Frontenac Library Board Update - Councillor Purdon

b) KFL&A Public Health Board Update - Councillor Clayton KFL&A Public Health Board Agenda for its Meeting on May 28, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council May 23, 2014] KFL&A Public Health Board Minutes of Meeting held March 26, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014]

c) RULAC, LSR and Other Updates

d) Algonquin Land Claim Update - Councillor Inglis

e) Frontenac County Youth Justice Advisory Committee Update - Councillor Davison

f) Housing and Homelessness Committee Update - Councillor McDougall

g) Rideau Corridor Landscape Steering Committee Update - Councillor Jones

h) Eastern Ontario Warden’s Caucus Update - Warden & CAO

17. REPORTS FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES OF COUNTY COUNCIL a) Seniors Housing Task Force Minutes of the Meeting held May 26, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014] The report of the Seniors Housing Task Force is considered under item 12, clause c) Senior’s Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) – Request for Proposals and Preliminary Pro Forma Cash Flow

Page 6 of 251

Page 17. REPORTS FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES OF COUNTY COUNCIL b) Sustainability Advisory Committee Minutes of the Meeting held June 2, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014]

c) 150th Anniversary Planning Advisory Committee Minutes of the Meeting held June 11, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council June 13, 2014]

18. ACCOUNTS 240-246

a) Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

19. MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN
20. GIVING NOTICE OF MOTION
21. COMMUNICATIONS THAT Council consent to the following communications of interest to Council listed below be received and filed: a) From the Township of Madawaska Valley requesting support of its Council resolution calling on the Federal Government to implement a moratorium on the installation of cell towers and antennas in Canada until Safety Code 6 is replaced with a safety code that considers the biological, non-thermal effects of microwave technology on the health of Canadians, and until it adopts a truly democratic process for locating new cell towers and antennas that includes municipalities and citizens. [Distributed to Members of County Council May 23, 2014]

b) From Muscular Dystrophy Canada regarding its appreciation for County Fire Fighter support. [Distributed to Members of County Council May 23, 2014]

c) From the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority advising Council of the Rideau Lakes Subwatershed Report [Distributed to Members of County Council May 23, 2014]

Page 7 of 251

Page 21. COMMUNICATIONS THAT Council consent to the following communications of interest to Council listed below be received and filed: d) From the Ontario Good Roads Association advising of upcoming Rural Transportation Forums [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

e) From the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario, acknowledging County of Frontenac correspondence regarding the closure of the Kemptville Agricultural College [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

f) From the Ontario Good Roads Association advising of the launch of its new Municipal DataWorks Website [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

g) From the Ontario Good Roads Association encouraging the County of Frontenac join the Ontario Good Roads Association [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

h) Invitation from the University Hospitals Kingston Foundation for the Dedication of the new Donor Wall at Kingston General Hospital [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

i)

From the Ontario Good Roads Association regarding an open letter to provincial party leaders to debate infrastructure, transportation and transit plans. [Distributed to Members of County Council May 30, 2014]

j)

From the Canadian Wood Council advising of upcoming new wood mid-rise buildings coming to Ontario and amendments to the Ontario Building Code with respect to wood construction of mid rise buildings. [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014]

Page 8 of 251

Page 21. COMMUNICATIONS THAT Council consent to the following communications of interest to Council listed below be received and filed: k) From the Association of Municipalities of Ontario via LAS advising that the 2014 One Investment Program First Quarter Report is now available. [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014]

l)

From the Kingston Frontenac Housing Corporation providing the agenda for its meeting of May 26, 2014. [Distributed to Members of County Council June 6, 2014]

m) From the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) regarding an invitation to the LAS Risk Management Symposium - September 9, 2014 [Distributed to Members of County Council June 13, 2014]

n) From the Northern Frontenac Community Services regarding invitation to the Grand Opening of the new location of the North Frontenac Food Bank [Distributed to Members of County Council June 13, 2014]

o) From Statistics Canada advising of a voluntary survey that will be conducted on behalf of KFL&A Public Health [Distributed to Members of County Council June 13, 2014]

22. OTHER BUSINESS
23. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD
24. BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW 247

248-249

a) By-Law No. 2014-0029 - to amend by-law 2014-0027 authorizing Warden and Clerk to Execute AMO Fed. Gas Tax Amend. Agreement

b) By-law No. 2013-0030 - To declare lands surplus for the purposing of granting a Right of Way over the K&P Trail

Page 9 of 251

Page 24. BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW 250-251

c) By-law No. 2014-0031 - Confirmation of Proceedings

25. ADJOURNMENT

Page 10 of 251

AgendaItem#10a)

Report 2014-098 RECOMMEND REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services

Date prepared:

May 21, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the refurbishing of one (1) ambulance for fiscal 2015 and the purchase of one (1) new ambulance for fiscal 2015, in accordance with the Council approved Useful Life Cycle Schedule of an ambulance.

Background At its meeting of January 16, 2013, Council received a report regarding useful life cycle of an ambulance and approved the following resolution: Motion #: 36-13

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT Council for the County of Frontenac adopt a By-law revising the Tangible Capital Asset Useful Life Schedule to amend the useful life of an ambulance from 6 years to 4.5 years; Recommend Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy June 18, 2014

2014-098 Emergency and Transportation

Page 1 of 3

Page 11 of 251

AgendaItem#10a)

AND FURTHER THAT all replacement of vehicles must be authorized by Council. CARRIED At its meeting of June 19, 2013, Council received a report regarding refurbishing of the ambulance fleet and approved the following resolution: 2013-107 Emergency and Transportation Services – Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy Motion #: 280-13

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Purdon Councillor Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy report for information; AND FURTHER the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the implementation of a Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy for 2013/2014; AND FURTHER the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the refurbishing of three (3) ambulances for fiscal 2013 and the purchase of three (3) new ambulances for fiscal 2014, in accordance with the Council approved useful life cycle schedule of an ambulance. AND FINALLY THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a bylaw later in the meeting to amend the 2013 budget to provide $115,000 for the refurbishment of 3 vehicles in 2013, to be covered by a transfer from the vehicle replacement reserve. CARRIED

Comment For fiscal 2015, three (3) ambulances will reach their useful lifecycle. One (1) of those units has very low mileage and it is recommended that it be retained past the useful lifecycle. This will result in capital savings. The other two (2) ambulances are reaching the normalitive mileage threshold and the life time costs are: 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

15,173 17,219

26,680 20,397

30,780 17,196

2014*

TOTAL

0 LA-Veh. 536-10 LA-Veh. 540-10

0 0

0 0

0 0

4,635 7,010

5,656 3,909

82,924 65,731

*To April 30, 2014 Recommend Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy June 18, 2014

2014-098 Emergency and Transportation

Page 2 of 3

Page 12 of 251

AgendaItem#10a)

It is therefore recommended, in following with the strategy implemented in 2013/14 to refurbish one (1) ambulance and purchase one (1) ambulance in fiscal 2015.

Sustainability Implications Regular review of replacement schedules ensures the County is managing its fleet assets by controlling both capital investments and maintenance expenses.

Financial Implications After discussions with one company providing the refurbishment service, it was estimated that the cost to refurbish one (1) vehicle would approximately $41,500 in Frontenac. A quote from our ambulance manufacturer is $130,866 plus HST for the new ambulance. These costs are covered from the Land Ambulance Vehicle Reserve.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer

Recommend Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2015 Refurbishing of Ambulance Fleet Strategy June 18, 2014

2014-098 Emergency and Transportation

Page 3 of 3

Page 13 of 251

AgendaItem#10c)

Report 2014-105 RECOMMEND REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Alison Vandervelde Communications Officer

Date prepared:

June 10, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014

Recommendation BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receives the Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014 Report; AND FURTHER THAT Council endorses the proposed revised format for Sustainable Actions 2014, as it will provide clarity and focus for the County’s sustainability initiatives while capturing the priorities of the many and diverse communities of the Frontenacs; AND FINALLY THAT Council supports the development of a 2015 Workplan for the Sustainability Advisory Committee to include the facilitating/encouraging of communitydriven priorities as will be identified in Sustainable Actions 2014.

Background Since the Council of the County of Frontenac adopted Directions for Our Future (DFOF) in 2009, an implementation plan, Sustainable Actions, has been produced as a guide to short-term sustainability priorities. As DFOF is primarily a community document and in an effort to encompass input from across our vast and diverse region, Sustainable Actions has often contained upwards of 30, 40 or even 50 priorities for sustainability in the Frontenacs. Although items on the Recommend Report to County Council Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014 June 18, 2014

2014-105 Corporate Services

Page 1 of 3

Page 14 of 251

AgendaItem#10c)

list have been included for legitimate reasons, labelling them all broadly as priorities has created confusion and lead to a splitting of focus.

Comment At its June 2nd meeting, the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) discussed and supported a revised format for Sustainable Actions 2014, suggesting that it will help to provide clarity and focus for sustainability and might help to bridge the gap between County Council’s Strategic Plan and the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan. The SAC supports that Sustainable Actions 2014 be presented in a revised format this fall, and include two versions:

1. The complete document This document will capture all the background information that provides context around the implementation of Directions for Our Future, becoming a reference guide. The complete document will be posted online and a limited number (~20) will be printed.
2. The action booklet This document will be an abbreviated version of the complete document. It will include only the most important information: • Brief background information to provide context • The priority opportunities as categorized at the Workshop (outlined below) • For the community priorities: next steps, potential leader and 1 year goal • The Community Partnership Agreement Physically, the action booklet will resemble the 2013 Report on Housing & Homelessness in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac – fewer than 10 pages, printed in colour, using graphics to improve readability. To further improve clarity and focus, all priorities included in Sustainable Actions 2014 will be categorized as follows: PURPLE Opportunities Completely community driven Example: Lake Plans, Festivals, etc.

RED Opportunities Lead by the community, with influence from the County Example: SSCSI, Local Food Initiatives, etc.

The SAC’s 2015 workplan will encompass the facilitating/encouraging of these projects

YELLOW Opportunities Lead by the County, with influence from the community Example: CIPs, Trails, 150th Anniversary, etc. LIMIT: 5

BLUE Opportunities Completely Council driven; projects are internal to the County Example: Asset Management Plan, etc. It is assumed very few will be suggested

To be presented for Council’s consideration

The SAC understands the importance of getting Council’s support for this proposed revised format, as staff develops an agenda for the Annual Workshop that will focus on encouraging community feedback fitting into the revised format. Recommend Report to County Council Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014 June 18, 2014

2014-105 Corporate Services

Page 2 of 3

Page 15 of 251

AgendaItem#10c)

Sustainability Implications This revised format will be easier to read and understand, making it more accessible for the public to engage resulting in a positive impact on the County of Frontenac’s sustainability practices. Only limited quantities of each document will be printed, conserving paper and reducing costs. The draft Workshop agenda will feed directly into this format and should result in a streamlined preparation of the documents.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report. Council supported initiatives will be presented at the time of budget to gain financial commitment.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Sustainability Advisory Committee Manager of Sustainability Planning Manager of Economic Development

Recommend Report to County Council Corporate Services – Revised Format for Sustainable Actions 2014 June 18, 2014

2014-105 Corporate Services

Page 3 of 3

Page 16 of 251

AgendaItem#10d)

REPORT 2014-104 RECOMMMEDATION REPORT TO COUNCIL To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Kelly Pender CAO

Prepared by:

Anne Marie Young Manager of Economic Development

Date prepared:

June 2, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – Request to Declare Lands as Surplus for the Purpose of Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Request to Declare Lands as Surplus for the Purpose of Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way report; AND FURTHER THAT in accordance with By-law 17-1995 the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a by-law later in the meeting to declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way to Mr. Ron Moore; AND FURTHER THAT Council of the County of Frontenac authorize staff to execute the necessary legal agreements and planning applications to provide the above-noted legal Right-of-Way to the adjacent landowner subject to the following conditions: ¾ All No Trespassing signs placed on County property by the landowner be removed by the landowner; ¾ All surveying and legal fees be borne by the landowner AND FURTHER THAT the Clerk be directed to give public notice of Council’s intention in accordance with By-law No. 17-1995. Corporate Services– Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way & Land Issues Update June 18, 2014

2014-104 Corporate Services

Page 1 of 3

Page 17 of 251

AgendaItem#10d)

Background From time to time the County will receive requests for granting rights-of-way. Comment Ronald Moore – Part Lot 10 Concession 2, Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 - Mr. Moore is asking for a 66 foot right-a-way over the Frontenac K&P Trail to allow access to land located in Hinchinbrooke District which he intends to further develop. There is, at this time, a 20 foot crossing. Mr. Moore intends to build a house on the east side of the K&P. Staff have discussed further with Mr. Moore the no trespassing signs that he currently has placed on County property and that he must remove. A copy of a survey of the properties in question is attached as Appendix B. All surveying and legal fees are to be at Mr. Moore’s expense.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Ron Moore, Property Owner Township of central Frontenac

APPENDIX A - Moore

Corporate Services– Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way & Land Issues Update June 18, 2014

2014-104 Corporate Services

Page 2 of 3

Page 18 of 251

AgendaItem#10d)

Corporate Services– Frontenac K&P Trail Rights-of-Way & Land Issues Update June 18, 2014

2014-104 Corporate Services

Page 3 of 3

Page 19 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Report 2014-101 INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared By:

Joe Gallivan Manager of Sustainability Planning

Date Prepared:

June 3, 2014

Date of Meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs: 2011 to 2036

Recommendation THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs 2011 to 2036 report for information only.

Background County Council approved funding to update population and growth projections for the County and Townships as part of the 2013 budget. The population and growth projections will support a number of initiatives in Sustainable Actions and assist with long-range planning for a variety of departments and organizations. Watson & Associates Economists Limited was retained to revise their work from 2011. As they did previously, Watson reviewed background information including development applications, Official Plan policies, building permits, MPAC information and other data, as well as a significant amount of data from Statistics Canada. This background information was used to produce estimates for changes in population and demographics projections from 2011 to 2036.

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs 2011-2036 June 18, 2014

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 1 of 4

Page 20 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Comment The revised forecast indicates lower population growth for the Frontenacs to 2036 (0.7% annual population growth from 2011-2036 vs. 1.1% previously forecasted over the same time period) than the forecast prepared in 2011. The reason for the lower growth forecast is as follows: • • • •

The results of the 2008 - 2009 economic downturn were more significant than previously anticipated and was reflected in recent lower building permit activity; For the first time in twenty years the County’s share of population growth between 2006 and 2011 declined relative to the City of Kingston; A key driver of population growth in Frontenac County (largely South Frontenac) is job growth in Kingston. The City of Kingston’s 2012 growth projections now assume a lower employment growth forecast for Kingston to 2036; and The County’s population is aging more rapidly than previously anticipated and it is expected that by 2036 the 75+ population will represent 36% of the population. The population for the province as a whole is also aging slightly more rapidly.

The population projections will be used as background information for many other studies and long-range planning exercises including updates to the Townships’ Official Plans, a growth management strategy, fire and ambulance station location assessments, investments in new infrastructure, development charges studies, transportation planning, school board planning, and social services planning. It can also be expected that this population is of benefit to the private sector in making investment decisions in the Frontenac region, and can be a useful tool for organizations such as the Frontenac Community Futures Development Corporation in helping existing businesses in their planning and in attracting new businesses to the area. The following is a summary of key findings and projections from the Watson Report: Slow Growth The permanent population base of the County is forecasted to increase over the next 25 years from 27,900 in 2011 to 33,200 in 2036 (approximately 4,500 less than projected in the 2011 study). High-growth (34,500) and low-growth (31,400) scenarios were also explored. Aging Population = Decline in Permanent Population Growth The County’s population is aging slightly more rapidly than the Province as a whole. From 2011 to 2036, the percentage of the County population aged 55+ will increase from 30% to 36%. This trend poses implications regarding seniors’ housing, affordable housing, and accessible transportation in Frontenac County. The aging trend will also result in a reduction in the average number of people residing in a dwelling, which will translate a gradual decline in the rate of permanent population growth over the next 2 years.

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs 2011-2036 June 18, 2014

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 2 of 4

Page 21 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Majority of Growth in the South In terms of geographic location of population growth, approximately 67% of the projected growth of permanent population in the County is anticipated to occur within the Township of South Frontenac due to its proximity to Kingston, employment opportunities for commuters, and continued local employment growth opportunities. Residential Development in Rural Areas The majority of population growth is forecast to be in the County’s rural areas, similar to current and historical trends. This has been reinforced by the location of recent plans of subdivision and lot creation activity across the County. Demand for Cottages to Remain Strong Seasonal population is a significant portion of the County’s population base, with 50% of the base population as of 2011 and 43% of all households. The Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the Ottawa region and the City of Kingston will continue to be a major source of demand for seasonal population growth in the Frontenacs. Including this seasonal population base, the total permanent and seasonal population for Frontenac is forecast to reach 64,200 persons by 2036, and total increase of 6,700 persons from 2011 to 2036. Slow Employment Growth Job growth is forecast to be relatively slow and steady within the County over the 2011 to 2036 time period. Most of this growth will be as a result of new jobs in retail and tourism sectors that will serve the seasonal and permanent population base. The number of County residents who work from home is also expected to steadily increase as the economy continues to transition to a service sector and knowledge-based economy, along with improvements to telecommunications and the recently completed construction of the Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN). Overall, the County’s employment base is forecast to increase to 4,700 by 2036, a net increase of 800 jobs.

Financial Implications County Council approved a budget of $20,000 for this project as part of the 2013 budget, which was funded through Federal Gas Tax.

Sustainability Implications The need for County-wide population projections was identified as an initiative that supported Directions for Our Future. The revised projections support efforts on a number of sustainability projects including the draft County Official Plan, affordable housing, seniors housing, and community improvement plans.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Frontenac Township of Frontenac Islands Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs 2011-2036 June 18, 2014

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 3 of 4

Page 22 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Township of South Frontenac Township of Central Frontenac Township of North Frontenac MPAC

Attachments Appendix A – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs (June, 2014)

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Population, Housing and Employment Projections for the Frontenacs 2011-2036 June 18, 2014

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 4 of 4

Page 23 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE FRONTENACS

Final

JUNE 13, 2014

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 24 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(i)

INTRODUCTION

1-1

APPROACH TO POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 2-1 2.1

POPULATION, HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHICS 3.1

3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5

Housing Activity 3.1.1 Permanent Housing Growth 3.1.2 Trends in Permanent Households by Local Municipality 3.1.3 Seasonal Households 3.1.4 Frontenac Housing Occupancy Trends 3.1.5 Housing Mix by Unit Type 3.1.6 Residential Development Activity by Unit Type, 1990-2012 Households and Families 3.2.1 Housing Occupancy 3.2.2 Trends in Household Size Housing Market Analysis 3.3.1 Housing Preferences by Age Group Population 3.4.1 Population Growth 3.4.2 Permanent Population Growth by Local Municipality, 1981-2011 3.4.3 Frontenac County Historical Population by Age 3.4.4 Historical Net Migration Trends, 1991-2011 Conclusions

ECONOMICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS 4.1

4.2

Economic Drivers of Future Housing Growth in Frontenac County

Frontenac Economic and Socio-Economic Overview 4.1.1 Employment Trends 4.1.2 Employment Activity Rates 4.1.3 Full-Time Employment 4.1.4 Employment by Sector, 1996-2011 4.1.5 Non-Residential Construction Activity, 2002-2012 4.1.6 Employment vs. Labour Force 4.1.7 Employment Growth by Local Municipality 4.1.8 Commuting Trends Conclusions

POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 5.2

5.3

Provincial Policy Context 5.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Area Municipalities 5.2.1 Township of South Frontenac 5.2.2 Township of Central Frontenac 5.2.3 Township of North Frontenac 5.2.4 Township of Frontenac Islands Conclusions

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

2-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-8 3-9 3-9 3-11 3-12 3-12 3-13 3-13 3-15 3-16 3-18 3-19 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-8 5-8 5-9 5-11 5-12 5-14

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 25 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

CONTENTS (Cont’d) Page

REGIONAL AND LOCAL GROWTH DRIVERS 6.1

6.2

8.4

8.5

8.6 8.7 8.8

7-1 7-1 7-4 7-4

Introduction Forecast Population Growth within the City of Kingston Kingston Employment as a Driver of Future Population Growth within Frontenac County 8.3.1 City of Kingston Employment Growth 8.3.2 Local Employment Growth in Frontenac County Forecast Population Trends by Major Age Group 8.4.1 Population Growth of 15-64 Age Group 8.4.2 Population Growth of Seniors (65+ Population Age Group) 8.4.3 Population Growth of Children (0-15 Age Group) County-wide Permanent Population Growth Scenarios 8.5.1 Historical Demographic Trends, 1991-2011 8.5.2 Frontenac County Forecast Net Migration Trends 8.5.3 Frontenac County Population Growth Scenarios County-wide Housing Forecasts 8.6.1 Housing Growth Scenarios Preferred Permanent Population and Housing Growth Scenario Seasonal Population and Housing Growth

8-1 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-7 8-7 8-7 8-9 8-9 8-10 8-11 8-13 8-17 8-19 8-19

ALLOCATION OF COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING AND POPULATION FORECASTS 9.1 9.2

9.3

Introduction Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Vacant Residential Lands within Designated Settlement Areas Rural Lot Supply

COUNTY-WIDE POPULATION GROWTH SCENARIOS 8.1 8.2 8.3

6-1 6-2 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-6 6-6 6-7

FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY ON VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LANDS IN FRONTENAC COUNTY 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

6-1

Regional Growth Drivers 6.1.1 Population Growth Trends for the Broader Surrounding Eastern Ontario Economic Region 6.1.2 Kingston Area Economic Growth 6.1.3 Population Growth of 55+ Age Group 6.1.4 Highway 7 Corridor Study 6.1.5 Conversions of Seasonal Dwellings to Permanent Housing 6.1.6 Increased Opportunities for Work at Home Employment 6.1.7 Favourable Mortgage Interest Rates Local Growth Drivers

Introduction Growth Outlook for Area Municipalities 9.2.1 Township of South Frontenac 9.2.2 Township of Central Frontenac 9.2.3 Township of North Frontenac 9.2.4 Township of Frontenac Islands Observations

CONCLUSIONS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

9-1 9-3 9-3 9-4 9-4 9-5 9-6 10-1

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 26 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

CONTENTS (Cont’d) Page APPENDICES A

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REGARDING GROWTH FORECAST METHODOLOGY FOR FRONTENAC COUNTY

A-1

MINISTRY OF FINANCE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, SPRING 2013

B-1

C

FRONTENAC COUNTY NET MIGRATION ANALYSIS

C-1

D

FRONTENAC COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH SCENARIOS

D-1

E

FRONTENAC COUNTY PERMANENT HOUSING GROWTH TABLES BY TYPE

E-1

F

FRONTENAC COUNTY LOCAL POPULATION & HOUSING GROWTH FORECASTS

F-1

B

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 27 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 28 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

(i)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this update of the 2011 study is to revise the long-term growth forecasts based on recent demographic and economic trends using the 2011 Census (where available/ appropriate) and other relevant data sources. The updated report will form a key background document to the County’s Official Plan (OP) review exercise regarding long-term growth and urban land needs. Two deliverables will be produced resulting from this assignment: 1)

a report that summarizes both historical and forecast population, housing and employment statistics for Frontenac County based on a comprehensive analysis of supply and demand factors which are anticipated to influence the amount, type and location of development throughout the County; and

a growth projection model for the County, by Township, that allows for low, medium and high growth projections. To guide both planning and hard infrastructure needs, the growth projection model will allow future population and employment growth scenarios to be projected over a 40-year time horizon.

Deliverable 1, which is summarized herein, provides a summary of the following: 

The growth forecasting approach used for this assignment;



Recent demographic and economic/socio-economic trends shaping development and population growth within Frontenac County and each of its local municipalities;



The provincial and local planning policy context regarding long-term growth projections;



Regional and local economic drivers of population and employment growth in Frontenac County;



Potential long-term residential land supply by settlement area and remaining rural area;



A total of three long-term County-wide population and housing growth scenarios (e.g. low, reference and high) from 2011 to 2036;



An allocation of population and housing growth (both permanent and seasonal) by local municipality;



A total of three long-term County-wide employment growth scenarios (e.g. low, medium and high) from 2011 to 2036; and



Conclusions.

The population and household forecast methodology adopted for this study is based on a combined approach, which incorporates both the traditional “top-down” cohort-survival forecast methodology (i.e. population by age-cohort) and a “bottom-up” household formation Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 29 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

(ii) methodology. Chapter 2 of this report provides a detailed discussion of the forecast approach adopted by Watson & Associates. This combined approach is adopted to ensure that both regional economic/demographic trends and local housing market conditions are adequately assessed in developing the County’s long-term growth potential. A key driver of future population growth is the link between local net migration and local/regional economic growth potential. The growth projection model prepared by Watson & Associates allows housing and population growth in each municipality to be adjusted on an annual basis. Our output model has been designed to allow Frontenac staff to develop “in-house” population, housing and employment growth scenarios for the County based on adjustments to economic and demographic inputs (i.e. changes to employment growth in the City of Kingston or at the local municipal level throughout Frontenac County, adjustments to permanent and seasonal housing demand from the 55+ population, etc.). Forecasting residential and non-residential growth in Frontenac County is a rather difficult task given the complex nature of the County’s permanent/seasonal population and housing base. Furthermore, potential uncertainty exists regarding the identified growth drivers which are expected to influence forecast population and employment growth across the County. As previously identified, future population and housing growth within Frontenac County is dependent in large measure by the following: 

the growth and competitiveness of the regional export-based Greater Kingston Area economy;



the area’s attractiveness to the 55+ age group as a destination for retirement/semiretirement; and



market demand for seasonal housing largely from residents within the Greater Kingston Area, the GGH and the Greater Ottawa Area.

The above factors each contribute to the level of future net migration and housing construction expected across Frontenac County over the next 25 years. The following provides a summary of the key findings of this report with respect to forecast population, housing and employment trends for Frontenac County.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 30 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

(iii)

Residential Growth Trends 

Frontenac County’s permanent population base is forecast to increase over the next 25 years, from approximately 27,900 in 2011 to 33,200 in 2036.1 This represents an annual growth rate of approximately 0.7% annually. Comparatively, this represents a comparable forecast annual population growth rate to the City of Kingston, but slightly lower than the Province as a whole.2,3 Two alternative Growth Scenarios were also explored for the County which consider varying levels of forecast net migration for the County. The Low Growth Scenario forecasts that Frontenac County will reach a 2036 permanent population of 31,400, while the High Growth Scenario projects a County-wide permanent population of 34,500 by 2036.



The County’s population is aging slightly more rapidly than the Province of Ontario as a whole. From 2011 to 2036, the percentage of the Frontenac County population aged 55+ will increase from 30% to 36%. This trend poses implications regarding both seniors’ housing and affordable housing in Frontenac County.



The rate of permanent population growth for Frontenac County is forecast to gradually decline over the next 25 years, largely due to the aging of the population. This aging trend will result in a reduction in the average number of persons per housing unit (PPU) which, in turn, will require a modest level of housing growth in each of the County’s settlement areas even to maintain stable population levels.



In terms of the geographic location of population growth, approximately 67% of forecast permanent population growth is anticipated to occur within the Township of South Frontenac. The Township of South Frontenac will continue to attract a large proportion of County-wide permanent population growth due to its proximity to the City of Kingston, employment opportunities for commuters and continued local employment growth opportunities.



Similar to historical population growth trends, the majority of population growth is forecast in the County’s rural areas. This is further evidenced by the location of active plans of subdivision across the County and recent residential lot creation activity throughout the County.



Seasonal housing accounts for a significant component of the County’s total population base, accounting for just over 50% of total base population as of 2011

1 Population figures include an upward adjustment of approximately 2.5% to account for the net Census undercount. 2 City of Kingston and Kingston CMA, Population, Housing and Employment Projections. 3 Ontario Population Projections Update, 2012-2036, Ontario and its 49 Census Divisions, Spring 2013.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 31 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

(iv) (43% of the total 2011 housing base). As outlined in Chapter 6, the County’s proximity to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the Greater Ottawa Region and the City of Kingston continues to be a major source of demand for seasonal population growth in Frontenac. 

Including the County’s seasonal population base, the total permanent + seasonal population for Frontenac is forecast to reach a total of 64,200 persons by 2036. This represents a total increase of approximately 6,700 persons from 2011 to 2036.



In spite of forecast new seasonal housing development, Frontenac County’s seasonal housing and population base is forecast to increase only modestly over the next 25 years, due to the net conversion of existing seasonal housing units to permanent dwellings. This trend in seasonal housing and population is consistent with other Ontario municipalities across “cottage country.”

Employment Growth Trends 

It is expected that job growth within Frontenac County will be slow to steady over the next 25 years, largely driven by employment growth in retail and tourism services to serve the growing permanent and seasonal population base. Much of the local job growth within the County is expected to be in response to permanent and seasonal population growth within the County and surrounding area.



The number of residents within the County who work from home is expected to steadily increase. This increase is anticipated to be primarily driven by the transition of the economy towards the service sector and “knowledge-based” economy, combined with continued improvements to telecommunications and communication technology.



The County is expected to experience modest employment growth in the industrial sector. Potential industrial sectors include utilities and construction, small scale manufacturing and energy.



Over the 2011-2036 period, the County’s employment base is forecast to increase from approximately 3,900 in 2011 to 4,700 by 2036. This represents an increase of 830 employees from 2011 to 2036, of which approximately 59% of job growth is forecast in the “work at home” employment category. The remaining 41% of jobs (approximately 340 employees) forecast for the County are forecast largely within the commercial sector and, to a lesser extent, the industrial and institutional sector.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 32 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

1. INTRODUCTION

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 33 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

1-1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this update of the 2011 study is to revise the long-term growth forecasts based on recent demographic and economic trends using the 2011 Census and other relevant data sources. The updated report will form a key background document to the County’s Official Plan (OP) review exercise regarding long-term growth and urban land needs. Two deliverables will be produced resulting from this assignment: 1)

a report that summarizes both historical and forecast population, housing and employment statistics for Frontenac County based on a comprehensive analysis of supply and demand factors which are anticipated to influence the amount, type and location of development throughout the County; and

a growth projection model for the County, by Township, that allows for low, medium and high growth projections.

Deliverable 1, which is summarized herein, provides a summary of the following: 

The growth forecasting approach used for this assignment;



Recent demographic and economic/socio-economic trends shaping development and population growth within Frontenac County and each of its local municipalities;



The provincial and local planning policy context regarding long-term growth projections;



Regional and local economic drivers of population and employment growth in Frontenac County;



Potential long-term residential land supply by settlement area and remaining rural area;



A total of three long-term County-wide population and housing growth scenarios (e.g. low, reference and high) from 2011 to 2036;



An allocation of population and housing growth (both permanent and seasonal) by local municipality;



A total of three long-term County-wide employment growth scenarios (e.g. low, medium and high) from 2011 to 2036; and



Conclusions.

The final report will include a brief manual which describes the growth projections model, its functionality and features. The growth analysis provided within this report is limited to a planning horizon of 2036. To guide both planning and hard infrastructure needs, the growth projection model will allow future population and employment growth scenarios to be projected over a 40-year time horizon. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 34 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

2. APPROACH TO POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 35 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

2-1

APPROACH TO POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

The population and household forecast methodology adopted for this study is based on a combined approach, which incorporates both the traditional “top-down” cohort-survival forecast methodology (i.e. population by age-cohort) and a “bottom-up” household formation methodology. This combined approach is adopted to ensure that both regional economic/ demographic trends and local housing market conditions are adequately assessed in developing the County’s long-term growth potential. Each of these two population growth methodologies is further described in Appendix A. A key driver of future population growth is the link between local net migration and local/regional economic growth potential.

2.1

Economic Drivers of Future Housing Growth in Frontenac County

Local/regional economic activities can be divided into two categories, those that are “exportbased” and those that are “community-based.” The export-based sector is comprised of industries (i.e. economic clusters) which produce goods that reach markets outside the community (agriculture and primary resources, manufacturing, research and development). Export-based industries also provide services to temporary and seasonal residents of community/municipality (hotels, restaurants, tourism-related sectors, colleges and universities) or to businesses outside the community (specialized financial, professional, scientific and technical services). Community-based industries produce services that primarily meet the needs of the local residents in the community/municipality (retail, medical, primary and secondary education, and personal and government services). Ultimately, future population and housing growth within Frontenac County will be determined in large measure by the competitiveness of the regional export-based economy. Growth in the working age population (i.e. 19-65) in a community will typically occur only if its export base is expanding. Without growth in the regional export-based economy, growth in community-based activities will be limited to housing development driven by retirees and seasonal housing, which is anticipated to be a major influence for many of the municipalities within the County. The approach is illustrated schematically in Figure 2-1.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 36 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

2-2

FIGURE 2-1

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing & Employment Projections .docx

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 37 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

AgendaItem#11a)

2-3 The population, housing and employment growth forecast model directly incorporates the key economic drivers which are anticipated to influence housing growth at the County-wide and local municipal level in Frontenac County. These include: 1.

Market trends which are anticipated to influence employment growth by sector in the regional and local economy – Based on an investigation of key macro-economic indicators which are expected to influence both the rate and form of employment growth within the regional/local economy over the next 25 years, including: current national and provincial trends (within a global context), historical trends in the regional employment market by sector, regional economic clusters, and a review of the key drivers of future employment growth within the regional market area by major sector.

Current and future live/work employment growth opportunities within Frontenac County (including work at home and no fixed place of work employment) - Based on review of historical trends and future opportunities which are anticipated to influence live/work employment by local municipality. Of critical importance in this component of the analysis are the potential opportunities to accommodate future export-based employment growth on employment lands in Southern Frontenac as the City of Kingston’s urban land supply gradually builds out within its existing urban boundary. A portion of employment growth on future Frontenac employment lands will also be accommodated by in-commuters from outside of Frontenac County. While these commuters are not anticipated to directly influence housing needs in the County, they are important in developing the County’s long-term employment forecast.

Forecast market demand for permanent housing geared to empty-nesters and retirees (i.e. 55+ group) – Population growth within this age group represents a key driver of future housing demand in Frontenac County, especially the north and central municipalities as well as the Township of Frontenac Islands. Average housing occupancies within this age group are anticipated to be considerably lower in comparison to households headed by those in the 20-54 age group. The demographics associated with this age group will have significant implications on future population growth rates, age structure, as well as municipal servicing needs and housing requirements.

Forecast market demand for seasonal housing by primary location of residents – Based on a comprehensive analysis of market demand for seasonal housing by local municipality in Frontenac. Forecast seasonal housing demand is based on an assessment of the key market areas which are anticipated to drive the demand for seasonal housing (i.e. City of Kingston, Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), and other major market areas). This component of the population projections is critical since a number of existing and future seasonal residents are anticipated to convert their

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 38 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

2-4 seasonal housing unit to a permanent residence over the next 25 years. This will potentially have a significant influence on the rate of permanent population and housing growth in Frontenac County.

Testing the Recommended Growth Scenario The reasonableness of our recommended “top-down” cohort survival forecast and background assumptions, as described above, is then tested using Watson & Associates’ “bottom-up” household formation methodology to incorporate factors such as, recent housing activity (i.e. building permits), servicing constraints and potential local urban and rural housing supply. Also critical to this methodology is a strong understanding of how future housing demand will impact future housing occupancy trends. Our approach will give consideration to the average person per unit (PPU) levels of new housing units by age of maintainer and the decline in persons per unit over time within existing households.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 39 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3. POPULATION, HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 40 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-1

POPULATION, HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHICS

The purpose of this review is to examine recent housing, population and demographic trends for Frontenac County within a broader regional and provincial context. Specific attention is given to general housing market trends related to housing form (i.e. density), housing types (i.e. seasonal or permanent) and annual construction activity. In many instances, comparative data is provided for the City of Kingston. This analysis is used as a basis to explore how current and future demographic trends will influence future housing and population growth throughout Frontenac over the next 25 years and beyond.

3.1

Housing Activity

The following section explores housing growth trends for Frontenac over the 1981 through 2011 period. This review is based on various data sources from Statistics Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). A shorter historical time period has been used where demographic and economic data is unavailable.

3.1.1 Permanent Housing Growth Figure 3-1 summarizes permanent housing1 stock for Frontenac County over the 1981-2011 period. It is noted that 2011 households for Frontenac County and by Area Municipality have been derived using 2011 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data. Based on our review, 2011 MPAC data has been determined to be a more reliable data source compared to 2011 Census data in developing an accurate 2011 permanent housing base2. Figure 3-2 summarizes annual average housing growth rates for Frontenac County in comparison to the City of Kingston and the provincial average. Key findings include: 

During the 1981-2011 period, Frontenac’s housing stock increased from 5,840 to 10,695 units. This corresponds to an average annual growth rate of approximately 2.0% over the 30-year period.



Comparatively, over the 30-year period the City of Kingston and the Province of Ontario averaged approximately 1.6% and 1.7% annual housing growth.

1 Seasonal housing units are not included in this analysis. An estimate of seasonal households is provided in section 3.1.3. 2 The 2011 Census suggests that the number of dwellings in Frontenac County declined by approximately 250 between 2006 and 2011. This estimated decline in dwellings is not consistent with historical residential building activity for (new units only) between 2006 and 2010. During this period, the net number of new dwellings generated from new housing construction less demolitions totals approximately 780.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 41 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-2 

Over the past five years, Frontenac County has experienced a slowdown in terms of average annual household growth. Figure 3-1 Permanent Housing Stock, 1981-2011 12,000

Number of Households

10,265 10,000

9,185

1996 Year

2001

7,435

8,000 6,000

8,645

10,695

5,840

6,345

4,000 2,000 0 1981

1986

1991

2006

2011

Source: 1981‐2006 Census. 2011 households derived from MPAC data.

Figure 3-2 Average Annual Household Growth Rate, 1981-2011 3.5% 3.2%

3.0%

3.1%

3.0%

Average Annual Growth Rate

2.5% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.5%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5% 1.4% 1.4%

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0% 0.8%

0.5%

0.0% 1981-1986

1986-1991

1991-1996

1996-2001

2001-2006

2006-2011

Year Frontenac County

Kingston

Province of Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada 1981-2006. 2011 households derived from MPAC data. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 42 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-3

3.1.2 Trends in Permanent Households by Local Municipality Figure 3-3 summarizes permanent housing growth for Frontenac County over the 1981-2011 Census periods. Figure 3-4 summarizes permanent housing growth for selected Ontario municipalities. Key highlights include: 

Frontenac’s permanent housing stock grew at an annual rate of 2.0%, which is moderately higher than the City of Kingston and the Ontario average (1.6% and 1.7%, respectively);



South Frontenac has experienced the fastest growth rate in permanent households in Frontenac at 2.3%;



Housing growth rates for North Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, and Central Frontenac were slightly below the County average at 1.8%, 1.9% and 1.5%, respectively; and



Over the past five years, housing growth in Frontenac County has slowed to 0.8% per year, which is below the average housing growth rate for the City of Kingston and the Province of Ontario over the same time period. Figure 3-3 Frontenac County Permanent Housing Growth by Local Municipality, 1981-2011

Municipality Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands North Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac County City of Kingston Province of Ontario

1981 1,275 465 545 3,545 5,830 32,235 2,969,785

1996 1,745 625 760 5,505 8,635 44,435 3,924,510

Census Year 2001 2006 1,770 1,840 665 785 810 870 5,945 6,770 9,190 10,265 46,600 48,925 4,219,410 4,554,255

2011 1,990 815 925 6,970 10,700 52,410 4,887,510

Average Annual Housing Growth 81-96 96-01 01-06 06-11 31 5 14 30 11 8 24 6 14 10 12 11 131 88 165 40 187 111 215 87 813 433 465 697 63,648 58,980 66,969 66,651

Average Annual Growth Rate 81-96 96-01 01-06 06-11 81-11 2.1% 0.3% 0.8% 1.6% 1.5% 2.0% 1.2% 3.4% 0.8% 1.9% 2.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.8% 3.0% 1.5% 2.6% 0.6% 2.3% 2.7% 1.3% 2.2% 0.8% 2.0% 2.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7%

Source: Statistics Canada 1981-2006. 2011 households derived from MPAC data.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 43 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-4 Figure 3-4 Change in Permanent Housing for Selected Recreational Areas, 2001-2011 Recreational Municipalities / Counties / Districts

Estimated Permanent Dwellings 2001

Estimated Permanent Dwellings 2006

Estimated Permanent Dwellings 2011

Permanent Dwellings 2001-2006

Permanent Dwellings 2006-2011

Annual Growth Rate 01-06 (Permanent Dwellings)

Annual Growth Rate 01-06 (Permanent Dwellings)

Haliburton County

6,420

6,980

7,635

560

655

1.7%

1.8%

Simcoe County

137,140

156,650

169,465

19,510

12,815

2.7%

1.6%

Lanark County

23,905

25,165

26,835

1,260

1,670

1.0%

1.3%

Hastings County

50,265

52,645

55,575

2,380

2,930

0.9%

1.1%

Parry Sound District

16,395

17,187

18,075

792

888

0.9%

1.0%

Lennox & Addington County

14,655

15,540

16,245

885

705

1.2%

0.9%

Peterborough County

49,650

53,580

55,640

3,930

2,060

1.5%

0.8%

Frontenac County

9,190

10,265

10,700

1,075

435

2.2%

0.8%

Leeds & Grenville United Counties

38,315

39,920

41,075

1,605

1,155

0.8%

0.6%

Muskoka District

20,635

23,148

23,645

2,513

497

2.3%

0.4%

Kawartha Lakes

26,780

29,509

29,685

2,729

176

2.0%

0.1%

Total of Surveyed Municipalities

393,350

430,589

454,575

37,239

23,986

1.8%

1.1%

Source: 2001, 2006 Census. 2011 households for Frontenac County derived from MPAC data.

3.1.3 Seasonal Households Figure 3-5 summarizes total seasonal dwellings for Frontenac County by Area Municipality as of 2011, based on MPAC data. As of 2011, there were a total of 8,090 seasonal dwellings in Frontenac County, of which 37% were located in South Frontenac, followed by 32% in North Frontenac, 25% in Central Frontenac and 6% in the Frontenac Islands. Figure 3-5 Frontenac County Total Seasonal Dwellings Municipality

2011 Seasonal Dwellings (Units)

Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands North Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac County

2,020 505 2,565 3,000 8,090

Figure 3-6 summarizes the percentage of seasonal dwellings by municipality within Frontenac from 2001-2011. Key observations include: 

Frontenac’s percentage of seasonal households increased from 42% to 44%; and



Frontenac Islands was the only Area Municipality within Frontenac to decrease from 2001-2011 (44% to 39%).

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 44 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-5 Figure 3-6 Frontenac County Percent Seasonal Dwellings by Municipality, 2001-2011 Percent Seasonal Households Municipality Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands North Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac County City of Kingston

2001

2006

2011

48% 44% 70% 30% 42% 8%

43% 39% 72% 25% 39% 9%

52% 39% 74% 31% 44% 9%

Source: Statistics Canada 2001-2006. 2011 households derived from MPAC data.

Comparatively, seasonal housing growth across most of Ontario’s recreation-oriented communities over the past five years has been moderate to slow. A major driver of this trend is the continued “conversion” of existing seasonal dwellings to permanent occupancy.

3.1.4 Frontenac Housing Occupancy Trends In relation to housing growth, Frontenac’s population is growing at a slower rate than households due to a decline in the average number of persons per dwelling unit (PPU). Figure 3-7 summarizes the average PPU of Frontenac’s existing low-density housing stock by age (i.e. 1-5 years to 35+ years) and type of dwelling. For comparative purposes, Kingston and the Province of Ontario are provided as well.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 45 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-6 Figure 3-7 Frontenac County Persons Per Unit by Low Density Census and Age of Dwelling, 2006 4.00

Persons Per Dwelling

3.50 3.00

3.35

3.32 2.83

2.98

2.86 2.80

3.30

3.29

3.16

2.97

2.91 2.72

2.68

2.71

2.84

2.88 2.65 2.70 2.44 2.46

2.50

2.61

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

20-25

25-35

35+

Age of Dwelling Frontenac County

Kingston

Province of Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada 2006.

3.1.5 Housing Mix by Unit Type Figure 3-8 summarizes historical housing trends for Frontenac County by housing type (i.e. density) from 1991 to 2011. Figure 3-8 summarizes the comparison of housing in Frontenac compared to the City of Kingston and Ontario in 2011. Key observations include: 

Low density housing (single, semi-detached) is the dominate form of housing in Frontenac, representing approximately 97% of the housing stock in 2011. Medium density (townhouses, row houses) and high density (apartments) comprise 1% and 2% of housing, respectively;



Frontenac has a significantly greater proportion of low density housing than Kingston and the provincial average; and



Over the 2001-2011 period, the share of low, medium and high density housing in Frontenac has remained largely unchanged.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 46 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-7 Figure 3-8 Frontenac County Households by Density Type, 1991-2011 100%

Percentage of Total Households

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

97%

97%

97%

2001 Year

2006

2011

3%

4%

1%

1%

95%

95%

1991

1996

80%

Low Density¹

Medium Density²

High Density³

Source: 1991 to 2006 Census. 2011 Households derived from MPAC data.

Figure 3-9 2011 Households by Density Type

Percentage of Total Households

100%

97%

80%

60%

58%

62%

40%

32% 26%

20%

10%

12% 2%

1% 0% Low Density¹

Medium Density² Year

Frontenac County

High Density³

Kingston

Source: 2011 Census Households

1. Simgle and Semi‐Detached, Movable Dwelling and other detached.
2. Townhomes and Apartments in Duplex
3. Triplexes and Apartments.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 47 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-8

3.1.6 Residential Development Activity by Unit Type, 1990-2012 Figure 3-10 summarizes residential building permits by unit type for new housing units from 1990 to 2012 for Frontenac County. Figure 3-11 summarizes the residential building permits in Frontenac County by municipal location. Highlights include: 

Over the 1990-2012 period, Frontenac has averaged approximately 150 residential building permits per year;



During the period, development activity has been dominated by low density units, accounting for 97% of units, while medium and high density housing account for 1% and 2% of new units, respectively;



The strongest housing growth occurred between 2002-2007, again dominated largely by low density development; and



The majority of the residential building permit activity came from South Frontenac (69%), followed by Central Frontenac (17%), Frontenac Islands (7%) and North Frontenac (7%). Figure 3-11 Frontenac County Historical Residential Building Permits, 1990-2012 200

188

Average Number of Permits

180 160

168 154 143 132

140 120

111

100 80 60 40 20 0

1990-1995

1996-2001

2002-2007

2008-2012

Average (1990-01)

Average (2002-12)

Year Low Density

Medium Density

High Density

Averages

1990-2012 Average

Source: Statistics Canada Building Permits Catalogue 64-001-XIB

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 48 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-9 Figure 3-11 Frontenac County Historical Residential Building Permits By Municipal Location, 1990-2012 200

189

180 160

154 143

Number of Permits

140 120

Area Municipality

111

100

Township of South Frontenac

80

Township of Central Frontenac

60

Township of North Frontenac

40

Township of Frontenac Islands

20 0 1990-1995

1996-2001

2002-2007

2008-2012

Year Source: Statistics Canada Building Permits catalogue 64-001-XIB.

3.2

Households and Families

3.2.1 Housing Occupancy Figure 3-12 summarizes average housing occupancy in Frontenac, Kingston and the provincial average over the 1981-2011 period. This is expressed as the average number of persons per dwelling unit (PPU).3 Key observations include: 

The average PPU in Frontenac County has declined steadily during the 1981-2011 period;



In 2011, the average PPU in Frontenac County was 2.54, higher than the Kingston average of 2.35 and moderately lower than the provincial average of 2.63.

3

Average number of persons per unit (PPU) defined as the total population divided by the number of occupied dwelling units.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 49 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-10 Figure 3-12 Historical PPU Trends, 1981-2011 3.20 3.04 2.95

3.00

Persons Per Unit

2.86 2.80

2.75

2.66

2.60

2.60 2.54 2.40

2.20 1981

1986

1991

Frontenac County

1996 Year Kingston

2001

2006

2011

Province of Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada, Canada Census.

The average PPU varies by housing type (i.e. low, medium and high density) and by age (i.e. dwellings aged 1-5 years to 35+ years). Based on 2006 Census data, the average PPU for new units in Frontenac aged 1-20 years is: 

Low Density – 2.73

Due to limited data availability, the Upper Tier (Frontenac County – Including Kingston) PPU for medium and high density PPU has been used. The new medium and high density housing units by age and type of dwelling are based on 2006 custom Census data. For medium and high density dwellings, the 20-year average PPU for units aged 1-20 years is: 

Medium Density – 2.18



High Density – 1.64

The occupancy trends by housing type in Frontenac are similar to provincial trends. Low density housing typically accommodates larger households (such as families) while medium density accommodates moderately lower household sizes on average. Meanwhile, high density units typically accommodate one- and two-person households.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 50 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-11 Generally, it is observed that housing occupancy levels tend to increase in the short term in new homes (i.e. 1-10 years) as new home buyers form families, followed by a gradual decline over the medium term (i.e. 10-30 years) as children age and leave home. This is then followed by a period of stabilization over the long term (i.e. 30+ years) as older housing units are regenerated by new families. The result of this pattern is that more recently constructed housing units typically have a higher PPU average in comparison to older units (i.e. more than 30 years). The average PPU in Frontenac is forecast to continue to decline in the short to medium term before gradually levelling out in the longer term. The downward trend in housing occupancy is driven by the continued aging of the population which increases the proportionate share of “seniors” and “empty-nesters,” which typically form smaller household sizes. The continued decline in average PPU will in turn require an increasing level of new annual housing construction to maintain constant population growth levels in absolute terms.

3.2.2 Trends in Household Size Figure 3-13 illustrates housing growth by household size in Frontenac over the 1981-2011 period in comparison to the provincial average. Findings include: 

Over the 1981-2011 period, the average annual growth rate of households in Frontenac was 2.0%;



Over this period, the growth rate in one- and two-person households was higher than the overall average, at 2.9% and 3.1%, respectively; and



Meanwhile, growth in the three-person households was generally on par with the provincial average, at approximately 1.6%, four/five person households grow at a slightly lower rate than the provincial average, at 0.8%, while growth in households with six or more persons declined at a rate of -1.5% versus a 0.5% increase for the Province as a whole.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 51 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-12 Figure 3-13 Households Average Annual Growth Rate by Size, 1981-2011

1981-2011 % Growth Rate

4.0% 3.0%

2.9% 2.4%

2.0%

3.1% 2.0%

Average 1.9% 1.6%1.5%

1.0%

0.9% 0.8%

Ontario Average 1.7%

0.5%

0.0% -1.0% -1.5%

-2.0% One Person

Two Person

Three Person

Four to Five Persons

Six or More

Household Size Frontenac County

Province of Ontario

Source: 1981 to 2011 Census Prof ile

3.3

Housing Market Analysis

3.3.1 Housing Preferences by Age Group Housing preferences by density type are largely driven by age and income levels of household maintainers. Figure 3-14 illustrates housing preferences by density type in Frontenac by population age group based on 2006 Census data. Due to poor sample quality, comparable 2011 household maintainers data was not used for this analysis. Key observations include: 

The highest preference for low density housing is amongst those between 35 and 44 years of age with 99% of housing headed by individuals aged 25 years and older;



However, within Frontenac County, housing preferences are dominated by low-density dwellings by all age groups; and



For those under the age of 25, low density housing is the dominant housing form. However, this age group does attract a moderate level of high density housing. These housing preferences for this cohort are largely driven by affordability, life stage and lifestyle issues.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 52 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-13 Figure 3-14 Frontenac County Housing Preferences by Age Cohort, 2006 97%

Age Cohort

1% 2%

75+

1% 3%

65-74

0% 3%

55-64

1% 2%

45-54

1% 2%

35-44

1% 0%

25-34

1% 4%

Under 25

4%

0%

96% 97% 97% 97% 99% 95% 74% 22%

20%

Low Density

40%

60%

Medium Density

80%

100%

120%

High Density

Source: 2006 Census, households by age of primary maintainer data.

3.4

Population

The following section explores population growth trends for Frontenac County and its respective Area Municipalities over the past 30 years. An analysis of historical net migration and population by major age group is also provided. It is noted that the 2011 population for Frontenac County has been derived by applying a persons per unit (PPU) factor derived by Watson & Associates to the 2011 MPAC housing data at County-wide and Area Municipal levels. Similar to the housing analysis, the historical time periods investigated throughout this section of the report vary, subject to data availability.

3.4.1 Population Growth Figure 3-15 summarizes Frontenac County’s population4 from 1981 through 2011. Figure 3-16 provides a summary of average annual population growth rates for Frontenac, Kingston and the Province over the 1981-2011 period. Key observations include: 

Between 1986 and 2011, Frontenac’s population increased from 17,745 to 27,190;



Over the 1981-2006 period, Frontenac’s population growth rate was higher than that of Kingston and the provincial average; and

4

Population figures exclude the net Census population undercount which is estimated at approximately 4%. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 53 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-14 

Between 2006 and 2011, Frontenac’s permanent population grew at an average rate of approximately 0.4% per annum. Comparatively, this was lower than the City of Kingston (1.0%) and the provincial average (1.1%). Figure 3-15 Population, 1981-2011 35,000 30,000

Population

25,000

23,760

24,411

1996 Year

2001

26,658

27,190

2006

2011

21,254 18,748

17,745

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

1981

1986

1991

Source: 1981 to 2006 Census. 2011 population derived by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2013 using MPAC data

Figure 3-16 Frontenac County Average Annual Population Growth Rate, 1981-2011 3.0%

2.5% 2.5% 2.3%

Average Annual Growth Rate

2.3%

2.0% 1.8%

1.5%

2.1% 1.3%

1.3% 1.2%

1.1% 1.0%

1.3% 1.1%

1.1% 1.0% 0.5%

0.9% 0.5%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3% 0.0% 1981-1986

1986-1991

1991-1996

1996-2001

2001-2006

2006-2011

Year Frontenac County

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Kingston

Province of Ontario

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 54 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-15 Recent population growth trends are generally consistent with housing growth trends. However, the population has grown at a slightly slower rate than households due to a declining average PPU. This trend is expected to continue over the long term.

3.4.2 Permanent Population Growth by Local Municipality, 1981-2011 Figure 3-17 summarizes historical permanent population growth trends in Frontenac County by local municipality over the past 30 years. During this time period, population growth rates and absolute population growth has been highest in South Frontenac, given its proximity to the City of Kingston. As further discussed in Chapter 4, the municipality of South Frontenac has a large percentage of out-commuters to the City of Kingston. As the City of Kingston’s employment market continues to expand over the next 25 years, it is anticipated that development pressures will continue in South Frontenac for permanent housing development, which will in turn drive population growth in this municipality. Figure 3-17 Frontenac County Permanent Population Growth by Local Municipality, 1981-2011 Municipality Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands North Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac County City of Kingston Province of Ontario

Census Year Average Annual Population 1981 1996 2001 2006 2011 81-96 96-01 01-06 06-11 3,800 4,615 4,557 4,665 4,780 54 -12 22 23 1,344 1,661 1,638 1,862 1,950 21 -5 45 18 1,420 1,773 1,801 1,904 1,890 24 6 21 -3 11,181 15,711 16,415 18,227 18,570 302 141 362 69 17,745 23,760 24,411 26,658 27,190 401 130 449 106 90,388 112,605 114,195 117,207 123,363 1,481 318 602 1,231 8,625,107 10,753,573 11,410,046 12,160,282 12,851,821 141,898 131,295 150,047 138,308

Average Annual Growth Rate 81-96 96-01 01-06 06-11 81-11 1.3% -0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 1.4% -0.3% 2.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 0.3% 1.1% -0.1% 1.0% 2.3% 0.9% 2.1% 0.4% 1.7% 2.0% 0.5% 1.8% 0.4% 1.4% 1.5% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.3%

Source: 1981 to 2006 Census. 2011 population derived by Watson & Associates using 2011 MPAC data.

Historically, population growth rates have been slower in the Townships of Central Frontenac, North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands in comparison to South Frontenac over the past 30 years. Permanent population growth at the Area Municipal level was strongest during the 19811996 and 2001-2006 periods and relatively weak over the 1996-2001 and 2006-2011 periods. One of the primary drivers of permanent population growth within each of Frontenac County’s Area Municipalities has been their attractiveness to empty nesters and young seniors (i.e. 55-74 age group). For these municipalities, the distinction between permanent and seasonal occupancy is becoming increasingly blurred as a growing percentage of residents choose to retire/semi-retire in former seasonal residences on a full-time basis. As a result, a steady number of existing seasonal properties are being converted to permanent residences. This trend is expected to continue over the forecast period; however, the rate of “conversions” from seasonal to permanent households is expected to diminish post 2021 as the “baby boom” population continues to age. It is expected that as a larger share of the “baby boom” population enters into the 75+ age group, an increasing number of Frontenac residents will convert their cottage property back to a seasonal residence.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 55 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-16 Population growth within each of the local municipalities over the past 30 years within Frontenac County has largely occurred outside of urban settlement areas. A lack of fully municipally serviced urban settlement areas (i.e. municipal water and sewer)5 and an abundance of rural lots of record have been the primary driver of population growth within the rural areas of Frontenac County. Moving forward, it is anticipated that the majority of growth will continue to occur within the rural area.

3.4.3 Frontenac County Historical Population by Age Figure 3-18 summarizes historical trends in population structure over the 1981 through 2011 period. For planning purposes, Frontenac’s population base can be grouped into four major age categories (i.e. cohorts): 

Youth (0-19);



Young adult/adult (20-54);



Empty-nesters/young seniors (55-74); and



Seniors (75+).

However, it is important to note that the general characteristics of the population within each major cohort can vary considerably due to a number of factors such as income, education, health and lifestyle. Figure 3-19 summarizes the 2011 population by age group for Frontenac in comparison to Kingston and the Province. Based on this analysis, the following observations can be made: 

In 2011, the 0-19 age cohort (youth population) accounted for 22% of the total population. Proportionately, the population share of this age cohort has decreased significantly from 33% in 1981;



Frontenac’s young adult/adult population (20-54) is relatively large and has remained relatively stable over the same time period, comprising 43% of the population in 2011: o The 20-34 age cohort (young adults), which comprised 12% of the population in 2011, has decreased from 22% in 1981; o The 35-44 age group has remained relatively stable, rising and falling from 12% in 1981 to 12% in 2011; and o 45-54 year olds account for 18% of the 2011 population, up from 10% in 1981;



The 55-74 age group (empty-nesters/young seniors) increased significantly, growing from 15% of the population in 1981 to approximately to 29% in 2011;



The 75+ age group (seniors) has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years, declining slightly from 7% in 1981 to 6% in 2011; and

5

Sydenham in South Frontenac is the only urban settlement area in Frontenac County with municipal water services. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 56 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-17 

Frontenac’s 2011 age structure is older than that of Kingston and the provincial average. This is as a result of the County’s proportionately higher number of persons between the ages of 55 and 74. Figure 3-18 Frontenac County Population Composition by Age Cohort, 1981-2011 100%

7%

4%

4%

5%

5%

15%

19%

18%

19%

22%

90%

Percentage of Total Population

80% 70% 60%

10% 12%

10%

12%

17% 16%

18%

17%

22%

20%

17%

33%

30%

14%

55 to 74 35 to 44 20 to 34

14%

12%

28%

27%

26%

24%

22%

1991

1996 Year

2001

2006

2011

10%

75+ 45 to 54

15% 12%

30% 20%

29%

14%

17%

40%

25%

6%

17% 14%

50% 22%

5%

0 to 19

0% 1981

1986

Source: 1981‐2011 Census

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 57 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-18 Figure 3-19 Frontenac County, Kingston, and Ontario Age Structure, 2011 35.0%

Percentage of Population

30.0% 25.0%

28.8%

23.7% 22.0% 21.3%

22.6% 20.9% 19.2%

20.0%

15.0%

15.0%

20.5%

18.1% 16.0%

13.8% 12.3% 12.1%

12.5%

10.0%

8.2% 6.3%

6.8%

5.0% 0.0% 0-19

20-34

35-44 45-54 Age of Population

Frontenac County

Kingston

55-74

75+

Ontario

Source: 1981 to 2011 Census

3.4.4 Historical Net Migration Trends, 1991-2011 Figure 3-20 summarizes net migration levels for Frontenac County over the past 20-year period from 1991 to 2011 with respect to permanent population. The results of this analysis indicate the following: 

Over the past 20 years, total historical net migration averaged approximately 1,300 persons per 5-year period;



During the 2001-2006 period, net migration levels reached almost 2,000.



Estimated net migration during the 2006-2011 period was significantly lower than the previous 5-year period. This recent decline in net migration levels is believed to be largely a result of the 2008/2009 economic downturn.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 58 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-19 Table 3-20 Frontenac County Historical Net Migration 1991-2011 Time Period 1991-1996 1996-2001 2001-2006 2006-2011 1991-2011 Total

Start Population 21,732 24,369 25,430 27,390

Total Births

Total Deaths

1,348 1,044 886 1,338 4,616

884 651 823 1,402 3,760

Calculated Population

Actual Population

Calculated Net Migration

22,196 24,762 25,493 27,326

24,369 25,430 27,390 27,875

2,173 668 1,897 549 5,287

Source: Based on Statistics Canada 1991 to 2006 Census population, 2011 population estimate derived by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., and Registrar General Birth/Deaths. Note: Population figures are adjusted for the population undercount of approximately 2.5%

3.5

Conclusions

Highlights regarding the Frontenac County’s housing, population and demographics are as follows: 

Over the past 30 years, average annual housing growth in Frontenac County has been above both the City of Kingston and Ontario average. However, this trend changed during the past five years as the annual average housing growth fell below the provincial average. While housing growth rates during the past five years have moderated, residential building permit activity continues to be steady, averaging just over 140 residential permits for new units annually between 2008 and 2012.



Historically, the majority of housing growth has occurred within South Frontenac, largely due to proximity to the Kingston area employment market.



The County’s existing housing stock is dominated by low density built form with approximately 97% of the existing housing stock consisting of single family and semidetached units. The County’s housing mix has remained relatively unchanged during the 2001-2011 period. Over the next 25 years it is anticipated that the Frontenac County housing market will continue to be heavily weighted towards low-density housing, given the lack of municipally serviced settlement areas.



Frontenac County has a substantial seasonal housing base, which makes up approximately 43% of the County’s total housing stock as of 2011. The historical rate of seasonal housing growth in Frontenac County has been lower than what building permit activity suggests, as a result of seasonal housing conversions to permanent occupancy.



Average household size in Frontenac County is comparatively higher than the City of Kingston. Average PPUs for Frontenac County have steadily declined over the past 30 years, however, this decline rate has moderated over the past 10 years.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 59 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

3-20 

Similar to historical housing trends, Frontenac County’s population growth rate exceeded the City of Kingston and the provincial average from 1981 to 2006, but has recently fallen below the City of Kingston and provincial averages during the 2006-2011 period. Recent population growth within the County has been largely driven by net migration. Over the next 25 years, the proportion of population growth derived from net migration is forecast to steadily increase as the local population ages, resulting in a steady decline in the natural population increase (i.e. births and deaths).



Frontenac County’s population is aging. Between 1981 and 2011, the proportion of population within the County 55 years of age and older increased from 22% to 35%. Over the next 25 years, this trend is expected to continue as the “baby boomers” continue to age.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 60 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4. ECONOMICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 61 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-1

ECONOMICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

The following chapter provides an overview of historical economic and socio-economic trends within Frontenac County with a broader regional and provincial context. This review is intended to provide insight with respect to the future economic outlook for the County and identify key evolving trends within Frontenac’s economic and socio-economic base.

4.1

Frontenac Economic and Socio-Economic Overview

4.1.1 Employment Trends Figure 4-1 summarizes total employment (i.e. jobs) for Frontenac County over the 1996-2011 Census periods. Employment data for the 1996 through 2006 period is based on Statistics Canada Census data. The 2011 employment base has been derived using datasets provided through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) EMSI Analyst Tool. The employment data is prepared by EMSI (Economic Modelling Specialists Intl.) using Statistics Canada SEPH (Survey of Employment, Payrolls and hours) and Canadian Business Patterns data. Figure 4-2 illustrates average annual employment growth for Frontenac in comparison to Kingston and the provincial average during the 1996-2001, 2001-2006, and 2006-2011 Census periods. Key observations include: 

Frontenac’s total employment has decreased slightly from 4,065 in 1996 to 3,800 in 2006, followed by a slight increase to 3,900 in 2011;



The 2006-2011 employment growth rate for Frontenac County (0.5%) is lower than the City of Kingston (0.8%) but higher than the Province of Ontario (0.2%).

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 62 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-2 Figure 4-1 Frontenac County Total Employment, 1996-2011 4,500

4,065

Total Employment

4,000

3,800

3,906

2006

2011

3,675

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1996

2001 Year

Source: 1996 to 2006 Statistics Canada, Place of Work. 2011 employment derived from EMSI data.

Figure 4-2 Frontenac County, Kingston, and Ontario Average Annual Growth in Employment, 1996-2011 2.5%

2.1%

Average Annual Growth Rate

2.0% 1.5%

1.2% 1.2%

0.9%

1.0%

0.7%

0.5%

0.5%

0.8% 0.2%

0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0%

-2.0%

-2.5%

1996-2001

2001-2006

2006-2011

Period Frontenac County

Kingston

Province of Ontario

Source: 1996 to 2006 Statistics Canada, Place of Work. 2011 employment derived from EMSI data

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 63 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-3

4.1.2 Employment Activity Rates An employment activity rate is defined as the number of local jobs in a municipality divided by the resident population. An increasing employment activity rate indicates that the local employment base is increasing at a faster rate than the local population. On the other hand, a declining activity rate indicates the opposite trend. Figure 4-3 summarizes Frontenac’s historic employment activity rate from 1996 through 2011. For comparative purposes, the historical employment activity rate for Kingston and the provincial average for the 1996-2011 period is also illustrated. Key observations include: 

Frontenac’s employment activity rate declined between 1996 and 2006, stabilizing slightly in 2011 at 14%; and



In 2011, Frontenac’s employment activity rate was significantly lower than Kingston and the provincial average of 57% and 44%, respectively. Figure 4-3 Frontenac County, Kingston, and Ontario Employment Activity Rates, 1996-2011 80.0%

Employment Activity Rate

70.0% 60.0%

55.2%

57.1%

56.6%

44.0%

46.0%

45.8%

43.8%

17.1%

15.1%

14.3%

14.4%

2006

2011

53.6%

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1996

2001 Year

Frontenac County

Kingston

Province of Ontario

Source: 1996‐2011 Statistics Canada Census Profiles and Place of Work.

The type of work activity (i.e. full-time versus part-time) and employment by sector are also critical in understanding employment trends for Frontenac. These topics are addressed in sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 respectively.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 64 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-4

4.1.3 Full-Time Employment Figure 4-4 summarizes full-time employment as a proportion of total employment (full-time and part-time employment) for Frontenac, Kingston and the Province based on 2006 Census employment. Key findings include: 

Full-time employment in Frontenac declined from 64% to 54% over the 1996-2006 period, following the provincial trend; and



In 2006, Frontenac’s full-time employment share of total employment was moderately lower than Kingston and the provincial average. Figure 4-4 Frontenac County, Kingston, and Ontario Full-Time Employment, 1996-2006 90% 80%

% Full-Time Employment

70%

75%

77%

64% 59%

60%

61%

59%

60%

54%

52% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1996

2001 Year

Frontenac County

Kingston

2006

Province of Ontario

Source: 1996 to 2006 Statistics Canada, Census employment.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 65 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-5

4.1.4 Employment by Sector, 1996-2011 Figure 4-5 summarizes employment by major sector for Frontenac between 1996 and 2011. Figure 4-6 summarizes net employment growth by sector over the 1996-2011 period. Key observations include: 

The work at home sector represents the largest component of Frontenac’s employment base, with a 33% share in 2011, followed by the commercial sector with 28% and the institutional sector with 24%. Industrial employment comprises 12% of the total, while the primary sector accounts for 3%;



Over the 1996-2011 period, Frontenac’s employment structure has shifted moderately to the service and institutional sectors. The industrial employment base (which represents a small component of the Frontenac economy) has declined by one-third over the period while the commercial sector’s share has slightly increased; and



In terms of absolute employment growth, the commercial and institutional employment sector has experienced steady growth over the past ten years as a result of continued permanent and seasonal population growth across the County. Figure 4-5 Frontenac County Employment by Sector, 1996-2011 100.0% 20.0%

15.5%

23.0%

24.1%

29.2%

28.1%

9.7%

11.9%

35.1%

33.0%

2006

2011

80.0% 24.8%

27.6%

60.0% 15.6%

11.6%

40.0%

36.5%

20.0%

42.4%

0.0% 1996

2001 Year

Primary

Work at Home

Industrial

Commercial

Institutional

Source: 1996‐2006 Statistics Canada, Employment by Place of Work. 2011 employment by sector derived from EMSI data.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 66 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-6 Figure 4-6 Frontenac County Employment Growth by Sector, 1996-2011 400 305

300 200 100 5

0

98

93

75

65

6

3 ‐14

‐15 ‐45

-100

‐58

-200 ‐225

‐208 ‐245

-300 Primary

Work at Home 1996-2001

Industrial 2001-2006

Commercial

Institutional

2006-2011

Source: 1996‐2006 Statistics Canada, Employment by Place of Work. 2011 employment by sector derived from EMSI data.

4.1.5 Non-Residential Construction Activity, 2002-2012 Figure 4-7 illustrates non-residential construction (in thousands of dollars) by type from 2002 to 2012 for Frontenac County. Highlights include: 

During 2002-2012, Frontenac averaged $3.8 million in non-residential building permit activity annually;



2012 was a very strong year, primarily due to large scale institutional construction;



2008 and 2011 were also particularly strong years compared to 2002-2011 construction activity, with $4.8 and $5.4 million in construction value. This included a significant share of industrial construction; and



Non-residential construction declined to historical average levels in 2009 with $1,940,000 in total activity as a result of the economic downturn, but has since seemed to have rebounded.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 67 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-7 Figure 4-7 Frontenac County Historical Non-Residential Construction Values (000’s) – New Construction Only Non-Residential Construction Values (000’s)

18,000 15,765

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000

3,669

4,000 2,000

5,716

5,419

4,803 2,782 1,946

1,257

808

2,621

2,018

1,533

870

0

Year

Industrial

Commercial

Institutional

Averages

1990-2012 Average

Source: Statistics Canada, non-residential building permit values, Publication 64-001-XWF

4.1.6 Employment vs. Labour Force Figure 4-8 illustrates the change in historical employment (full-time/part-time) versus the labour force for Frontenac over the 1996-2011 period. The labour force represents the number of Frontenac residents who are employment regardless of where they work. Employment represents the number of jobs located within Frontenac, regardless of where the employee lives. Over the 1996-2011 Census period, the proportion of employment (jobs) in Frontenac to total labour force has declined from 36.3% to 28%. This suggests that an increasing proportion of Frontenac residents are pursuing employment opportunities outside of the County.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 68 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-8 Figure 4-8 Frontenac County Historical Employment Vs. Labour Force 1996-2011 Total Employment as % of Net Difference Employment Labour Force 1996 11,335 4,065 (7,270) 35.9% 2001 11,830 3,675 (8,155) 31.1% 2006 13,215 3,800 (9,415) 28.8% 2011 13,920 3,900 (10,020) 28.0% Source: 1996 - 2006 Census Profile and employment data. 2011 derived by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.; based on EMSI data and the 2011 Census profile Year

Total Labour Force

4.1.7 Employment Growth by Local Municipality Figure 4-9 summarizes the total employment growth in Frontenac County by local municipality from 1996-2011. Key observations include: 

Of the total share of employment in Frontenac County, South Frontenac has experienced the greatest share of employment;



Central Frontenac also has a relatively high share of total employment but has shown the greatest decline in employment over the past 15 years, losing approximately 175 employees; and



North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands’ share of employment has remained relatively consistent over the historical period, with little employment growth occurring in recent years. Figure 4-9 Frontenac County Total Employment Growth by Local Municipality, 1996-2011

Municipality

1996-2001

2001-2006

Central Frontenac

1,045

25.7%

970

26.4%

845

22.2%

870

22.3%

-75

-125

25

Frontenac Islands

375

1996 9.2%

300

2001 8.2%

315

2006 8.3%

330

2011 8.4%

-75

15

2006-2011 15

North Frontenac

500

12.3%

275

7.5%

365

9.6%

410

10.5%

-225

90

45

South Frontenac

2,145

52.8%

2,130

58.0%

2,275

59.9%

2,300

58.8%

-15

145

25

Frontenac County

4,065

100.0%

3,675

100.0%

3,800

100.0%

3,910

100.0%

-390

125

110

Source: 1996 - 2006 Census employment. 2011 Employment base data is derived from datasets provided through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) EMSI Analyst Tool. The employment data is prepared by EMSI (Economic Modeling Specialists Intl.) using Statistics Canada SEPH (Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours) and Canadian Business Patterns data.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 69 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-9

4.1.8 Commuting Trends Figure 4-10 summarizes where those employed in Frontenac County commute from (based on 2006 commuting data6). Figure 4-11 illustrates where Frontenac County residents commute to for work. Key observations include: 

Of the employed Frontenac labour force, approximately 19% work within Frontenac County.7 Meanwhile, approximately 66% commute to the City of Kingston and the remaining 15% commute to other municipalities surrounding Frontenac County; and



Of the total employment base in Frontenac County, 76% are held by Frontenac residents while, 24% commute from other municipalities surrounding Frontenac County. Figure 4-10 Where Commuters Come From for Work in Frontenac County, 2006 Greater Napanee 1%

Other Municipalities 8%

Frontenac Islands 4% North Frontenac 10%

South Frontenac 40%

Kingston 15%

Central Frontenac 22%

6 7

Central and North Frontenac do not have detailed commuter data available for 2011. Excluding the City of Kingston.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 70 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-10 Figure 4-11 Where Frontenac Residents Commute to for Work, 2006 Frontenac Islands 1% Gananoque 1%

Westport 1%

Addington Highlands 1% Greater Napanee 2%

Other Municipalities 7%

Loyalist 2%

North Frontenac Central Frontenac 2% 6% South Frontenac 10%

4.2

Kingston 67%

Conclusions

Key economic and socio-economic findings are: 

The recent economic recession has hit Ontario particularly hard, with significant declines in manufacturing output and employment. While manufacturing employment levels in the Kingston area have also declined post 2006, employment in the Kingston area has shown strength in a number of “knowledge-based” sectors related to professional and scientific services, health care, and public administration.



Within Frontenac County, recent employment levels have increased slightly since 2006, largely attributed to growth in population serving sectors related to the commercial and institutional sectors;



Despite a steady increase in local employment, the County’s employment activity rate (i.e. ratio of jobs to population) remains well below both the City of Kingston and provincial average;



The majority of the County’s employment base is concentrated within retail commercial, institutional and tourism sectors, with little employment in the industrial sector. Notwithstanding the County’s limited industrial base, Frontenac has experienced a modest level of industrial building permit activity in recent years, with particularly strong years in 2008 and 2011.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 71 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

4-11 

Given the nature of Frontenac’s employment base, a higher percentage of employment within the County is part-time or seasonal. This has implications for the County (especially for settlement areas which are not in proximity to the Kingston employment market), in attracting working families in permanent households.



The majority of the Frontenac labour force work in the City of Kingston (67%), while less than 20% of employed residents living within the County actually work within the County;



Household income levels have steadily risen within Frontenac County, largely due to the area’s proximity to the Kingston area employment market. Comparatively, household income levels within Frontenac County are comparable to the City of Kingston.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 72 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5. POLICY CONTEXT

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 73 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-1

POLICY CONTEXT

Long term population, housing and employment forecasts form an important foundation for long range planning in Ontario. Decisions related to the provision of designated land, hard and soft services are all informed by growth projections. The following provides a brief overview of current provincial legislation and policies which are particularly relevant to long-term population and employment forecasting for Ontario municipalities. An overview of the relevant local OP policies and directions related to long term population, housing and employment forecasts is also provided herein.

5.1

Provincial Policy Context

5.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is effective April 30, 2014 and applies to all planning decisions made after that date. The Planning Act requires all planning decisions to be consistent with the PPS. The three pillars on which the PPS is based are strong communities, strong economies and a healthy natural environment. The PPS focuses growth within settlement areas, encouraging increases in density and intensification in order to minimize the need for urban boundary expansions and encroachments into natural heritage features and natural resource lands. The policies of the PPS apply throughout Ontario despite regional variations. The entire PPS needs to be taken into account when considering how to manage growth in Frontenac, including policies focused on building strong communities, the management of resources, and the protection of public health and safety. The following policies, however, require particular consideration in developing a strategy to manage future growth in Frontenac. Settlement Areas It is clear that the focus of the settlement area policies in the PPS is to direct the majority of growth to these areas in order to promote their vitality and regeneration. In order to ensure compact and efficient development that makes the most of existing and future planned infrastructure and minimizes encroachments into the surrounding natural areas, intensification and redevelopment is promoted. In this regard, targets for intensification and redevelopment are required that must be met before urban boundary expansions can be considered. Urban boundary expansions may only be considered through a comprehensive review and where justified based on population and growth projections and integration with planning for infrastructure and public service facilities.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 74 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-2 Policies of particular note are as follows: 

Section 1.1.2 “Sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 year. However, where an alternative time period has been established for specific areas of the Province as a result of a provincial planning exercise or a provincial plan, the time frame may be used for municipalities within the area.”



Section 1.1.3.1 “Settlement areas8 shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.”



Section 1.1.3.5 “Planning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built up areas. However, where provincial targets are established through provincial plans, the provincial target shall represent the minimum target for the affected areas.”



Section 1.1.3.7 “Planning authorities shall establish and implement phasing policies to ensure that specified targets for intensification and redevelopment are achieved prior to, or concurrent with, new development in designated growth areas.”



Section 1.1.3.7 “Planning authorities shall establish and implement phasing policies to ensure the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of the infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and projected needs.”

8 Section 6, Definitions, of the PPS, defines settlement areas as urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets) that are: a) built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; and, b) lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long term planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2. In cases where land in designated growth areas is not available, the settlement area may no larger than the area where development is concentrated.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 75 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-3 

Section 1.1.3.8 “A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that: a)

sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon;

b)

the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term and protect public health and safety;

c)

in prime agricultural areas: 1. the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas; 2. alternative locations have been evaluated, and i. there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural areas; and, ii. there are no reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; and

d)

impacts from new and expanding settlement areas on agricultural operations which are adjacent or close to the settlement area are mitigated to the extent feasible.

In determining the appropriate direction for expansions to boundaries of settlement areas or the identification of a settlement area by a planning authority, a planning authority shall apply the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety.” Rural Areas Growth in rural areas is limited by the PPS to those uses which relate to the management or use of resources or which promote recreational, tourism or other economic opportunities and which are compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels. Little additional direction is given and this would appear to be an area where some discretion is left to municipalities to determine appropriate growth depending on individual circumstances. The relevant policy is as follows:

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 76 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-4 

Section 1.1.4.1 “Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by: a. Building upon rural character, and leveraging rural amenities and assets; b. Promoting regeneration, brownfield sites;

including

the

redevelopment

of

c. Accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing in rural settlement areas; d. Encouraging the conservation and redevelopment of existing rural housing stock on rural lands; e. Using rural infrastructure and public service facilities efficiently; f.

Promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities through goods and services, including value-added products and the sustainable management or use of resources;

g. Providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets; h. Conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature; and i.

Providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas, in accordance with policy 2.3.”

It should be noted that Frontenac County’s waterfront development constitutes rural, resourcebased recreational development in the context of the PPS. Coordination The PPS requires upper tier municipalities to take a significant role in coordinating growth within its jurisdictional boundaries, including the identification, coordination and allocation of population, housing and employment projections, and the identification of targets for intensification and redevelopment before settlement area boundaries can be expanded. Policy 1.2.4 is of particular relevance: “Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall: a. identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier municipalities. Allocations and projections by upperWatson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 77 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-5 tier municipalities shall be based on and reflect provincial plans where these exist; b. identify areas where growth will be directed, including the identification of nodes and the corridors linking these nodes; c. identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or any of the lower-tier municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.8; d. where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, identify density targets for areas adjacent or in proximity to these corridors, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.8; and e. identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries." In the past, decisions related to population and employment projections throughout Frontenac County have been left, to a large degree, to the Area Municipalities. As a result of the 2005 (now superseded by the 2014 PPS), Frontenac needs to coordinate population projections and undertake a process whereby projected growth is allocated to the Area Municipalities. Employment Areas The PPS promotes economic development by encouraging a mix of employment uses, including industrial, commercial and institutional uses and by enabling a municipality to define and designate “employment areas,” which may only be redesignated as part of a comprehensive review. Employment lands are defined in the PPS as “…including but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, office and associated retail and ancillary facilities.” Policy 1.3.2.2 is as follows: “Planning authorities may permit conversion of lands within employment areas to non-employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion.” In Frontenac, employment is strongly linked to the tourism, service and resource sectors. Accordingly, policies related to employment growth and non-residential land uses must be made with this in mind.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 78 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-6 Housing The PPS requires that planning authorities maintain the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification, redevelopment and other designated and available lands within a regional market area. In addition, affordable housing targets for the regional market area are required to be established by the upper tier municipality. The term “regional market area” is defined as “…an area, generally broader than a lower tier municipality, that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. In southern Ontario, the upper or single-tier municipality will normally serve as the regional market area…” Excerpts from Policies 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 are contained below. 

1.4.1 “To provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area, planning authorities shall: a. maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development; and b. maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a 3 year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft approved and registered plans.”



1.4.2 “Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality: a. the land and unit supply maintained by the lower-tier municipality identified in policy 1.4.1 shall be based on and reflect the allocation of population and units by the upper-tier municipality; and b. the allocation of population and units by the upper-tier municipality shall be based on and reflect provincial plans where these exist.”



1.4.3 “Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 79 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-7 a. establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities….” For Frontenac County, the term “regional market area” needs to be examined and defined in consideration of Frontenac’s context. In this regard, it would not be reasonable to place Marysville and Plevna in one regional market area, as the two communities are located well over 100 kms from one another and are separated by a driving/ferry time of approximately 1.5 hours. As a result, there is little to no social or economic interaction between these two communities. Servicing – Sewage and Water The 2014 PPS clarifies a sewage and water servicing hierarchy which needs to be considered when accommodating development within the County’s settlement areas. According to the 2014 PPS, Section 1.6.6.2 identifies that: “Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas. Intensification and redevelopment within settlement areas on existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services should be promoted, wherever feasible.” With the exception of Sydenham, which has water servicing, the County’s settlements are not municipally serviced. Given the limited population base, tax assessment base, and forecast growth rates, providing full municipal servicing to the County’s settlement areas is likely cost prohibitive and not anticipated for the foreseeable future. Having regard for this local context, the PPS identifies in Section 1.6.6.3: “Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not provided, municipalities may allow the use of private communal sewage services and private communal water services.” In the absence of municipal or private communal servicing, Section 1.6.6.4 addresses the use of private individual servicing: “Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, these services may only be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development.”

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 80 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-8 The new 2014 PPS allows for infill and minor “rounding out” in settlement areas on septic tanks and wells where sewer and water services are not provided but it does need to be demonstrated that the development on private servicing will not negatively impact surface and ground water. The PPS does not define minor “rounding out” but for lower growth communities in the County, accommodating new residential growth on private servicing is likely appropriate under the requirements of the PPS. For larger-scale developments, local municipalities will need to assess the need to provide municipal servicing or require private communal servicing to be provided. Other PPS Matters Overall, the fact that the PPS is based on traditional growth assumptions and permanent population growth, largely based on experiences in southwestern Ontario needs to be recognized. In this regard, further analysis, which is beyond the scope of this study, needs to explore, whether the PPS asks the most relevant and important questions related to growth management, especially when dealing with rural, seasonal and retirement related growth in Frontenac County that does not fit into the traditional permanent population growth scenario of urban areas.

5.2

Area Municipalities

There are four Area Municipalities in Frontenac County: the Township of South Frontenac, the Township of Central Frontenac, the Township of North Frontenac and the Township of Frontenac Islands. All have detailed Official Plans which conform to the directions of the Planning Act and 2005 PPS. In particular, the Plans reflect the need for a balance between growth and the protection of the natural environment. The following summarizes key directions in the Area Municipal Official Plans with respect to growth management.

5.2.1 Township of South Frontenac The Township of South Frontenac Consolidated Official Plan was approved on March, 2003. As set out in Section 1.0 of the South Frontenac OP the purpose of the Plan is to: “provide a vision, goals, objectives and policies to direct the physical development of the Township of South Frontenac while having regard for relevant social, economic and environmental matters.” Township of South Frontenac OP does not provide explicit direction regarding long-term population and employment growth trends. However, it does provide policy direction regarding settlement patterns and land use. The relevant policies are briefly summarized below.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 81 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-9 Residential Policies Section 5.6 of the South Frontenac OP directs the majority of new growth in the municipality to existing settlement areas where growth can be supported by appropriate servicing. The settlement areas designation recognizes the areas of population concentrated in and around Sydenham, Harrowsmith, Verona, Inverary, Sunbury, Battersea, Hartington, Bellrock, Petworth, Perth Road, Railton, Wilmer and Spaffordton. It is the municipality’s intention that new lot development in Settlement Areas will generally occur by plan of subdivision. However, a maximum of three severances may be permitted from a lot of record existing on the day of adoption of the OP by Council where it is demonstrated that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of land and will not limit such development by plan of subdivision. Rural Area Section 5.7 of the OP sets out the policies within South Frontenac with respect to rural development. Generally, the amount and type of development in the Rural area shall be consistent with maintaining its rural, natural heritage and cultural landscape. Commercial Policies Section 5.6.3 of the OP sets out the policies related to commercial development within South Frontenac. New commercial uses shall be encouraged to locate in proximity to existing commercial establishments to foster the development of commercial cores. Industrial Policies Sections 5.6.4 and 5.7.6 set out the policies related to industrial and rural industrial development within South Frontenac. Industrial uses generally shall be located on major arterial or collector roads, although Council may give consideration to the use of other public roads where they are satisfied that not suitable alternative locations are available.

5.2.2 Township of Central Frontenac The Township of Central Frontenac Official Plan was approved on June 18, 2008. The planning period for the OP is intended to be approximately 20 years (2000-2020). Over this time period, the Plan projects a potential population increase of 1,687 based on a projected growth rate of 1.5% per year. This translates to a permanent population base of 6,584 by 2020, excluding seasonal population.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 82 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-10 Settlement Patterns As set out in Section 7.5 of the OP, future growth will occur primary through waterfront residential development. Within this rural setting there are several urban communities. The Plan establishes two categories of settlement areas:

1. Village Hamlet and Cross Road Settlement Areas; and
2. Rural Area. Of the Village Hamlet areas, Sharbot Lake (village) is the largest and offers the most extensive scope and mix of land uses and public services. Parham, Mountain Grove and Arden are hamlets which provide a more limited range of services to surrounding inhabitants. There are a number of predominantly residential cross road communities which round out the settlement pattern (Tichborne, Piccadilly, Henderson, Elm Tree, Crow Lake). The role of these urban settings will be to provide a basic level of commercial and public service uses which caters to local residents and the tourist industry. Within Village Hamlet and Cross Road Settlement Areas plans of subdivision will be utilized as the primary method for new residential development. Development by means of consent (no limit) may be permitted where this is deemed to be an appropriate and efficient means of development. Rural Area Within the Rural Area, the Plan provides for a supply of land for rural residential and recreational oriented land uses. Rural residential includes both permanent and seasonal land uses. As previously identified, a major focus of development in the rural area will be on lake front residential development in the many lakes and water bodies within the Township. The Plan also provides for development in other parts of the rural area as well. Commercial and Industrial Section 3.5.2 of the Central Frontenac OP sets out land use policies and principles related to commercial uses. Sharbot Lake is designated as a commercial district with a range of commercial uses such as retail stores and personal service uses. Section 3.5.3 further establishes land use policies and principles for the Township’s Employment Districts. The Employment District is intended to be developed as an economic hub where a cluster of employment uses is encouraged. These uses may include a mix and a range of commercial, industrial and institutional uses and associated ancillary uses which are designed to meet the long-term employment needs of the community and to encourage tourism.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 83 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-11

5.2.3 Township of North Frontenac The Township North Frontenac Official Plan was approved on December 23, 2003. The planning period for the OP is intended to be approximately 20 years (2001-2021). As set out in Section 2.0 of the North Frontenac OP the purpose of the Plan is to: “…guide and direct future growth in a logical and orderly manner, to protect existing development from the adverse effects, which may arise from incompatible development, and to help avoid the errors of the past so as to ensure a healthy growth, which will benefit all residents of the Township.” The Plan provides for a population growth rate of 1.2% per annum over the next 10-20 years for permanent residents and 1.3% per annum for seasonal residents based on a 10-year average growth rate between 1991 and 2001. With respect to housing, it is an objective of the OP to provide for a range of housing types, which meet the existing, and future needs of a largely rural population. The OP does not provide population or housing estimates beyond 2006. With respect to existing economic conditions, the OP identifies that the economic base of the Township has shifted from a resource-based economy to a service-based economy. There is virtually no industrial activity and the commercial/industrial assessment base is less than 5% of the total assessment value of properties within the Township. Future economic growth potential within the Township is largely centred around eco-tourism, destination travel, and small business development (i.e. telecommuting information industries). Council recognizes that home based business are an important component of the economic base of the community and are the genesis of job creation and the provision of goods and services to local and regional markets. Home based businesses shall be encouraged as a means of providing local services, to providing an incubator for new businesses and as a means to providing more specialized services to a broader clientele. Urban Land Use Policies The Plan encourages infill residential development within its fourteen Hamlet Settlement Areas, namely, Ardoch, Cloyne, Coxvale, Fernleigh, Harlowe, Mississippi Station, Myers Cave, Ompah, Plevna, Canoto, Donaldson, Robertsville, Snow Road Station and Wilbur. Within these Hamlet Settlement Areas, commercial uses which service the needs of residents and the traveling public and tourism industry are permitted. Light and medium service type industries which provide services and/or products for the immediate area are also permitted within Hamlet Settlement Areas.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 84 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-12 Rural Area Within the Rural area, the Plan provides for a supply of land for a diversity of traditional and evolving rural uses. To maintain the rural character of the area, residential development will occur on large lots, which can be adequately serviced with on-site water and sewage disposal services.

5.2.4 Township of Frontenac Islands The Township of Frontenac Islands’ most recent five year Official Plan review (Official Plan Amendment #3) was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on May 28, 2013, with proposed changes to the Rural designation and private roads policies still being subject to an ongoing appeal. The policies and maps contained in this OP cover the planning period to the year 2020. As set out in Section 1.3 of the Plan, the general purpose of this Plan is to: “provide a comprehensive document to guide and direct the use of land in the Township of Frontenac Islands throughout the planning period.” The plan is intended to undergo a comprehensive review every five years. The Township’s vision embraces the concept of sustainable development through land use decisions that integrate human needs with the natural and built environment. To fulfil this vision, future development will be encouraged within existing settlement areas which is contiguous to existing development. The Township’s two main islands have displayed markedly different growth patterns. Howe Island has shown rapid growth in permanent residential population. Much of this growth appears to be through conversion of existing cottages to permanent occupancy. The OP review document identifies that to sustain this growth new development areas will be required on Howe Island. On the other hand Wolfe Island has had very little population growth during the same period, which is believed to be largely due to its lack of accessibility in comparison to Howe Island. The OP review predicts that Frontenac Islands will grow between 2.5% and 3% per year over the planning period. By 2011, the population is forecast to reach between 2,100 and 2,150 by 2011, driven almost exclusively by in-migration from the greater Kingston area. The OP review also adds that population growth on Frontenac Islands will be depended on employment generation elsewhere in the surrounding market area coupled with lifestyle choices of people who are currently employed in the greater Kingston area but who choose to live on the Islands.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 85 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-13 With respect to housing form, the range of housing types and densities is limited on the Islands. The predominance of low density single detached dwellings, however, is expected to continue. The OP review recommends the following housing mix over the planning period: 

Low Density (singles, two-unit housing, converted) – 70-80%;



Medium Density (triplexes and row or town housing) – 10-15%;



High Density (Apartments) – 5-10%.

In terms of the location of growth, the OP review identifies that most of the new residential growth will occur in waterfront areas. There will also be considerable construction of existing lots of record that are currently vacant in rural areas of the waterfront. The improvement of Ferry Service to both Islands has dominated municipal discussions. Most recently, the Municipality has decided to explore a fixed link for Howe Island. A decision regarding the improvement to the Ferry Service for Wolfe Island will depend on an Environmental Assessment undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation designed to examine and quantify current operational characteristics of the Ferry Service to determine future transportation needs. Settlement Areas The largest settlement area in the Municipality is Marysville on Wolfe Island. Current sewer and water services rely on individual, private services. The dominant form of development has been shoreline related. Much of the most suitable shoreline has been developed. The OP review recommends that future development should be by means of plans of subdivision and should be directed to the extension of existing clusters. Growth in permanent residential development has been and will likely continue on the basis of either conversion of existing cottages, development of exiting vacant lots and severances in the Rural area. Rural Areas Agriculture is recognized as an important component of the economic base, a source of employment and the basis for a rural way of life. Therefore, it is the intent of this Plan to protect land suitable for agricultural production from scattered development and land uses which are unrelated to agriculture. The Township will direct limited non-farm growth to the Rural areas provided it will not interfere with or limit existing farm activity in the Rural designation. The development of land in the Rural areas will be primarily by consent to a land severance.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 86 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

5-14 Commercial Development The OP review for the Township of Frontenac Islands requires that all new commercial uses and the expansion of existing commercial uses shall proceed subject to the approval of a zoning by-law amendment and to site plan control, in order to establish the arrangement and density of development. Home Based Businesses Home occupations based businesses will be encouraged as a means to strengthen the economic base of the community and shall be permitted in all designations that permit residential uses. Home based businesses centered on art galleries and studios are considered to be a defining element of the Municipality’s character. A branding feature of the municipality is its reputation as an artist friendly community. Home occupations based businesses shall be permitted provided compatibility with surrounding uses is ensured. Specific regulations for home occupations based businesses may be included in the implementing Zoning By-law or through controls under the Municipal Act (e.g. number and types of businesses, floor space, signage, parking, hours of operation, storage).

5.3

Conclusions

The directions of both provincial and local planning policy are aimed at building economically strong, complete communities which are well balanced between population and employment, but also support a healthy and sustainable natural environment. At both the provincial and local level, growth is directed to settlement areas which are serviced with municipal infrastructure. Looking forward, there are a number of economic indicators which suggest that growth pressures will continue throughout Frontenac County, given the County’s proximity to the City of Kingston and the attractiveness of its rural and recreational areas to a broad range of demographic groups (i.e. families, empty nesters, seniors). On the other hand, the County and its Area Municipalities face a number of challenges regarding their ability to influence and direct the amount, type and location of future development. While both provincial and local planning policies direct growth to settlement areas, the available planning tools to implement policy direction are limited. Looking ahead, without a considerable investment in urban infrastructure services, it appears unlikely that future development patterns (i.e. urban vs. rural location, density) will change significantly over the next 25 years as a result of policy direction.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 87 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6. REGIONAL AND LOCAL GROWTH DRIVERS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 88 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6-1

REGIONAL AND LOCAL GROWTH DRIVERS

This chapter provides an investigation of population and employment growth drivers for Frontenac County from a regional and local perspective. A broad range of considerations related to demographics, economics, socio-economic and infrastructure are anticipated to drive future growth throughout Frontenac County over the 2011 through 2036 planning period. These factors will not only impact the rate and magnitude of growth but will also influence the form, density and location of residential and employment development.

6.1

Regional Growth Drivers

6.1.1 Population Growth Trends for the Broader Surrounding Eastern Ontario Economic Region Table 6-1 summarizes forecast annual permanent population growth for Frontenac County (including the City of Kingston) and the surrounding area within Eastern Ontario from 2012 to 2036 in accordance with the 2013 Ministry of Finance (MOF) population projections. Based on the most recent MOF projections, Frontenac County’s population is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 1% per year. Comparatively, this is well above the annual population growth rates of the surrounding other upper-tier municipalities including Hastings, Lennox & Addington and Leeds & Grenville and moderately below the City of Ottawa. It is important to note that MOF forecast excludes seasonal population growth, which when added, may increase absolute growth levels further for Frontenac County and other surrounding municipalities with are expected to experience growth in their seasonal population base. Table 6-1 Summary of Frontenac County and Surrounding Municipalities’ Population Growth, 2012-2036 Municipality

2012

City of Ottawa Frontenac County (Including Kingston) Hastings County (Including Quinte West and Belleville) Lennox and Addington Leeds and Grenville Province of Ontario

2036

919,620 1,313,410 156,060 198,190 134,790 132,900 42,030 43,420 103,190 106,090 13,505,900 17,371,800

Annual Growth 2012-2036 16,410 1,755 -80 60 120 161,080

Annual Growth Rate 2012-2036 1.50% 1.00% -0.06% 0.14% 0.12% 1.05%

Source: Ministry of Finance Population Projections, Spring 2013

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 89 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6-2 As mentioned previously, proximity to the Kingston area employment market is one of the primary drivers of permanent population growth in Frontenac County, especially for the Township of South Frontenac and the Township of Frontenac Islands. Furthermore, competitive prices for large lot single detached housing is also a key draw to Frontenac County for both working families, empty nesters and seniors. Over the next 25 years, population growth in the 55+ age group is anticipated to be a major contributor to the County’s demand for new housing (both permanent and seasonal), largely driven by the aging of the local population and population in nearby urban Centres as well as major Ontario City/Regions such as the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and the Ottawa region. These issues are discussed in greater detail in section 6.1.3.

6.1.2 Kingston Area Economic Growth Table 6-2 summarizes labour force growth trends over the past 12 years (2000-2012 for the Kingston Census Metropolitan Area (CMA).9 Over this historical period the Kingston CMA has experienced steady labour force growth with an annual average growth rate of 1.8%. Despite the recent economic slowdown across the Province and more locally in the Kingston Area, a number of employment sectors have experienced steady to strong labour force growth within Kingston CMA over the past six years (i.e. 2006-2012). For example, employment sectors such as professional, scientific and technical services, finance, insurance, real estate and leasing as well as public administration have all experienced an average annual labour force growth rate of greater 1.5% since 2006. Looking forward, it is these “knowledge-based” sectors which are anticipated to drive future employment growth and housing development throughout the Kingston Area over the next 25 years. As the provincial economy continues to shift from traditional “goods producing” sectors to “service producing” sectors, an increasing share of employment growth within the City of Kingston will occur in “knowledge-based” employment. Examples of such employment include health sciences, professional and scientific services, business services, as well as other population serving sectors, namely retail and accommodation/food services. In turn, the continued expansion of the Kingston area employment market is expected to be a major draw for new housing development within Frontenac County, especially for the municipality of South Frontenac.

9

Kingston CMA includes the City of Kingston, Township of Frontenac Islands, Loyalist Township and South Frontenac Township. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 90 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

6-3

Table 6‐2 Kingston CMA Labour Force Survey Estimates 2000 ‐ 2012 Figures Expressed in Thousands (000’s)

Change

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Total employed, all industries Goods‐producing sector Agriculture Forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil and gas Utilities Construction Manufacturing Services‐producing sector Trade Transportation and warehousing Finance, insurance, real estate and leasing Professional, scientific and technical services Business, building and other support services Educational services Health care and social assistance Information, culture and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services Public administration

65.2 11.6 x x x 3.8 6.5 53.6 8.2 1.7 3.1 3.1 2.6 10 9.3 2.6 3.9 3.7 5.6

71.5 11.7 x x x 3.9 6.6 59.8 11.2 2.1 3.4 3.2 2.4 9.5 9.5 3.2 5.3 3.2 6.8

71.4 12.4 x x x 5 6.5 59 10.1 2.2 3.1 3 2.5 8.8 11.1 3.4 5.4 3.2 6.3

72.6 12.5 x x x 5 6.1 60.1 10.4 2.1 3.9 2.8 3.5 8.3 11 2.9 6.2 2.6 6.5

73.3 10.7 x x x 4.4 5.2 62.6 10.8 3 3.1 3 3.8 9 10.5 2.9 6.7 3.8 5.9

75.1 11.7 x x x 4.5 6.1 63.4 10.6 2.1 3.3 3.2 3.8 10.9 10.7 2.7 5.7 3.2 7.1

77 11 x x x 4.3 5.8 66 10.9 2.4 4.2 3.2 3.6 12.1 11.2 3.1 6.4 2.9 6.1

78.6 10.3 x x x 3.9 5.2 68.2 11.4 2.4 4.3 2.8 4 10.8 12.2 3.4 6.8 2.7 7.4

80.5 10.9 x x x 4.9 5 69.6 11 2.3 4 3.3 3.7 12.6 12.4 3.2 6.4 2.9 7.8

79.7 9.9 x x x 4.5 4.2 69.8 12.3 2.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 10.3 13.4 3 6.2 4 7.2

77.1 11.2 x x x 4.7 4.7 65.8 11.3 2.4 3.5 3.8 2.9 11.2 11.9 2.5 5.7 3.8 6.9

79.5 10.7 x x x 4.5 4.5 68.8 10.8 2.7 4.8 3.7 3.5 10.7 12.7 3.2 6.6 2.4 7.7

80.6 11.2 x x x 4.8 4.7 69.4 11.9 3 4.7 4.7 3.2 11 11.8 2.7 6.7 2.9 6.8

Annual Labour Force Growth Rate

00 ‐ 06 06 ‐ 12 00 ‐ 12

00 ‐ 06

06 ‐ 12

00 ‐ 12

11.8 ‐0.6

3.6 0.2

15.4 ‐0.4

2.8% ‐0.9%

0.8% 0.3%

1.8% ‐0.3%

0.5 ‐0.7 12.4 2.7 0.7 1.1 0.1 1.0 2.1 1.9 0.5 2.5 ‐0.8 0.5

0.5 ‐1.1 3.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.5 ‐0.4 ‐1.1 0.6 ‐0.4 0.3 0.0 0.7

1.0 ‐1.8 15.8 3.7 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.6 1.0 2.5 0.1 2.8 ‐0.8 1.2

2.1% ‐1.9% 3.5% 4.9% 5.9% 5.2% 0.5% 5.6% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 8.6% ‐4.0% 1.4%

1.9% ‐3.4% 0.8% 1.5% 3.8% 1.9% 6.6% ‐1.9% ‐1.6% 0.9% ‐2.3% 0.8% 0.0% 1.8%

2.0% ‐2.7% 2.2% 3.2% 4.8% 3.5% 3.5% 1.7% 0.8% 2.0% 0.3% 4.6% ‐2.0% 1.6%

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 282-0112 - Labour force survey estimates (LFS) Employment by census metropolitan area based on 2006 census boundaries and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), annual (persons).

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing & Employment Projections .docx

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 91 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

AgendaItem#11a)

6-4

6.1.3 Population Growth of 55+ Age Group Population growth of the 55-74 population (i.e. baby boomers and younger seniors) across Ontario will continue to be a key driver of permanent and seasonal housing in Frontenac County over the next 25 years. For the Province of Ontario as a whole, the 55+ age group is projected to increase from 27% in 2011 to 41% in 2036. This translates into approximately 2.43 million people, or roughly 63% of the total population growth in Ontario from 2012 to 2036 (refer to Appendix B). The source of net migration to Frontenac County within the 55-74 age category will largely to be from existing residence within the City of Kingston, which is also anticipated to age similar to the Province as a whole. In addition, as a portion of the 55-74 population with major urban areas across Ontario such as the GGH and the City of Ottawa approach retirement, an increasing share of net migration is expected from these areas. Opportunities for affordably priced, low-density housing, combined with access to recreation and the rural country-side offer an attractive quality of life which is especially appealing to those nearing retirement or entering into their retirement years. It is anticipated that net migration from this demographic group will be strongest during the next ten years, followed by a gradual slowdown as a larger percentage of the population across the Province reaches 75+ years of age. While net migration levels in the 75+ age group are anticipated to be minimal or even negative, the level of population growth within this age group is expected to be significant over the next 25 years as the County’s local “baby boom” population continues to age. Given the diversity of the 55-74 and 75+ population age groups with respect to age, health, mobility, income and housing preferences, etc., future housing demands in Frontenac County within the broad 55+ demographic group are anticipated to vary considerably. Based on our review of forecast demographic and economic conditions in Frontenac County, two broad, but distinct, housing markets are emerging within the 55+ age group, including: 1.

Active Adults/Young Seniors’ (55-74 Years of Age)

Key characteristics include: 

Typically empty-nesters and younger seniors;



Higher average disposable income (as compared to population 20-54 years of age);



Housing preferences towards specific residential communities, which can be geared to adult lifestyle or recreational development;



Housing demand from within this demographic/market group will be generated from both existing and new residents (i.e. in-migration);

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 92 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6-5 

The greatest housing impact is anticipated to occur over the short- to medium-term (i.e. next 5-15 years), as the first wave of the “baby boom” population approaches retirement age to 75 years old;



A considerable portion of this housing market category will also be comprised of seasonal dwellers.

Older Seniors/Dependant Retirees (75+ Years of Age)

Key characteristics include: 

Older seniors (i.e. average 75+);



Generally living on low to moderate fixed-incomes;



Many residents will age-in-place, however, a portion will also require assisted living or full-time care (i.e. seniors’ housing);



An increasing number of permanent residents living in the rural areas of the County will look to the settlement areas of Frontenac or larger urban centres outside of the County as a place for retirement given the amenities and services that these urban areas provide (i.e. access to available commercial and community services such as local shopping, hospital and health care facilities, community centres, places of worship, etc.);



A portion of these rural residents will also require assisted living or full-time care;



Demand within demographic/market group will be primarily driven from the aging of the local population base, as opposed to in-migration;



Community services, design and density will directly support or inhibit the lifestyles of these older adults; and



Growth from this demographic group is anticipated to be greatest during the post 2021 period, as an increasing percentage of the baby boom population base reaches 75+ years of age.

6.1.4 Highway 7 Corridor Study Improvements and expansions to regional and local infrastructure can have a major influence on the rate of population and employment growth within a given municipality. Future improvements to the Highway 7 corridor from Peterborough to Carleton Place will enhance access to Frontenac County from both the GTA/Peterborough from the west and Ottawa-Carleton from the east. From the west, the proposed Highway 407 extension to Highway 115 south of Peterborough is expected to influence future travel demand along the Highway 7 corridor. Of particular significance is the potential impact on the seasonal housing market throughout the corridor.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 93 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6-6

6.1.5 Conversions of Seasonal Dwellings to Permanent Housing As previously discussed, Frontenac County has a large seasonal housing base, which is forecast to steadily increase over the next 25 years. Within Frontenac County, the municipalities of Central and North Frontenac have the largest seasonal population base and are anticipated to experience the majority of the County’s seasonal population growth. The attractiveness of Frontenac County for seasonal housing has a rather unique impact on population growth, which is typically not experienced in municipalities where seasonal housing is not predominate. First, it places increasing demands on local/regional services and amenities (i.e. roads, recreation facilities, libraries, marinas, retail, etc.) during the peak summer season as the seasonal population (and extended families) continued to grow. Secondly, it adds to the permanent population growth rate over time as a portion of seasonal residents choose to live permanently at the “cottage” for an extended/indefinite period of time. The result is that the permanent population growth rates continue to be inflated between Census periods as members of the seasonal population choose to become permanent residents. Over the next 25 years, the conversion of seasonal dwellings to permanent housing units is anticipated to be a key driver of permanent population and housing growth in Frontenac County.

6.1.6 Increased Opportunities for Work at Home Employment As of 2011, it was estimated that approximately 33% of the overall Frontenac employment base worked from home. Comparatively, the 2011 provincial average for work at home employment is approximately 8%. Over the 2011-2036 period, Frontenac is projected to retain its comparatively higher proportion of work at home employment, largely due to improved telecommunication technology and increased opportunities related to telecommuting in commercial and institutional employment sectors.

6.1.7 Favourable Mortgage Interest Rates As of December, 2013 the prime interest in Canada was 3.00%. Over the next five years, forecast interest rates are anticipated to increase moderately, but will likely continue to remain well below historical averages experienced in the 1980’s and 1990’s, which is expected to continue to drive demand within both the permanent and seasonal housing market across Frontenac County.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 94 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

6-7

6.2

Local Growth Drivers

The proximity to the Kingston area employment market will not only be a key driver regarding the magnitude of population growth, it will also strongly influence the location of permanent population and housing growth at the local municipal level. Accordingly, local municipalities such as the Township of South Frontenac and the Township of Frontenac Islands have experienced the highest rates of permanent population growth. Subject to potential urban/rural housing supply opportunities and infrastructure capacity (i.e. municipal water, provincial and County roads, ferry service, etc.) these local municipalities are expected to continue to experience the highest permanent population growth rates moving forward over the next 25 years. Local urban/rural housing opportunities and residential/non-residential land supply opportunities will be explored in detail in Chapter 7 (supply analysis). This analysis will provide additional insights with respect to the allocation of both population and employment growth by local municipality and by urban vs. rural area.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 95 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

7. FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY ON VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LANDS IN FRONTENAC COUNTY

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 96 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

7-1

FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY ON VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LANDS IN FRONTENAC COUNTY

7.1

Introduction

The following Chapter summarizes the potential for new urban and rural housing development on vacant developable designated urban residential lands within Frontenac County. A detailed analysis of the County’s future housing supply potential on underutilized residentially designated lands (i.e. intensification) has not been prepared as part of this study. The County’s future urban housing supply potential has been summarized by development status for each Area Municipality. The County also has a large supply of rural lands located on vacant rural lots of record. In addition, new rural lots are anticipated to be generated over the growth forecast period through consent (refer to Section 7.4).

7.2 Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Figure 7-1 provides a summary of the potential housing developments within proposed plans of subdivision/condominium across Frontenac County. Map 7-1 geographically illustrates the location of the proposed plans. Figure 7-1 gives an indication of the market choice for new residential development in plans of subdivision/condominium with respect to location, type and number of units available. It also provides some insight regarding the short-term demand for housing in Frontenac County by local municipality. Key observations include:  a total of 233 potential housing units are potentially available on vacant lots within proposed and draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium throughout the County;  all of the potential plan of subdivision/condominium housing supply within Frontenac County is in the form of low-density housing (i.e. single detached);  approximately 73% of the housing supply in the proposed plans of subdivision/ condominium is available within the Township of South Frontenac; and  105 (or 45%) of the 233 proposed residential developments identified are available within designated settlement areas. The remaining development applications are located outside designated settlement areas.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 97 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

7-2 Figure 7-1 Frontenac County Potential Housing Supply in Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Remaining Vacant Housing Units

Proposed No. of Housing Units Dwelling Type

Subdivision/Condominium

Development Status

Inside Settlement Area

Total Total Housing HighHousing Units Density ³ Units South Frontenac

LowDensity ¹

MediumDensity ²

Cranberry Cove

13

0

0

13

13

Circulation commenced, awaiting receipt of agency comments

Outside settlement area

Collins Lake

10

0

0

10

10

Draft Approved May 2011

Outside settlement area

Willowbrook Estates

16

0

0

16

16

Proposed to replace Inverary Business Park subdivision. Preconsultation May 2012

Inverary

Sands Road Subdivision

15

0

0

15

15

Draft Approved in effect July 2013

Battersea

Zanet Subdivision

11

0

0

11

11

Pre-consultation meeting held in December 2009. Hydrogeological pre-consultation October 2012.

Outside settlement area

Sunbury Subdivision

24

0

0

24

24

Pre-Consultation Meeting held in Jan. 2011. Application anticipated Fall 2013

Sunbury

Hartington Subdivision

50

0

0

50

50

Pre-consultation January 2013. Submission expected Spring/Summer 2013

Hartington

Applewood Condominium

22

0

0

22

22

Pre-consultation Winter 2014. Submission expected Spring 2014

Outside settlement area

Johnston Point Condo

10

0

0

10

10

Pre-consultation Winter 2014. Submission expected Spring 2014

Outside settlement area

24

Approved by County Council in September 2012. Appealed to the Outside OMB October 2012. Appeal settlement area withdrawn January 2013. Draft approval in effect January 29, 2013

33

Application being revised due to issues with phosphorous budget report. Public meeting anticipated Spring 2013.

Outside settlement area

5

5

Pre-consultation summer 2013

Outside settlement area

233

233

Central Frontenac

Kennebec Lake Subdivision

24

0

0

24

North Frontenac

Ardoch Lake Subdivision

33

Nokomis Lodge

5

Total Housing Supply Potential

233

0

0

33

Frontenac Islands

0

0

Source: Frontenac County, 2014

1. Includes single and semi‐detached units.
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 98 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

7-3

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 99 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

7-4

7.3

Vacant Residential Lands within Designated Settlement Areas

As previously identified in Chapter 5, it is a policy goal of each local OP within Frontenac County to encourage new residential development in designated settlement areas of the County. Further, the PPS also directs new residential development to settlement areas in order to promote their vitality and regeneration. While it is beyond the scope of this assignment to provide a detailed supply analysis for each of the designated settlement areas within Frontenac County, a high-level review of vacant residential lands within designated settlement areas was provided based on GIS-based data supplied by the County. This review indicated that the County had a total inventory of 2,569 gross Ha (6,349 gross acres) of vacant lands designated as settlement area in the Township Official Plans (including farmland designated as settlement area). With respect to the geographic location of these lands, approximately 58% of these lands are identified in South Frontenac. The remaining vacant lands are primarily located in North and Central Frontenac. Lastly, the supply of designated vacant land is relatively limited and fragmented in the Township of Frontenac Islands. Figure 7-2 Frontenac County Summary of Vacant Designated Land with Settlement Areas (including Farmland Designated as Settlement Area)

Municipality North Frontenac Central Frontenac South Frontenac Frontenac Islands Total Source: Frontenac County, 2014

7.4

Total Vacant Designated Lands (Including Farmland Designated as Settlement Area) ‐ Hectares 646.5 411.3 1,498.1 13.4 2,569.3

Percentage of Total Vacant Land within Settlement Areas 25% 16% 58% 1% 100%

Rural Lot Supply

Based on our review of proposed plans of subdivision within the rural area, historical trends regarding building permit (new units only), consent activity, and discussions with Frontenac County, it appears that the County’s supply of vacant rural lots of record and waterfront lots is not constrained within any Area Municipalities of Frontenac. As such, it is anticipated that a significant share of future housing development will occur within the rural area, similar to historical trends.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 100 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8. COUNTY-WIDE POPULATION GROWTH SCENARIOS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 101 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-1

COUNTY-WIDE POPULATION GROWTH SCENARIOS

8.1

Introduction

The following chapter explores a total of three long-term population growth scenarios for Frontenac County. Each growth scenario has been developed based on varying assumptions related to the key drivers of future population and employment growth within the County and surrounding area, as discussed in Chapter 6.

8.2

Forecast Population Growth within the City of Kingston

In order to properly assess future population growth within Frontenac County, it is important to understand the population and employment growth potential for the City of Kingston. Figure 8-1 summarizes the City of Kingston base case growth projection from 2011 to 2036, which was developed Meridian Planning Consulting in association with The Centre for Spatial Economics (C4SE) in 2013.10 The City of Kingston is forecast to have a population of approximately 148,050 in 2036. The City of Kingston 2013 Projections (base case projection) also identifies a target of a total of 565 net new jobs per year between 2011 and 2036, for a projected total of 14,130 new jobs by 2036. Figure 8-1 City of Kingston Population Projection Forecast, 2011-2036 Base Case Growth Projection City of Kingston Medium Case Growth Projection

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2011-2041

123,410

129,870

135,720

141,900

147,960

148,050

142,850

19,440

Source: City of Kingston and Kingston CMA Population, Housing, and Employment Projections, 2013

Historically, Frontenac County has experienced a steady increase in its share of population relative to the City of Kingston. As illustrated in Figure 8-1, the ratio of Frontenac County to City of Kingston population has increased from approximately 20% in 1981 to 22% in 2011, peaking at 23% in 2006.

10

City of Kingston and Kingston CMA Population, Housing and Employment Projections. Meridian Planning and The Centre for Spatial Economics, September, 2013.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 102 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-2 Figure 8-2 Frontenac County Percent Share of Frontenac County to City of Kingston, 1981-2011 25.0% 24.0% 22.7%

23.0%

22.0% 22.0% 21.1%

21.4%

21.0% 20.0%

19.6%

19.4%

1981

1986

19.0% 18.0% 1996

2001

2006

2011

Source: Statistics Canada Census, 1981-2006. 2011 estimate derived by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

Over the next 25 years, it is expected that the ratio of Frontenac County to City of Kingston population will remain steadily around 22%, given the County’s attractiveness to families, empty-nesters and retirees. Furthermore, the potential conversion of existing seasonal dwellings throughout Frontenac County to permanent residences is also expected to add to the County’s permanent population base. Based on a Frontenac County to City of Kingston population ratio of approximately 22%, permanent population for Frontenac County is forecast to reach approximately 33,200 by 2036.11 While the above assumptions regarding Frontenac’s ratio of population growth to the City of Kingston need to be tested against the anticipated drivers of population growth within the County, this analysis provides a useful starting-point to discuss future population growth potential within Frontenac County. The following sections further explore the factors which are anticipated to contribute to future population growth within Frontenac County.

11

Includes an upward adjustment for the net Census undercount of approximately 2.5%.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 103 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-3

8.3

Kingston Employment as a Driver of Future Population Growth within Frontenac County

8.3.1 City of Kingston Employment Growth As previously mentioned, one of the primary growth drivers of future permanent population growth within Frontenac County is the potential for future employment opportunities within the City of Kingston for Frontenac County residents. Figure 8-3 summarizes the current number of residents within Frontenac County who commute to the City of Kingston for employment, based on 2011 Census data. Key observations include: 

In total, approximately 6,770 Frontenac residents commute to the City of Kingston for employment;



Of this total, 24% work in the industrial sector, 34% work in the commercial sector and the remaining 42% work in the institutional sector;



Overall, approximately 10% of the total land-based jobs in Kingston are held by Frontenac County residents; and



Approximately 17% of the industrial jobs in the City of Kingston are held by residents of Frontenac County. On the other hand, Frontenac residents hold approximately 9% of both the City’s commercial and institutional jobs. This suggests that industrial jobs in Kingston are a key draw to Frontenac residents in terms of the percentage of Frontenac commuters per industrial job in Kingston. The stronger draw of Kingston’s industrial sector to Frontenac County residents is due to the fact that industrial jobs are typically higher paying on average than jobs in the commercial/institutional sector. Industrial jobs also typically offer greater potential for full-time employment. Figure 8-3 Frontenac County Commuting Share Analysis for City of Kingston

Primary

15

0.2%

125

0.2%

Share of Frontenac Commuters to City of Kingston 12.1%

Industrial

1,614

23.8%

9,690

14.5%

16.7%

Commercial

2,307

34.1%

25,370

38.0%

9.1%

Institutional

2,835

41.9%

31,505

47.2%

9.0%

Total

6,771

100.0%

66,690

100.0%

10.2%

Employment Sector

Frontenac Commuters to City of Kingston

Kingston Employment (less work at home)

Source: Statistics Canada, 2011

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 104 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-4 Over the next 25 years (i.e. 2011-2036), it is reasonable to assume that a portion of future City of Kingston jobs will be held by Frontenac County residents. However, as the regional economy continues to shift from the traditional industrial sector to the service sector, it is anticipated that the percentage of Kingston jobs held by Frontenac County residents may decline slightly. As previously identified, the City of Kingston recommended employment forecast assumes an average of 565 net new jobs per year from 2011 to 2036 for the City of Kingston. This represents a total of 14,130 net new jobs for the City of Kingston. As summarized in Figure 8-4, assuming that just over 9% of these jobs are held by Frontenac County residents, a total of approximately 1,310 new commuters would be attracted to Frontenac County over the next 25 years. Figure 8-4 Estimated Commuters from Frontenac County To the City of Kingston, 2011-2036 (Based on City of Kingston Medium Employment Scenario)

Kingston Employment Forecast 2011-2036 Total Employment

Estimated Jobs/Commuters Associated with Kingston Jobs from Frontenac

14,130

Percentage of Kingston Job Growth

1,310 9.3%

Source: Employment Forecast prepared by Meridian Planning Consulting

8.3.2 Local Employment Growth in Frontenac County As previously discussed in Chapter 4, the County’s 2011 employment base was approximately 3,900, of which the majority of existing jobs are related to commercial and institutional sectors (i.e. retail, tourism, government services, education services). Of this total, approximately 1,450 (55% of the County’s total jobs) were held by local Frontenac County residents. An additional 1,290 jobs (33% of the County’s total jobs) were classified by Statistics Canada as “work at home.” The remaining 12% of the jobs across Frontenac County are held by in-commuters who live outside the County. The County currently has a relatively low employment activity rate (i.e. ratio of jobs to population) of 14%, largely due to its lack of an industrial base and proximity to the City of Kingston for shopping, personal services and amenities. Excluding “work at home” employment, the County’s employment activity rate was less than 10% in 2011. An increasing employment activity rate trend means that absolute employment levels are growing faster than

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 105 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-5 the population base. Conversely, a declining employment activity rate means that employment growth is growing slower than the population base. Over the next 25 years, it is anticipated that Frontenac County’s land-based employment activity rate will increase slightly, largely driven by employment growth in retail and tourism services to serve the growing permanent and seasonal population base. The County is also expected to experience moderate employment growth in the industrial sector, which historically has been experiencing a steady decline. While the County’s existing industrial base is limited, modest industrial development is anticipated within the industrial sectors such as utilities and construction, wholesale trade, small scale manufacturing and energy. Frontenac County is also expected to experience modest growth in the institutional sector. As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the population of Frontenac County is aging, similar to many Ontario municipalities. As such, the need for health care and other services which support the seniors’ population base is anticipated to grow over the forecast period. Conversely, it is anticipated that there will be a gradual decline in the demand for educational services as the forecast population growth rate of school-age children continues to diminish. It is expected that job growth within Frontenac County will be slow to steady over the next 25 years. Much of the local job growth within the County is expected to be in response to permanent and seasonal population growth within the County and surrounding area. In addition, the number of residents within the County which work from home is expected to steadily increase. As previously addressed in Chapter 5, many of the Area Municipal Official Plans encourage the development of home-based business or “work at home” employment. Looking forward over the next 25 years, the employment activity rate (i.e. jobs per population) associated with “work at home” employment is expected to steadily increase. This increase is anticipated to be primarily driven by the transition of the economy towards the service sector and “knowledge-based” economy, combined with continued improvements to telecommunications and communication technology. Figure 8-5 summarizes the forecast employment activity rates for the County from 2011 to 2036 by major employment sector. “Work at home” employment has been isolated in this table to specifically illustrate forecast trends in this employment category. Over the next 25 years, the County’s ratio of total employment to population (i.e. employment activity rate) is expected to increase modestly over the long term, assuming a moderate decline in the County’s industrial and institutional employment activity rate offset by a gradual increase in the “work at home” and commercial employment activity rate.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 106 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-6 Figure 8-5 Frontenac County Employment Activity Rate Forecast, 2011-2036 Year

Permanent Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2036

Activity Rate Primary

Work at Home

Industrial

Commercial

Institutional

Total

27,200

0.4%

4.7%

1.7%

4.0%

3.5%

14.4%

28,600 29,900 30,900 31,700

0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

4.9% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%

1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%

4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1%

3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%

14.5% 14.2% 14.7% 14.7%

32,400 5,200

0.4% 0.0%

5.5% 0.8%

1.6% -0.1%

4.1% 0.1%

3.0% -0.5%

14.6% 0.3%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Population and Employment figures have been rounded.

Using the employment activity rate approach, Figure 8-6 summarizes the resulting employment growth by major employment sector. Over the 2011-2036 period, the County’s employment base is forecast to increase from approximately 3,900 in 2006 to 4,740 by 2036. This represents an increase of approximately 830 employees from 2011 to 2036, of which approximately 490 (or 59%) are in the “work at home” employment category. The remaining 41% of jobs (approximately 340 employees) forecast for the County are anticipated within the commercial sector and, to a lesser extent, industrial and institutional sectors throughout the County in designated commercial, institutional and employment areas. Figure 8-6 Frontenac County Employment Activity Rate Forecast, 2011-2036 Year

Permanent Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Employment Primary

Work at Home

Industrial

Commercial

Institutional

Total

2011 2016

27,200

116

1,290

463

1,096

940

3,906

28,600

122

1,401

515

1,144

972

4,154

2021

29,900 30,900

128 132

1,495 1,638

478 525

1,196 1,267

957 989

4,254 4,551

2031 2036

31,700

135

1,712

539

1,300

983

4,669

32,400

138

1,782

518

1,328

972

4,738

2011-2036

5,200

22

492

55

232

32

832

2026

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Population and Employment figures have been rounded.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 107 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-7

8.4

Forecast Population Trends by Major Age Group

The following section explores forecast population growth trends within Frontenac County by major age group.

8.4.1 Population Growth of 15-64 Age Group One of the primary objectives of the analysis carried out in Section 8.3 was to provide a basis for projecting the growth of the adult population (age 15-64) in permanent households over the next 25 years. Collectively, out-commuters to the City of Kingston and live/work employees within Frontenac County (both home-based and land-based) represent the County’s employed labour force. As summarized above, forecast growth potential between 2011 and 2036 within these three categories is as follows: 2011-2036 Labour Force Growth

1. Frontenac Commuters to the City of Kingston
2. Live/work Employment in Frontenac County
3. Work at Home Employment Total Potential Growth in Employed Labour Force

1,310 240 490 2,040

As explained in Chapter 2, labour force growth potential represents the primary driver of net migration for working age persons and their families. This analysis, has been used to support the net migration assumptions by age across the 19-64 age groups.

8.4.2 Population Growth of Seniors (65+ Population Age Group) Unlike the 19-64 population age group, which will be fuelled by net migration (largely supported by job growth (both locally and in the City of Kingston)), the population growth of seniors will be largely driven by the aging of existing Frontenac County residents. Figure 8-7 summarizes the County’s existing population by single year of age based on an estimated 2011 population derived from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. As of 2011, close to 30% of the County’s existing population was between 45 and 65 years of age, typically referred to as the “baby boom” generation born between 1946 and 1964. The children of the baby boomers, “baby boom echo,” born between 1980 and 1992, also represent a large component of the County’s population base (approximately 20% in 2011). Looking forward, this generation over the forecast period is anticipated to be a key driver of local housing demand as well as municipal services geared toward families. Figure 8-8 summarizes the impacts of aging this age group forward 30 years to 2036, excluding in- or out-migration. The results of this analysis indicate that, given the County’s existing age structure which is strongly weighted by persons between 45 and 65 years of age, the County will experience steady significant Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 108 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-8 population growth in the 65+ population. This is anticipated to place significant demands on the need for seniors’ housing as well as social services to support the growing population base of seniors. Figure 8-7 Frontenac County Population by Single Year of Age, 2011

600

500

Population

400

300

200

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 50 Age Group

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90+

Source: 2011 Census and Forecast estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Population figures include the Net Census Undercount Adjustment.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 109 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-9 Figure 8-8 Frontenac County Forecast Population by Single Year of Age (Excluding Net Migration), 2011-2036 600

Forecast “babyboom” peak population in 2036

500

Population

400

300

200

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 2011

40

45 50 Age Group

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

2036 (no migration)

Note: Excludes 90+ population age group.

8.4.3 Population Growth of Children (0-15 Age Group) Population growth of the County’s youth (0-15 age group) is anticipated to be modest over the next 25 years as a result of the following demographic/economic factors: 

Average fertility rates (average births per female) for Frontenac County have gradually declined over the past 20 years from 1.49 to 1.30; and



As the County and Provincial population base continues to age, the proportion of women of child bearing age is anticipated to gradually decrease;

8.5

County-wide Permanent Population Growth Scenarios

The following section explores three growth scenarios based on forecast net migration trends by age, using the cohort-survival population forecast methodology discussed in Chapter 2. For each scenario, net migration is assumed to be the primary driver of forecast population growth.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 110 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-10 Forecast net-migration trends by age are based on a combination of historical patterns and the growth drivers explored in the previous sections. The cohort-survival analysis also addresses forecast population growth within the County related to natural increase (i.e. births less deaths). This component of population growth is anticipated to have less of an influence on future population growth compared to net migration, as lower births per population are offset by increased deaths from an aging population. A key strength of the cohort-survival population forecast methodology is that it provides specific details regarding the forecast population by age and gender.

8.5.1 Historical Demographic Trends, 1991-2011 As summarized in Chapter 3, total net migration for Frontenac County over the 1991-2011 period totalled approximately 5,300 or approximately 265 persons per year. During this 20-year period, the County’s net migration levels have significantly fluctuated, with its strongest migration periods experienced during 1991-1996 and 2001-2006, and its lowest periods of migration between 1996 and 2001, and 2006 and 2011. Figure 8-9 summarizes net migration to Frontenac County by single year of age based on the 2011 Census. As shown graphically below, during the 2006-2011 period, net migration in Frontenac County was heavily weighted by the 25-64 age group. In accordance with historical trends, it is anticipated that the 25-64 age group will continue to play a key role regarding net migration for Frontenac County. Historically, net migration has been the primary driver of permanent population growth across the County, accounting for 86% of historical population growth over the past 15 years. Looking forward, net migration is anticipated to account for over 100% of the County’s population growth over the next 25 years, as the average number of deaths gradually surpasses the number of births over the forecast period. Additional details are provided in Appendix C regarding historical and forecast fertility rates, births, mortality rates and deaths over the 1991-2036 period.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 111 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-11 Figure 8-9 Frontenac County Historical Net Migration by Single Year of Age 2006-2011

200

150

Population

100

50

(50)

(100) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 50 Age Group

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90+

Source: 2011 Census and Forecast estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Population figures include the Net Census Undercount Adjustment.

Since net migration is the determinant factor regarding future population growth, three long-term net migration scenarios have been developed building on historical trends and the growth drivers identified in Sections 8.3 and 8.4.

8.5.2 Frontenac County Forecast Net Migration Trends Figure 8-10 provides three long-term net migration scenarios for the County between 2011 and 2036. As previously identified, forecast net migration levels in Frontenac County are anticipated to be driven by the following: 

a steady rate of forecast job growth for the City of Kingston;



local job growth within Frontenac County (including home-based businesses); and



the County’s attractiveness to empty-nesters (i.e. 55-64) as a retirement/semi-retirement destination.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 112 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-12 Under each net migration scenario, the proportion of net migrants by age is expected to remain relatively constant. Similar to historical net migration trends, the bulk of net migration in Frontenac County is forecast with the 25-64 age group. Additional details regarding forecast net migration for each growth scenario is provided in Appendix C. Figure 8-10 Frontenac County Historical vs. Forecast Annual Net Migration by Major Age Group

Age Group

Historical Annual Net Migration 1991-2011

Forecast Annual Net Migration, 2011-2036 Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

90

51

68

81

19-34

76

69

93

108

35-44

76

54

72

86

45-54

29

15

19

25

55-74

3

9

12

14

75+

(11)

(14)

(18)

(19)

Total

264

184

246

295

Source: Historical Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division, forecast estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

Age Group

Historical Percentage of Annual Net Migration 1991-2011

Forecast Percentage Annual Net Migration, 2011-2036 Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

34.2%

27.6%

27.5%

27.6%

19-34

28.8%

37.6%

37.7%

36.5%

35-44

28.7%

29.3%

29.3%

29.0%

45-54

11.1%

8.0%

7.9%

8.4%

55-74

1.2%

5.0%

5.0%

4.9%

75+

-4.1%

-7.5%

-7.4%

-6.4%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Source: Historical Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division, forecast estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 113 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-13

8.5.3

Frontenac County Population Growth Scenarios

Figures 8-11 and 8-12 summarize the population growth scenarios which result from the three net migration forecasts outlined in Figure 8-10. Figure 8-13 graphically illustrates the change in forecast population for the Medium Growth Scenario by major age group. Lastly, Figure 8-14 graphically summarizes absolute population growth related to the Medium Growth Scenario by major age category. In total, three population scenarios are provided including a low, medium and high forecast. Key observations include: 

The County’s 2036 permanent population is forecast to reach a low of 31,400 to a high of 34,500 persons;



Respectively, this represents an annual growth rate between 0.5% and 0.9%;



This represents a population increase between approximately 3,600 and 6,700 persons between 2011 and 2036, while the medium growth forecast generates an increase of approximately 5,300 persons;



Comparatively, the City of Kingston’s and Province of Ontario’s annual population growth forecast between 2011 and 2036 is 0.7% and 1.1%, respectively;12, 13



Each of the three growth scenarios forecast that the County’s population will steadily age due to the high concentration of forecast population growth anticipated to occur in the 45+ age group;



As previously identified, permanent population growth in the 55+ category is largely associated with the aging of the existing population base. To a lesser extent, positive net migration of young seniors (i.e. 55-64 age group) is also anticipated to slightly accelerate this trend;



Over the 2011-2036 forecast period, the County’s 55+ population age group is forecast to steadily rise from 30% to 36% of the total population; and



Comparatively, the Province’s population as a whole is forecast to age at a similar rate to Frontenac County.

Additional details regarding each of the forecast population growth scenarios are provided in Appendix D.

12 City of Kingston and Kingston CMA, Population, Housing and Employment Projections. Meridian Planning and C4SE, September 2013. 13 Ministry of Finance Population Projections, Spring 2013.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 114 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-14 Figure 8-11 Frontenac County Summary of Growth Scenarios Forecast Population by Major Age Group, 2036 Forecast Population, 2036 Age Group Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

5,360

5,760

6,110

19-34

5,020

5,340

5,490

35-44

3,880

4,170

4,500

45-54

5,480

5,940

6,260

55-74

7,150

7,480

7,680

75+

4,530

4,520

4,490

Total

31,420

33,210

34,530

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

Forecast Percentage of Population, 2036 Age Group Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

17.1%

17.3%

17.7%

19-34

16.0%

16.1%

15.9%

35-44

12.3%

12.6%

13.0%

45-54

17.4%

17.9%

18.1%

55-74

22.8%

22.5%

22.2%

75+

14.4%

13.6%

13.0%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 115 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-15 Figure 8-12 Frontenac County Summary of Growth Scenarios Forecast Population Increase by Major Age Group, 2011-2036 Forecast Population Increase, 2011-2036 Age Group Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

130

530

890

19-34

(1,600)

(1,280)

(1,130)

35-44

390

680

1,010

45-54

1,280

1,740

2,050

55-74

950

1,280

1,480

75+

2,400

2,380

2,350

Total

3,550

5,330

6,650

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Note: Numbers have been rounded.

Forecast Percentage of Population Increase, 2011-2036 Age Group Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

0-18

3.7%

9.9%

13.4%

19-34

-45.1%

-24.0%

-17.0%

35-44

11.0%

12.8%

15.2%

45-54

36.1%

32.6%

30.8%

55-74

26.8%

24.0%

22.3%

75+

67.6%

44.7%

35.3%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.,2014 Note: Numbers have been rounded.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 116 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-16 Figure 8-13 Frontenac County (Medium Growth Scenario) Population Composition by Major Age Group, 2006-2036 100%

4.6%

7.7%

7.0%

8.9%

10.7%

12.4%

13.6%

90% 23.3%

22.2%

Percentage of Population

80%

23.7%

23.7%

22.7%

22.0%

22.5%

70% 17.1%

15.1%

60% 50%

12.5%

16.1%

13.4%

13.9%

12.3%

13.5%

30%

16.4%

22.8%

17.9%

75+ 55-74 45-54

16.9%

18.1%

40% 22.4%

16.5%

15.5%

12.6%

35-44 20-34 0-19

18.2%

14.8%

14.1%

14.9%

20.0%

20.2%

19.4%

18.5%

2021

2026

2031

2036

20% 10%

22.6%

20.1%

19.3%

2006

2011

2016

0%

Year

Source: 2006 Census. 2011 population derived from 2011 Census and MPAC housing data. Forecast estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

Figure 8-14 Frontenac County (Medium Growth Scenario) Forecast Population Increase by Major Age Group, 2011-2036 3,000 2,380

2,500 2,000

1,740 1,280

1,500 1,000

680

530

500 ‐ (500) (1,000) (1,280)

(1,500) 0‐18

19‐34

35‐44

45‐54

55‐74

75+

Age Group Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 117 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-17

8.6

County-wide Housing Forecasts

8.6.1 Housing Growth Scenarios Based on the population growth scenarios summarized above, a housing forecast was generated for each growth scenario using a headship rate forecast (i.e. number of household maintainers or heads of households by major population age group). Forecast headship rates by major age group are based on an extrapolation of historical headship rates applied to the County’s forecast population by age. Over the 2011-2036 period, average headship rates are forecast to gradually increase. This increase is due to the gradual decline in average housing occupancy levels or the average number of persons per unit (PPU) of Frontenac County households expected over the next 25 years. This PPU trend is largely due to the aging of the County’s population and is common across all Ontario municipalities. The allocation of housing growth by dwelling type was determined based on a review of historical demand (both building permits and propensity of housing type by age discussed in Chapter 3), potential housing units in the development approvals process, and discussions with County and local staff regarding recent housing market trends and future prospects by type. For each Growth Scenario, future housing growth is anticipated to be dominated by low-density housing (i.e. single and semi-detached units) given the lack of municipal water and sewer services throughout the County. Currently, the Settlement Area of Sydenham is the only area which offers municipal water supply services. The remaining settlement areas within the County are serviced by private well and municipal septic systems. Given the lack of municipal water and sanitary services within the County, future housing growth is expected to continue in the form of low-density, single-detached units. Figure 8-15 summarizes the average annual permanent housing growth forecast from 2011 to 2036 in comparison with average annual historical Census housing growth over the past 20 years (excluding cottages). Figures 8-16 and 8-17 summarize total and incremental forecast housing units over the 2011-2036 planning horizon for each of the three Growth Scenarios. Key observations include: 

By 2036, the County’s permanent housing stock is forecast to reach between 13,070 and 14,365 total units, which represents an average growth rate of 95-147 housing units per year (including net conversions from seasonal units to permanent units);



For all three housing growth scenarios, the annual rate of forecast housing growth is anticipated to be strongest during the 2016-2021 period, followed by a gradual tapering off of annual housing development during the post 2021 period due to the aging of the population.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 118 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-18 Figure 8-15 Frontenac County Summary of Total Permanent Housing Scenarios Average Annual Housing Growth, 2011-2036

Historical Average Annual Housing Growth 1981-2011 (Census)

Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

121

147

162 95 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.,2014

Figure 8-16 Frontenac County Summary of Total Permanent Housing Scenarios Total Permanent Housing Units Year

Low Growth Scenario

Medium Growth Scenario

High Growth Scenario

2006 10,260 10,260 2011 10,700 10,700 2036 13,070 13,725 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.,2014

10,260 10,700 14,365

Figure 8-17 Frontenac County Summary of Total Permanent Housing (Medium Growth Scenario) Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Year

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

Housing Units Singles & Semi- Conversions Detached Net

Multiple

Apartments

2

Dwellings

Total Households

Other

8,760 9,765

27,190

27,900

10,180

100

255

160

10,695

2.61

2.61

28,600 29,900

29,300 30,700

10,795 11,420

65 130

105 115

260 265

160 160

11,385 12,090

2.59 2.57

2.57 2.54

Mid 2026 Mid 2031

30,900

31,700

11,975

205

125

270

160

12,735

2.53

2.49

31,700

32,500

12,425

290

135

285

160

13,295

2.50

2.44

Mid 2036

33,200 2,400 500

12,825 1,005 415

375

150 -25 10

295 40 10

160 65 0

13,805 1,085 435

2.47

2.40

Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011

32,400 2,247 532

Mid 2011 - Mid 2016

1,410

1,400

615

65

5

5

0

690

Mid 2011 - Mid 2021

2,710

2,800

1,240

130

15

10

0

1,395

Mid 2011 - Mid 2026 Mid 2011 - Mid 2031

3,710 4,510

3,800 4,600

1,795 2,245

205 290

25 35

15 30

0 0

2,040 2,600

50

40

0

3,110

Mid 2011 Mid 2016 Mid 2021

Mid 2011 - Mid 2036 5,210 5,300 2,645 375 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 2.5%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded.
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

95 160

9,175 10,260

Person Per Unit (PPU)

25,000 27,400

Mid 2006

205 245

Person Per Unit (PPU) Excluding Conversions 2.72 2.67

24,411 26,658

Mid 2001

115 90

3

2.72 2.67

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 119 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-19

8.7

Preferred Permanent Population and Housing Growth Scenario

Each Growth Scenario described above is based on a range of assumptions related to total net migration, net migration by age, births and deaths. As previously discussed, forecast net migration is largely driven by growth in the local and regional economy, as well as the County’s attractiveness to empty-nesters and seniors. In turn, population growth creates demand for new housing across the County, which is then allocated by local municipality in the following Chapter. The growth forecast model adopted by Watson & Associates allows these various growth inputs to be adjusted to test the sensitivity of inputs and the reasonableness of the outputs against historical growth trends and the identified drivers of future growth. The population and housing scenarios explored in Sections 8.5 and 8.6 represent the potential range of future growth which can be anticipated for the County over the next 25 years. Based on our review, the Medium Growth Forecast represents the most reasonable growth forecast scenario for Frontenac County for the following reasons:

1. It represents a reasonable future ratio of population relative to the City of Kingston in comparison to historical trends over the past 25 years;
2. The level of population growth in the 15-64 population age is reasonable given forecast job growth in the local and regional economy;
3. Forecast net migration levels exceed historical trends over the past 15 years, but are reflective of steady growth in the local and regional economy plus the attractiveness of the County to empty-nesters and young seniors as a retirement/semi-retirement destination; and
4. The forecast level of annual housing growth required to accommodate the Medium Growth Scenario is moderately lower than historical building permit trends (new units only) issued across the County over the past 20 years. In accordance with the above, the Medium Growth Scenario is recommended as the preferred growth forecast. As such, the Medium Growth Scenario represents the most reasonable forecast to be allocated at the local municipal and sub-municipal level within the County.

8.8

Seasonal Population and Housing Growth

Seasonal housing accounts for a significant component of the County’s total housing base, accounting for approximately 43% of total dwelling units as of 2011. As outlined in Chapter 6, the County’s proximity to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the Greater Ottawa Region and the City of Kingston continues to be a major driver of seasonal population growth.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 120 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-20 Over the next 25 years, an average of approximately 30 new seasonal housing units are forecast to be developed annually, totalling approximately 750 new seasonal units over the forecast period. Notwithstanding the steady forecast of new seasonal housing development over the next 15 years, Frontenac County’s seasonal housing and population base is forecast to only gradually increase over the next 25 years due to the conversion of existing seasonal housing units to permanent dwellings. This trend in seasonal housing and population is consistent with recent trends experienced in Frontenac County, as well as other municipalities in Ontario’s “cottage country” as previously addressed in Chapter 3. Recent trends across Ontario and Frontenac County suggest that seasonal conversions to permanent use have slowed. This is believed to be one of the impacts of the recent global economic downturn which was fuelled by the 2008/2009 U.S. financial crisis. The recent economic downturn has affected many municipalities across Ontario particularly hard. The municipalities of Central Ontario have historically been a key driver of demand for seasonal housing and conversions of seasonal homes to permanent residences over the past several decades in Frontenac County. The recent recession has eroded the wealth of many Ontario households, which in turn is believed to have deferred decisions surrounding the purchase of second homes and retirement/semi-retirement in “cottage country.” Ultimately, this impacts both the demand for new seasonal housing and the net conversion of existing seasonal homes as a permanent place of residence. Over the past year, the global and local economy has been gradually recovering as evidenced by recent economic indicators (i.e. labour force activity, unemployment rate, and stock market trends). In light of the recent economic recovery, it is anticipated that the number of net conversions of seasonal units to permanent use will gradually increase between 2011 and 2021. During the post 2021 period, the number of seasonal conversions is forecast to gradually decline as the aging of the population results in a growing number of housing conversions back to their former seasonal use. Figures 8-18 and 8-19 summarize the annual total housing forecast for Frontenac County (permanent + seasonal) over the 2011-2036 forecast period. Annual housing growth has been compared against historical residential building permits (new units only) less residential demolitions. Key observations include: Seasonal Housing Growth 

On average, a total of 15 existing seasonal housing units are forecast to be converted to permanent housing units every year across the County between 2011 and 2036, which represents approximately half of the average number of new seasonal housing units constructed per year across the County.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 121 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-21 Table 8-18 Frontenac County Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036 Housing Units Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹

Year

Population (Including Census Undercount)

Conversions Net (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Low Density ²

Seasonal

Medium Density³

High Density ⁴

Other

Total

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵

56,790 58,500 60,100

57,500 59,200 60,900

10,180 10,795 11,420

65 130

8,090 8,190 8,280

100 105 115

255 260 265

160 160 160

18,785 19,575 20,370

3.06 3.02 2.99

62,200 63,200 64,200 1,700 3,400 4,700

11,975 12,425 12,825 615 1,240 1,795

205 290 375 65 130 205

8,350 8,410 8,465 100 190 260

125 135 150 5 15 25

270 285 295 5 10 15

160 160 160 0 0 0

21,085 21,705 22,270 790 1,585 2,300

2.95 2.91 2.88

2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026

61,400 62,400 63,400 1,710 3,310 4,610

2011-2031 2011-2036

5,610 6,610

5,700 6,700

2,245 2,645

290 375

320 375

35 50

30 40

0 0

2,920 3,485

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

97.4%

1.4%

1.1%

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

Figure 8-19 Total Frontenac County Historical and Forecast Permanent + Seasonal Units, 2000-2036 350

300 254

250

230

Housing Units

215 199

200

202 175 163 163 163 163 163

162 148

142

150

151 151 151

141

144 144 144 144 144

125 128

124 125 125 125 125 112

115 115 115 115 115

100

50

0

Years Historical

Low Density

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Medium Density

High Density

Seasonal

Historical Average

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 122 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

8-22 

Due to a steady number of seasonal dwellings conversion to permanent households, the seasonal housing base is forecast to increase at a slower rate than expected based on annual construction activity. Over the 25-year forecast period, the seasonal housing base is forecast to increase from approximately 8,100 in 2011 to 8,470 in 2036.

Permanent + Seasonal Housing Growth 

Permanent and seasonal housing growth for Frontenac County is forecast to average approximately 140 units per year;



Demand for both permanent and seasonal housing is anticipated to be strongest during the 2011-2021 period, followed by a gradual reduction in demand during the post 2021 period; and



Comparatively, historical residential building permits (new permanent and seasonal units only) over the past 10 years averaged approximately 180 housing units per year.

Total Permanent + Seasonal Population 

Including the County’s seasonal population base, the total permanent + seasonal population for Frontenac is forecast to reach a total of 64,200 persons by 2036;



This represents a total increase of approximately 6,700 persons from 2011 to 2036, which represents an annual total population growth rate of 0.4%.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 123 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9. ALLOCATION OF COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING AND POPULATION FORECASTS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 124 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-1

ALLOCATION OF COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING AND POPULATION FORECASTS

9.1

Introduction

The following Chapter summarizes the allocation of forecast population and housing growth within Frontenac County by Area Municipality, in accordance with the Preferred Growth Scenario. Similar to the County-wide growth forecast, the allocation of population and housing growth within Frontenac County is anticipated to be driven by the following key growth drivers: 

Future employment opportunities within the City of Kingston and surrounding area for Frontenac commuters;



Live-work potential within Frontenac County;



The County’s attractiveness to empty-nesters and young seniors; and



Future demand for seasonal housing.

Each of the above growth drivers is expected to influence the amount, type and location of future population throughout the County, as discussed in greater detail below. Average annual permanent and seasonal housing growth associated with the population forecast for each Area Municipality is summarized in Appendix F and compared against historical residential building permit activity (less demolitions). While future growth trends are expected to vary considerably amongst each of the Area Municipalities within Frontenac County, each of the local municipalities share a number of relatively common attributes with respect to growth drivers and long-term development trends. These include: Population and Households 

Annual population growth and new housing construction (permanent + seasonal) from 2011 to 2036 is anticipated to be lower in comparison to recent historical averages (i.e. 2001-2011) for all Area Municipalities;



The rate of annual population growth and housing construction (permanent and seasonal) is forecast to peak during the 2011-2021 period and then gradually decline as the County population and provincial population continue to age;



Future housing growth will be dominated by low-density housing forms;



The average PPU for permanent households is forecast to decline from 2011 to 2036. Both the rate and type of housing growth (i.e. families vs. retirees) will have a significant influence on projected PPU levels;

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 125 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-2 

PPU levels for seasonal households are historically higher than permanent households and are anticipated to remain steady at approximately 3.7;14



Construction of new seasonal dwellings is forecast in each Area Municipality. However, for the Townships of South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands, it is anticipated that existing dwellings will be converted to permanent units, which will result in a lower yield of net new seasonal housing growth than what might otherwise be expected.

The distribution of forecast population and housing growth varies considerably by local municipality within Frontenac County. Figures 9-1 and 9-2 summarize the allocation of permanent and total population growth for each of the County’s Area Municipalities. As illustrated below, the largest share of permanent population (approximately 67%) is forecast in South Frontenac. Figure 9-1 Frontenac County Allocation of Permanent Population Growth by Municipality, 2011-2036

14

Seasonal PPU estimate provided by Watson & Associates based on Muskoka District 2009 and 2013 Growth Strategies.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 126 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-3 Figure 9-2 Frontenac County Allocation of Permanent + Seasonal Population Growth by Municipality, 2011-2036

9.2

Growth Outlook for Area Municipalities

The following explores the long-term growth outlook for each of the County’s Area Municipalities. Additional details are provided in Appendix F.

9.2.1 Township of South Frontenac The Township of South Frontenac will continue to attract a large proportion of County-wide permanent population growth largely due to its proximity to the City of Kingston, employment opportunities for commuters and continued local employment growth opportunities. Key observations include: 

South Frontenac’s total permanent population is forecast to reach approximately 22,600 persons by 2036, an increase of 3,600 persons from 2011 to 2036;



The average annual permanent population growth rate for South Frontenac over the 2011-2036 forecast period is projected at 0.7%;



Over the 25-year forecast period, South Frontenac is forecast to average approximately 76 new housing units per year (excluding conversions), of which 96% are anticipated to be low-density housing forms (i.e. single-detached);

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 127 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-4 

Approximately 75% of new permanent housing development is expected to occur in the rural area outside of designated settlement areas;



Demand for new seasonal housing development is expected to be relatively low in South Frontenac, averaging approximately 10 new units per year;



The potential for seasonal housing conversions to permanent use in South Frontenac is anticipated to be fairly strong, averaging approximately 8 net conversions per year; and



Including the seasonal population base, South Frontenac’s total population is forecast to reach approximately 33,800.

9.2.2 Township of Central Frontenac The Township of Central Frontenac will continue to attract a balance of working families and empty-nesters/young seniors. Central Frontenac also offers potential for new seasonal housing construction through its numerous waterfront development opportunities. Key observations include: 

Central Frontenac’s total permanent population is forecast to reach approximately 5,800 persons by 2036, an increase of 900 persons from 2011 to 2036;



The average annual permanent population growth rate for Central Frontenac over the 2011-2036 forecast period is projected at 0.7%;



Over the 25-year forecast period, Central Frontenac is forecast to average approximately 15 new housing units per year (excluding conversions), of which 95% are anticipated to be low-density housing forms (i.e. single-detached);



Approximately 85% of new permanent housing development is expected to occur in the rural area outside of designated settlement areas;



Demand for new seasonal housing development is expected to be steady in Central Frontenac, averaging approximately 9 new units per year;



On the other hand, the potential for seasonal housing conversions to permanent use in Central Frontenac is anticipated to be relatively strong, averaging approximately 6 net conversions per year; and



Including the seasonal population base, Central Frontenac’s total population is forecast to reach approximately 13,500.

9.2.3 Township of North Frontenac Permanent housing demand in North Frontenac will be largely oriented towards emptynesters/young seniors. In addition, North Frontenac is forecast to experience steady growth in its seasonal housing and population base. Key observations include: 

North Frontenac’s total permanent population is forecast to reach approximately 2,300 persons by 2036, an increase of 400 persons from 2011 to 2036;

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 128 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-5 

The average annual permanent population growth rate for North Frontenac over the 2011-2036 forecast period is projected at 0.7%;



Over the 25-year forecast period, North Frontenac is forecast to average approximately 9 new permanent housing units per year, of which 100% are anticipated to be lowdensity housing forms (i.e. single-detached);



Approximately 85% of new permanent housing development is expected to occur in the rural area outside of designated settlement areas;



Demand for new seasonal housing development is expected to be steady in North Frontenac, averaging approximately 10 new units per year;



Including the seasonal population base, North Frontenac’s total population is forecast to reach approximately 12,600.

9.2.4 Township of Frontenac Islands Given its proximity to the City of Kingston via the Wolfe Island and Howe Island ferries, the Township of Frontenac Islands will continue to attract a balance of working families (i.e. commuters to the City of Kingston) and empty-nesters/young seniors. A modest level of new seasonal development is also anticipated for the Township of Frontenac Islands. Key observations include: 

The total permanent population for Frontenac Islands is forecast to reach approximately 2,500 persons by 2036, an increase of 500 persons from 2011 to 2036;



The average annual permanent population growth rate for Frontenac Islands over the 2011-2036 forecast period is projected at 0.9%, which represents the fastest population growth rate of the County’s Area Municipalities;



Demand potential for future population growth potential on the Frontenac Islands is limited by the current capacity of the Wolfe Island and Howe Island ferries;



Over the 25-year forecast period, Frontenac Islands is forecast to average approximately 10 new housing units per year, of which 100% are anticipated to be low-density housing forms (i.e. single-detached);



Approximately 90% of new permanent housing development is expected to occur in the rural area outside of designated settlement areas;



With respect to the allocation of permanent housing growth, approximately 68% of forecast new housing construction is anticipated to occur on Wolfe Island; the remaining 32% of new housing growth is expected to occur on Howe Island;



Demand for new seasonal housing development is expected to be rather minimal on the Frontenac Islands, averaging approximately 1 new units per year;



Seasonal housing conversions to permanent housing on the Frontenac Islands is also anticipated to be rather minimal, at approximately 1 units per year; and



Including the seasonal population base, Frontenac Islands’ total population is forecast to reach approximately 4,300 by 2036, an increase of approximately 500 persons.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 129 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

9-6

9.3

Observations

Market demand for future housing within each of Frontenac County’s four Area Municipalities varies considerably given the expansive geographic area covered by the County. In turn, this impacts the amount and rate of forecast permanent and seasonal population growth by local municipality. For the Townships of South Frontenac and, to a lesser extent, Frontenac Islands, population growth and housing demand is anticipated to be largely driven by the potential for commuters, given the proximity of these municipalities to the City of Kingston. In contrast, permanent housing demand in Central and North Frontenac is anticipated to be relatively modest and more dependent on the potential draw of these municipalities to older working adults, empty-nesters and young seniors. Lastly, forecast seasonal housing demand will continue to be weighted towards both North Frontenac and Central Frontenac.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 130 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

10. CONCLUSIONS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 131 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

10-1

10. CONCLUSIONS Forecasting residential and non-residential growth in Frontenac County is a rather difficult task given the complex nature of the County’s permanent/seasonal population and housing base and lack of accurate 2011 Census data. Furthermore, potential uncertainty exists regarding the identified growth drivers which are expected to influence forecast population and employment growth across the County. As previously identified, future population and housing growth within Frontenac County is dependent in large measure by the following: 

the growth and competitiveness of the regional export-based Greater Kingston Area economy;



the area’s attractiveness to the 55+ age group as a destination for retirement/semiretirement; and



market demand for seasonal housing largely from residents within the Greater Kingston Area, the GGH and the Greater Ottawa Area.

The above factors each contribute to the level of future net migration and housing construction expected across Frontenac County over the next 25 years. The following provides a summary of the key findings of this report with respect to forecast population, housing and employment trends for Frontenac County.

Residential Growth Trends 

Frontenac County’s permanent population base is forecast to increase over the next 25 years, from approximately 27,900 in 2011 to 33,200 in 2036.15 This represents an annual growth rate of approximately 0.7% annually. Comparatively, this represents a comparable forecast annual population growth rate to the City of Kingston, but slightly lower than the Province as a whole.16,17 Two alternative Growth Scenarios were also explored for the County which consider varying levels of forecast net migration for the County. The Low Growth Scenario forecasts that Frontenac County will reach a 2036 permanent population of 31,400, while the High Growth Scenario projects a County-wide permanent population of 34,500 by 2036.



The County’s population is aging slightly more rapidly than the Province of Ontario as a whole. From 2011 to 2036, the percentage of the Frontenac County

15 Population figures include an upward adjustment of approximately 2.5% to account for the net Census undercount. 16 City of Kingston and Kingston CMA, Population, Housing and Employment Projections. 17 Ontario Population Projections Update, 2012-2036, Ontario and its 49 Census Divisions, Spring 2013.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 132 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

10-2 population aged 55+ will increase from 30% to 36%. This trend poses implications regarding both seniors’ housing and affordable housing in Frontenac County. 

The rate of permanent population growth for Frontenac County is forecast to gradually decline over the next 25 years, largely due to the aging of the population. This aging trend will result in a reduction in the average number of persons per housing unit (PPU) which, in turn, will require a modest level of housing growth in each of the County’s settlement areas even to maintain stable population levels.



In terms of the geographic location of population growth, approximately 67% of forecast permanent population growth is anticipated to occur within the Township of South Frontenac. The Township of South Frontenac will continue to attract a large proportion of County-wide permanent population growth due to its proximity to the City of Kingston, employment opportunities for commuters and continued local employment growth opportunities.



Similar to historical population growth trends, the majority of population growth is forecast in the County’s rural areas. This is further evidenced by the location of active plans of subdivision across the County and recent residential lot creation activity throughout the County.



Seasonal housing accounts for a significant component of the County’s total population base, accounting for just over 50% of total base population as of 2011 (43% of the total 2011 housing base). As outlined in Chapter 6, the County’s proximity to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), the Greater Ottawa Region and the City of Kingston continues to be a major source of demand for seasonal population growth in Frontenac.



Including the County’s seasonal population base, the total permanent + seasonal population for Frontenac is forecast to reach a total of 64,200 persons by 2036. This represents a total increase of approximately 6,700 persons from 2011 to 2036.



In spite of forecast new seasonal housing development, Frontenac County’s seasonal housing and population base is forecast to increase only modestly over the next 25 years, due to the net conversion of existing seasonal housing units to permanent dwellings. This trend in seasonal housing and population is consistent with other Ontario municipalities across “cottage country.”

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 133 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

10-3 Employment Growth Trends 

It is expected that job growth within Frontenac County will be slow to steady over the next 25 years, largely driven by employment growth in retail and tourism services to serve the growing permanent and seasonal population base. Much of the local job growth within the County is expected to be in response to permanent and seasonal population growth within the County and surrounding area.



The number of residents within the County who work from home is expected to steadily increase. This increase is anticipated to be primarily driven by the transition of the economy towards the service sector and “knowledge-based” economy, combined with continued improvements to telecommunications and communication technology.



The County is expected to experience modest employment growth in the industrial sector. Potential industrial sectors include utilities and construction, small scale manufacturing and energy.



Over the 2011-2036 period, the County’s employment base is forecast to increase from approximately 3,900 in 2011 to 4,700 by 2036. This represents an increase of 830 employees from 2011 to 2036, of which approximately 59% of job growth is forecast in the “work at home” employment category. The remaining 41% of jobs (approximately 340 employees) forecast for the County are forecast largely within the commercial sector and, to a lesser extent, the industrial and institutional sector.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 134 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REGARDING GROWTH FORECAST METHODOLOGY FOR FRONTENAC COUNTY

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 135 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Population and Housing Forecast Methodology The population and household forecast methodology is based on a combined approach, using W&A’s in-house cohort-survival and housing market-based growth forecasting methodologies. The following provides a discussion on each of the above-mentioned approaches to residential growth forecasting. i)

Household Formation Methodology - This “bottom-up” approach focuses on the rate of historical housing construction in the municipality and surrounding area, adjusted to incorporate factors such as servicing constraints and units in the development process. The population is then forecast by developing assumptions on average household size by unit type, taking into consideration the higher average occupancy of new units, and the decline in persons per unit over time within existing households. The housing market model approach is recognized in the Province’s 1995 “Projection The approach to the Methodology Guidelines,” as the “Simpler Methodology.”1 household formation model is graphically illustrated in Figure A-1.

FIGURE A-1 APPROACH TO HOUSEHOLD FORMATION MODEL

1

Projection Methodology Guideline: A Guide to Projecting Population, Housing Need, Employment and Related Land Requirements, 1995.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Materials\Appendix A\Appendix A - Forecast Methodology.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Appendix

Page 136 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

ii)

Cohort-Survival Forecast Methodology - This “top-down” approach uses, as its base, fiveyear population age groups by sex and ages each group over time, taking into consideration age-specific death rates and age-specific fertility rates for the female population in the appropriate years (to generate new births). To this total, an estimated rate of net migration is added (in-migration to the municipality less out-migration, by age group). The approach to the cohort-survival forecast methodology is graphically illustrated in Figure A-2. FIGURE A-2 COHORT SURVIVAL PROJECTION METHODOLOGY

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Materials\Appendix A\Appendix A - Forecast Methodology.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Appendix

Page 137 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Employment Forecast Methodology As previously discussed in Chapter 2, employment growth can be divided into two main categories

1. “export-based” employment, and 2) “community-based” employment. Watson & Associates approach to employment forecasting uses a number of approaches to forecast long-term “exportbased” and “community-based” employment growth for Frontenac County. The following employment forecast approaches are used in the Frontenac growth model.

1. Employment Activity Rate Method – An employment activity rate, is defined as the number of local jobs in a municipality divided by the resident population. The forecast is based on full-time and part-time employment by place of work, using historical Census data (1996 to 2011) as a base. This approach links future employment trends with forecast population growth (employment activity rates) based on a number of broad based and localized demographic/economic factors. These factors are thoroughly explored throughout Chapters 3 to 5. This approach is identified as the recommended and mostly widely accepted methodology to employment and land need forecasting, as per the 1995 Provincial Projection Methodology Guideline. The activity rate approach is a widely accepted approach to forecasting “community-based” employment. However, this approach is limited in its ability to forecast future employment trends in “export-based” employment sectors. To address this component of the future employment base, both the land absorption or land market method and employment share analysis method are used.
2. Land Absorption or Land Market Method – This “bottom-up approach” to employment forecasting involves studying the way in which the local market has functioned historically by ascertaining the quantity of land consumed (usually on an annual basis). From this analysis, historical annual absorption rates are used as the basis for future land needs. It is important to note that this information must be considered in the context of changing economic conditions and proposed major infrastructure projects.
3. Employment Share Analysis – This “top-down” approach to employment forecasting analyzes the total potential employment growth potential for the broader economic region (based on approved existing forecasts) and allocates a proportion of regional employment local market demand, land availability and infrastructure requirements/servicing capacity. “Export-based” employment is the key employment sector considered in this growth forecast approach. The most current provincially-accepted approach to forecasting employment was developed in the last decade to reflect the broader types of employment in local municipalities. In 1995, as part of a Planning Act review, the Province published a document entitled “Projection Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Materials\Appendix A\Appendix A - Forecast Methodology.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Appendix

Page 138 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Methodology Guideline: A Guide to Projecting Population, Housing Need, Employment and Related Land Requirements” to be used in forecasting population and employment for planning purposes. The employment categories set out in that document are employed as the basis for this forecast, as follows: 

Employment Lands Employment (Basic Jobs) – “jobs that have traditionally been called ‘industrial’ and are found in specifically designated industrial or business parks.” This would include a portion of office commercial employment.



Population-Related Employment (Non-Basic Jobs) – jobs that provide direct services to meet the personal needs of the population, located in commercial and office areas, in residential areas (i.e. local plazas, schools) and, increasingly, in industrial areas (dependent, in part, on zoning provisions). Population-related employment is also further sub-divided into commercial and institutional employment, based on the 1997 NAICS. This category also includes major office commercial employment, which is defined by the Province as free standing office buildings of 2,000 sq. m. (approximately 20,000 sq. ft.) or greater.



Primary and Home-Based Employment – agriculture and resource-based employment, as well as home-based workers.



No Fixed Place of Work (NFPOW) – defined by Statistics Canada as “persons who do not go from home to the same place of work at the beginning of each shift”. Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc. Similar to primary and home-based employment, NFPOW employment is not anticipated to have a significant impact on employment land needs.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Materials\Appendix A\Appendix A - Forecast Methodology.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Appendix

Page 139 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX B MINISTRY OF FINANCE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, SPRING 2013

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 140 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table B-1 Province of Ontario Population by Major Age Cohorts, 2011-2036 Age Cohort 0-19 20-34 35-54 55-74 75+ Total

2012 3,062,500 2,819,900 3,971,510 2,741,960 910,050 13,505,920

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

3,042,400 2,945,680 3,905,620 3,138,190 1,002,320 14,034,210

3,159,260 2,983,860 3,885,820 3,607,460 1,179,650 14,816,050

3,341,100 2,967,510 4,084,840 3,804,190 1,475,650 15,673,290

3,518,290 2,978,080 4,341,390 3,880,880 1,814,050 16,532,690

3,671,040 3,088,480 4,529,140 3,870,390 2,212,760 17,371,810

Source: Sources: Statistics Canada estimates, 2012, and Ontario Ministry of Finance projections, spring 2013 Note: Year as of July 1

Age Cohort

2012

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

0-19 20-34 35-54 55-74 75+ Total

22.7% 20.9% 29.4% 20.3% 6.7% 100.0%

21.7% 21.0% 27.8% 22.4% 7.1% 100.0%

21.3% 20.1% 26.2% 24.3% 8.0% 100.0%

21.3% 18.9% 26.1% 24.3% 9.4% 100.0%

21.3% 18.0% 26.3% 23.5% 11.0% 100.0%

21.1% 17.8% 26.1% 22.3% 12.7% 100.0%

Source: Sources: Statistics Canada estimates, 2012, and Ontario Ministry of Finance projections, spring 2013 Note: Year as of July 1

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 141 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Appendix Materials\Appendix B\Ontario Growth Table

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX C FRONTENAC COUNTY NET MIGRATION ANALYSIS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 142 of 251

AgendaItem#11a)

Table C-1 Frontenac County Net Migration by Major Age Group, 1991-2001

1991-1996

1996-2001

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Males Females Actual % Under 1 (36) (45) (81) -3.7% 1-3 Years 46 54 100 4.6% 4-8 Years 110 129 239 11.0% 9-13 Years 125 40 165 7.6% 14-18 Years 114 87 201 9.2% 19-24 Years (216) (136) (352) -16.2% 25-29 Years (17) 72 55 2.6% 30-34 Years 189 217 405 18.6% 35-39 Years 138 122 260 12.0% 40-44 Years 99 109 208 9.5% 45-49 Years 73 93 166 7.6% 50-54 Years 97 106 203 9.3% 55-59 Years 114 157 272 12.5% 60-64 Years 168 118 286 13.2% 65-69 Years 80 28 109 5.0% 70-74 Years (18) (20) (38) -1.7% 75-79 Years (12) (10) (22) -1.0% 80-84 Years (16) (8) (24) -1.1% 85-89 Years (19) 25 6 0.3% 90+ (3) 19 16 0.7% Total 1,017 1,157 2,173 100.0% Source: Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Females Males Actual % Under 1 46 42 88 13.2% 1-3 Years 94 109 203 30.4% 4-8 Years 88 27 115 17.2% 9-13 Years 63 38 101 15.1% 14-18 Years 72 75 147 22.0% 19-24 Years (322) (284) (606) -90.6% 25-29 Years (92) (36) (128) -19.2% 30-34 Years 172 160 332 49.6% 35-39 Years 82 64 146 21.9% 40-44 Years 62 59 121 18.2% 45-49 Years 76 48 124 18.6% 50-54 Years 115 90 205 30.6% 55-59 Years 80 73 153 22.9% 60-64 Years 49 10 59 8.8% 65-69 Years 3 (36) (33) -4.9% 70-74 Years (51) (35) (86) -12.9% 75-79 Years (57) (74) (130) -19.5% 80-84 Years (61) (33) (94) -14.1% 85-89 Years (29) (9) (39) -5.8% 90+ (13) 3 (10) -1.5% Total 378 291 668 100.0% Source: Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division

2001-2006

2006 - 2011

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Cohort Males Females Actual % Under 1 14 1 15 0.8% 1-3 Years 110 89 199 10.5% 4-8 Years 95 9 104 5.5% 9-13 Years 48 95 143 7.5% 14-18 Years 63 52 115 6.1% 19-24 Years (72) (229) (301) -15.9% 25-29 Years 136 63 199 10.5% 32.4% 30-34 Years 407 207 614 35-39 Years 317 44 360 19.0% 40-44 Years 330 91 421 22.2% 45-49 Years 223 (6) 217 11.4% 50-54 Years 119 7 126 6.6% 55-59 Years 136 47 183 9.6% 60-64 Years 123 42 165 8.7% 65-69 Years (21) (25) (46) -2.4% 70-74 Years (124) (46) (170) -8.9% 75-79 Years (81) (91) (172) -9.1% 80-84 Years (88) (81) (169) -8.9% 85-89 Years (29) (49) (78) -4.1% 90+ (8) (21) (28) -1.5% Total 1,699 197 1,897 100.0% Source: Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Cohort Males Females Actual % Under 1 (5) (10) (15) -2.7% 1-3 Years 7 12 19 3.5% 4-8 Years 47 44 90 16.6% 9-13 Years (6) (25) (30) -5.6% 14-18 Years (40) (70) (110) -20.3% 19-24 Years 58 164 222 40.8% 25-29 Years 187 401 588 108.3% 30-34 Years 158 338 496 91.3% 35-39 Years (29) 55 26 4.8% 40-44 Years (104) 79 (25) -4.6% 45-49 Years (178) (44) (222) -40.8% 50-54 Years (177) (57) (234) -43.1% 55-59 Years (128) (68) (195) -36.0% 60-64 Years (133) (76) (209) -38.5% 65-69 Years (143) (107) (251) -46.2% 70-74 Years (84) (51) (135) -24.9% 75-79 Years (10) 58 48 8.8% 80-84 Years 30 134 165 30.3% 85-89 Years 52 162 214 39.4% 90+ 28 74 102 18.8% Total (469) 1,012 543 100.0% Source: Derived from Statistics Canada, Demography Division

Cohort

Cohort

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Cohort Model Reference Scenario

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Page 143 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table C-2 Frontenac County Net Migration by Major Age Group, 2011-2026

2011-2016 Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Males Females Actual Under 1 4 2 6 1-3 Years 67 67 135 4-8 Years 86 86 172 9-13 Years 39 26 65 14-18 Years (4) (4) (8) 19-24 Years (8) (5) (13) 25-29 Years 187 187 373 30-34 Years 234 234 469 35-39 Years 119 119 237 40-44 Years 119 119 238 45-49 Years (2) (2) (5) 50-54 Years (9) (9) (18) 55-59 Years 3 3 5 60-64 Years 6 4 10 65-69 Years 25 16 41 70-74 Years 20 20 39 75-79 Years (10) (10) (21) 80-84 Years (49) (49) (98) 85-89 Years (74) (111) (185) 90+ (29) (67) (96) Total 722 625 1,347 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Cohort

2016-2021

% 0.4% 10.0% 12.7% 4.9% -0.6% -1.0% 27.7% 34.8% 17.6% 17.7% -0.4% -1.3% 0.4% 0.7% 3.1% 2.9% -1.6% -7.2% -13.8% -7.2% 100.0%

% 0.8% 7.9% 9.3% 4.8% 2.1% -5.0% 15.3% 23.1% 14.1% 15.4% 4.3% 2.1% 3.1% 2.9% 0.2% -1.8% -1.5% 1.6% 2.3% -1.0% 100.0%

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Males Females Actual Under 1 8 5 13 1-3 Years 49 49 98 4-8 Years 56 56 111 9-13 Years 38 25 64 14-18 Years 19 19 38 19-24 Years (45) (30) (75) 25-29 Years 78 78 155 30-34 Years 128 128 256 35-39 Years 70 70 141 40-44 Years 79 79 158 45-49 Years 37 37 74 50-54 Years 20 20 40 55-59 Years 24 24 47 60-64 Years 26 17 43 65-69 Years (4) (2) (6) 70-74 Years (18) (18) (36) 75-79 Years (9) (9) (19) 80-84 Years (8) (8) (16) 85-89 Years (13) (20) (33) 90+ (2) (4) (6) Total 532 516 1,047 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Cohort

% 1.2% 9.4% 10.6% 6.1% 3.7% -7.2% 14.8% 24.4% 13.4% 15.0% 7.1% 3.8% 4.5% 4.1% -0.6% -3.5% -1.8% -1.5% -3.1% -0.5% 100.0%

2031-2036

2026-2031

% 1.1% 8.2% 9.2% 5.4% 3.5% -7.5% 13.8% 23.5% 12.4% 14.1% 8.5% 3.7% 4.7% 4.3% -0.8% -3.9% -1.8% 0.7% 1.0% -0.3% 100.0%

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Cohort Males Females Actual Under 1 10 6 16 1-3 Years 58 58 115 4-8 Years 64 64 128 9-13 Years 46 31 77 14-18 Years 26 26 52 19-24 Years (68) (46) (114) 25-29 Years 100 100 199 30-34 Years 172 172 344 35-39 Years 89 89 179 40-44 Years 102 102 203 45-49 Years 60 60 120 50-54 Years 28 28 55 55-59 Years 36 36 72 60-64 Years 39 26 65 65-69 Years (8) (5) (14) 70-74 Years (30) (30) (60) 75-79 Years (13) (13) (26) 80-84 Years 6 6 11 85-89 Years 9 13 22 90+ (1) (2) (2) Total 723 720 1,443 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

% 1.1% 8.0% 8.9% 5.3% 3.6% -7.9% 13.8% 23.8% 12.4% 14.1% 8.3% 3.8% 5.0% 4.5% -0.9% -4.1% -1.8% 0.8% 1.5% -0.2% 100.0%

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Cohort Model Reference Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 144 of 251

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Cohort Males Females Actual Under 1 8 5 14 1-3 Years 51 51 101 4-8 Years 56 56 113 9-13 Years 40 27 67 14-18 Years 22 22 43 19-24 Years (55) (37) (92) 25-29 Years 85 85 170 30-34 Years 144 144 289 35-39 Years 76 76 153 40-44 Years 87 87 173 45-49 Years 52 52 105 50-54 Years 23 23 46 55-59 Years 29 29 58 60-64 Years 32 21 53 65-69 Years (6) (4) (10) 70-74 Years (24) (24) (48) 75-79 Years (11) (11) (22) 80-84 Years 4 4 8 85-89 Years 5 8 13 90+ (1) (3) (4) Total 617 612 1,230 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

Net Migration Estimates by Age Cohort Total Males Females Actual Under 1 5 4 9 1-3 Years 43 43 86 4-8 Years 50 50 101 9-13 Years 31 21 52 14-18 Years 11 11 23 19-24 Years (33) (22) (54) 25-29 Years 83 83 165 30-34 Years 125 125 250 35-39 Years 77 77 154 40-44 Years 84 84 167 45-49 Years 23 23 46 50-54 Years 11 11 22 55-59 Years 17 17 34 60-64 Years 19 13 32 65-69 Years 1 1 2 70-74 Years (10) (10) (19) 75-79 Years (8) (8) (16) 80-84 Years 9 9 18 85-89 Years 10 15 24 90+ (3) (8) (11) Total 546 539 1,085 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Cohort

2021-2026

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX D FRONTENAC COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH SCENARIOS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 145 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table D-1 Frontenac County Forecast Population by Major Age Group (MEDIUM GROWTH SCENARIO)

Age Group

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2011-2036

2011-2036 Annual Growth Rate

0-18

5,830

5,230

5,380

5,860

6,100

6,020

5,760

530

0.4%

19-34

4,860

6,620

6,960

5,870

5,010

4,900

5,340

(1,280)

-0.9%

35-44

4,400

3,490

4,060

5,190

5,720

5,030

4,170

680

0.7%

45-54

4,680

4,200

3,930

3,780

4,280

5,390

5,940

1,740

1.4%

55-74

6,370

6,200

6,920

7,280

7,200

7,160

7,480

1,280

0.8%

75+

1,250

2,140

2,050

2,720

3,390

4,020

4,520

2,380

3.0%

Total

27,390

27,880

29,300

30,700

31,700

32,520

33,210

5,330

0.7%

Source: 2006 Census. 2011 population base and forecast have been estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Population figures include the Net Census Undercount adjustment. Numbers have been rounded.

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Cohort Model Reference Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 146 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table D-2 Frontenac County Forecast Population by Major Age Group (LOW GROWTH SCENARIO)

Age Group

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2011-2036

2011-2036 Annual Growth Rate

0-18

5,830

5,230

5,260

5,610

5,780

5,670

5,360

130

0.1%

19-34

4,860

6,620

6,790

5,730

4,910

4,720

5,020

(1,600)

-1.1%

35-44

4,400

3,490

3,920

4,890

5,360

4,730

3,880

390

0.4%

45-54

4,680

4,200

3,910

3,650

4,030

5,010

5,480

1,280

1.1%

55-74

6,370

6,200

6,910

7,260

7,130

6,990

7,150

950

0.6%

75+

1,250

2,140

2,130

2,760

3,420

4,030

4,530

2,390

3.0%

Total

27,390

27,880

28,920

29,900

30,630

31,150

31,420

3,540

0.5%

Source: 2006 Census. 2011 population base and forecast have been estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Population figures include the Net Census Undercount adjustment. Numbers have been rounded.

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Cohort Model Low Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 147 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table D-3 Frontenac County Forecast Population by Major Age Group (HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO)

Age Group

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2011-2036

2011-2036 Annual Growth Rate

0-18

5,830

5,230

5,370

5,910

6,280

6,320

6,110

880

0.6%

19-34

4,860

6,620

6,950

5,920

5,120

5,020

5,490

(1,130)

-0.7%

35-44

4,400

3,490

4,050

5,250

5,910

5,340

4,500

1,010

1.0%

45-54

4,680

4,200

3,930

3,790

4,380

5,590

6,260

2,060

1.6%

55-74

6,370

6,200

6,920

7,290

7,240

7,260

7,680

1,480

0.9%

75+

1,250

2,140

2,050

2,730

3,360

3,980

4,490

2,350

3.0%

Total

27,390

27,880

29,270

30,890

32,290

33,510

34,530

6,650

0.9%

Source: 2006 Census. 2011 population base and forecast have been estimated by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Population figures include the Net Census Undercount adjustment. Numbers have been rounded.

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Cohort Model High Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 148 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX E FRONTENAC COUNTY PERMANENT HOUSING GROWTH TABLES BY TYPE

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections.docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 149 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table E-1 Frontenac County (Preferred Growth Scenario) Residential Growth Forecast Summary

Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

Housing Units Singles & SemiDetached

Multiple Dwellings2

Apartments3

Mid 2001 24,411 25,000 8,760 115 205 Mid 2006 26,658 27,400 9,765 90 245 Mid 2011 27,190 27,900 10,180 100 255 Mid 2016 28,600 29,300 10,860 105 260 Mid 2021 29,900 30,700 11,550 115 265 Mid 2026 30,900 31,700 12,180 125 270 Mid 2031 31,700 32,500 12,715 135 285 Mid 2036 32,400 33,200 13,200 150 295 Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 2,247 2,400 1,005 -25 40 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 532 500 415 10 10 Mid 2011 - Mid 2016 1,410 1,400 680 5 5 Mid 2011 - Mid 2021 2,710 2,800 1,370 15 10 Mid 2011 - Mid 2026 3,710 3,800 2,000 25 15 4 510 4 600 2 535 Mid 2011 - Mid 2031 4,510 4,600 2,535 35 30 Mid 2011 - Mid 2036 5,210 5,300 3,020 50 40 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 2.5%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded.
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.

Other 95 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 65 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Households 9,175 10,260 10,695 11,385 12,090 12,735 13,295 13,805 1,085 435 690 1,395 2,040 2 600 2,600 3,110

Person Per Unit (PPU) 2.72 2.67 2.61 2.57 2.54 2.49 2.44 2.40

2/14/2014

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Growth Model 2013 - Jan 14

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 150 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table E-2 Frontenac County (Low Growth Scenario) Residential Growth Forecast Summary

Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

Housing Units Singles & SemiDetached

Multiple Dwellings2

Apartments3

Mid 2001 24,411 25,000 8,760 115 205 Mid 2006 26,658 27,400 9,765 90 245 Mid 2011 27,190 27,900 10,180 100 255 Mid 2016 28,200 28,900 10,785 105 260 Mid 2021 29,200 29,900 11,340 110 265 Mid 2026 29,800 30,600 11,760 120 265 Mid 2031 30,300 31,100 12,155 125 275 Mid 2036 30,600 31,400 12,490 135 285 Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 2,247 2,400 1,005 -25 40 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 532 500 415 10 10 Mid 2011 - Mid 2016 1,010 1,000 605 5 5 Mid 2011 - Mid 2021 2,010 2,000 1,160 10 10 Mid 2011 - Mid 2026 2,610 2,700 1,580 20 10 3 110 3 200 1 975 Mid 2011 - Mid 2031 3,110 3,200 1,975 25 20 Mid 2011 - Mid 2036 3,410 3,500 2,310 35 30 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 2.5%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded.
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.

Total Households

Other 95 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 65 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,175 10,260 10,695 11,310 11,875 12,305 12,715 13,070 1,085 435 615 1,180 1,610 2 020 2,020 2,375

Person Per Unit (PPU) 2.72 2.67 2.61 2.56 2.52 2.49 2.45 2.40

2/14/2014

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Growth Model 2013 - Low Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 151 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table E-3 Frontenac County (High Growth Scenario) Residential Growth Forecast Summary

Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

Housing Units Singles & SemiDetached

Singles & SemiDetached

Conversions Net

Mid 2001 24,411 25,000 8,760 8,760 Mid 2006 26,658 27,400 9,765 9,765 Mid 2011 27,190 27,900 10,180 10,180 Mid 2016 28,600 29,300 10,895 10,830 65 Mid 2021 30,100 30,900 11,710 11,580 130 Mid 2026 31,500 32,300 12,420 12,215 205 Mid 2031 32,700 33,500 13,100 12,810 290 Mid 2036 33,700 34,500 13,740 13,365 375 Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 2,247 2,400 1,005 1,005 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 532 500 415 415 Mid 2011 - Mid 2016 1,410 1,400 715 650 65 Mid 2011 - Mid 2021 2,910 3,000 1,530 1,400 130 Mid 2011 - Mid 2026 4,310 4,400 2,240 2,035 205 Mid 2011 - Mid 2031 5,510 5,600 2,920 2,630 290 Mid 2011 - Mid 2036 6,510 6,600 3,560 3,185 375 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 2.5%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded. 2 Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes

duplexes. 3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.

Multiple Dwellings2 115 90 100 105 115 130 145 160 -25 10 5 15 30 45 60

Apartments3 205 245 255 260 265 275 290 305 40 10 5 10 20 35 50

Total Households

Other 95 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 65 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,175 10,260 10,695 11,420 12,250 12,985 13,695 14,365 1,085 435 725 1,555 2,290 3,000 3,670

Person Per Unit (PPU) 2.72 2.67 2.61 2.57 2.52 2.49 2.45 2.40

2/14/2014

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Growth Model 2013 - High Scenario

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 152 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

AgendaItem#11a)

APPENDIX F FRONTENAC COUNTY LOCAL POPULATION & HOUSING GROWTH FORECASTS

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Employment Projections .docx

2014-101 Population, Housing and

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Report\Frontenac County Population Housing &

Page 153 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-1 Frontenac County Permanent Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)

Housing Units

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

Conversions Singles & Semi- (Net from Detached Seasonal to Permanent) 27,400 9,765 27,900 10,180 29,300 10,795 65 30,700 11,420 130 31,700 11,975 205 32,500 12,425 290 33,200 12,825 375 500 415 1,400 615 65 2,800 1,240 130 3,800 1,795 205 4,600 2,245 290 5,300 2,645 375

Mid 2006 26,658 Mid 2011 27,190 Mid 2016 28,600 Mid 2021 29,900 Mid 2026 30,900 Mid 2031 31,700 Mid 2036 32,400 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 532 Mid 2011 - Mid 2016 1,410 Mid 2011 - Mid 2021 2,710 Mid 2011 - Mid 2026 3,710 Mid 2011 - Mid 2031 4,510 Mid 2011 - Mid 2036 5,210 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

Multiple Dwellings 90 100 105 115 125 135 150 10 5 15 25 35 50

Apartments 245 255 260 265 270 285 295 10 5 10 15 30 40

Other 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Households

Person Per Unit (PPU) ²

10,260 10,695 11,385 12,090 12,735 13,295 13,805 435 690 1,395 2,040 2,600 3,110

2.67 2.61 2.57 2.54 2.49 2.44 2.40

6/13/2014

H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth
Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 154 of 251 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-2 Township of Central Frontenac Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

4,665

4,795

1,780

20

35

1,835

2.61

2011

4,780

4,900

1,925

25

40

1,990

2.46

2016

5,120

5,250

2,050

25

30

40

2,145

2.45

2021

5,280

5,415

2,125

50

30

40

2,245

2.41

2026

5,380

5,515

2,175

80

35

40

2,330

2.37

2031

5,530

5,670

2,230

115

40

45

2,430

2.33

2036

5,650

5,790

2,285

150

40

45

2,520

2.30

2006-2011

115

105

145

5

5

155

2011-2016

340

350

125

25

5

155

2011-2021

500

515

200

50

5

255

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Medium Density

High Density

Total

2011-2026

600

615

250

80

10

340

2011-2031

750

770

305

115

15

5

440

2011-2036

870

890

360

150

15

5

530

2.8%

0.9%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036 Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 155 of 251

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

96.2%

Persons Per Unit²

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-3 Township of Frontenac Islands Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

1,860

1,910

770

10

780

2.45

2011

1,950

2,000

800

10

810

2.47

2016

2,120

2,175

870

5

10

885

2.46

2021

2,225

2,280

920

10

10

940

2.43

2026

2,295

2,355

960

15

10

985

2.39

2031

2,365

2,425

1,000

20

10

1,030

2.35

2036

2,435

2,495

1,040

25

10

1,075

2.32

30

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Medium Density

High Density

Persons Per Unit²

Total

2006-2011

90

90

30

2011-2016

170

175

70

5

75

2011-2021

275

280

120

10

130

2011-2026

345

355

160

15

175

2011-2031

415

425

200

20

220

2011-2036

485

495

240

25

265

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036 Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 156 of 251

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

100.0%

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-3a Howe Island Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

600

615

250

250

2.46

2011

600

615

260

260

2.37

2016

645

660

280

280

2.36

2021

700

720

300

5

305

2.36

2026

710

730

310

5

315

2.32

2031

750

770

325

10

335

2.30

2036

760

780

335

10

345

2.26

10

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Medium Density

High Density

Persons Per Unit²

Total

2006-2011

10

2011-2016

45

45

20

20

2011-2021

100

105

40

5

45

2011-2026

110

115

50

5

55

2011-2031

150

155

65

10

75

2011-2036

160

165

75

10

85

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036 Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 157 of 251

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

100.0%

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-3b Wolfe Island Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

1,300

1,335

520

10

530

2.52

2011

1,350

1,385

540

10

550

2.52

2016

1,475

1,510

590

5

10

605

2.50

2021

1,525

1,565

620

5

10

635

2.46

2026

1,585

1,625

650

10

10

670

2.43

2031

1,615

1,655

675

10

10

695

2.38

2036

1,675

1,715

705

15

10

730

2.35

20

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Medium Density

High Density

Persons Per Unit²

Total

2006-2011

50

50

20

2011-2016

125

125

50

5

55

2011-2021

175

180

80

5

85

2011-2026

235

240

110

10

120

2011-2031

265

270

135

10

145

2011-2036

325

330

165

15

180

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036 Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 158 of 251

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

100.0%

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-4 Township of North Frontenac Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

1,905

1,955

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent) 875

Medium Density

High Density

10

Persons Per Unit²

Total

885

2.21

2011

1,890

1,940

915

10

925

2.10

2016

2,050

2,100

985

10

995

2.11

2021

2,140

2,195

1,035

10

1,045

2.10

2026

2,200

2,255

1,075

10

1,085

2.08

2031

2,230

2,285

1,105

10

1,115

2.05

2036

2,265

2,320

1,135

10

1,145

2.03

2006-2011

(15)

(15)

40

40

2011-2016

160

160

70

70

2011-2021

250

255

120

120

2011-2026

310

315

160

160

2011-2031

340

345

190

190

2011-2036

375

380

220

220

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 159 of 251

Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-5 Township of South Frontenac Permanent Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036 Households Year

Population (Excluding Census Undercount)¹

Population (Including Census Undercount)¹

2006

18,225

18,725

6,490

65

205

6,760

2.77

2011

18,570

19,040

6,695

65

205

6,965

2.73

2016

19,315

19,800

7,045

35

65

210

7,355

2.69

2021

20,250

20,760

7,495

70

75

215

7,855

2.64

2026

21,025

21,555

7,920

110

80

220

8,330

2.59

2031

21,580

22,125

8,245

155

85

230

8,715

2.54

2036

22,050

22,605

8,520

200

100

240

9,060

2.50

2006-2011

345

315

205

205

2011-2016

745

760

350

35

5

390

2011-2021

1,680

1,720

800

70

10

10

890

Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to Permanent)

Medium Density

High Density

Total

2011-2026

2,455

2,515

1,225

110

15

15

1,365

2011-2031

3,010

3,085

1,550

155

20

25

1,750

2011-2036

3,480

3,565

1,825

200

35

35

2,095

1.7%

1.7%

100.0%

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036 Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

1. Census Undercount is estimated at approximately 2.5%.
2. PPU Calculation based on Population Including the Census Undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 160 of 251

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

96.7%

Persons Per Unit²

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-6 Frontenac County Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Seasonal Population

Total Seasonal Households

Persons Per Unit

2011

29,600

8,090

3.66

2016

29,900

8,190

3.66

2021

30,200

8,280

3.66

2026

30,500

8,350

3.66

2031

30,700

8,410

3.66

2036

31,000

8,465

3.66

2011-2016

300

100

2011-2021

600

190

2011-2026

900

260

2011-2031

1,100

320

2011-2036

1,400

375

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 161 of 251

Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-7 Township of Central Frontenac Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Seasonal Population

Total Seasonal Households

Persons Per Unit

2011

7,400

2,020

3.66

2016

7,500

2,040

3.66

2021

7,500

2,060

3.66

2026

7,600

2,075

3.66

2031

7,600

2,085

3.66

2036

7,700

2,095

3.66

2011-2016

100

20

2011-2021

100

40

2011-2026

200

55

2011-2031

200

65

2011-2036

300

75

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 162 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-8 Township of Frontenac Islands Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Total Seasonal Households

Seasonal Population

Persons Per Unit

2011

1,800

505

3.66

2016

1,800

505

3.66

2021

1,800

505

3.66

2026

1,800

505

3.66

2031

1,800

505

3.66

2036

1,800

505

3.66

2011-2016

2011-2021

2011-2026

2011-2031

2011-2036

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 163 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-8a Howe Island Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Total Seasonal Households

Seasonal Population

Persons Per Unit

2011

400

120

3.66

2016

400

120

3.66

2021

400

120

3.66

2026

400

120

3.66

2031

400

120

3.66

2036

400

120

3.66

2011-2016

2011-2021

2011-2026

2011-2031

2011-2036

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 164 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-8b Wolfe Island Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Total Seasonal Households

Seasonal Population

Persons Per Unit

2011

1,400

385

3.66

2016

1,400

385

3.66

2021

1,400

385

3.66

2026

1,400

385

3.66

2031

1,400

385

3.66

2036

1,400

385

3.66

2011-2016

2011-2021

2011-2026

2011-2031

2011-2036

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 165 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-9 Township of North Frontenac Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Seasonal Population

Total Seasonal Households

Persons Per Unit

2011

9,400

2,565

3.66

2016

9,600

2,630

3.66

2021

9,800

2,685

3.66

2026

10,000

2,730

3.66

2031

10,200

2,775

3.66

2036

10,300

2,815

3.66

2011-2016

200

65

2011-2021

400

120

2011-2026

600

165

2011-2031

800

210

2011-2036

900

250

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 166 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-10 Township of South Frontenac Seasonal Population and Household Forecast by Municipality, 2011-2036

Year

Total Seasonal Households

Seasonal Population

Persons Per Unit

2011

11,000

3,000

3.66

2016

11,000

3,015

3.66

2021

11,100

3,030

3.66

2026

11,100

3,040

3.66

2031

11,100

3,045

3.66

2036

11,200

3,050

3.66

2011-2016

15

2011-2021

100

30

2011-2026

100

40

2011-2031

100

45

2011-2036

200

50

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014. Note: Numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 167 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-11 Frontenac County Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 56,790 58,505 60,095 61,400 62,405 63,400 1,715 3,305 4,610 5,615 6,610

Population (Including Census Undercount) 57,480 59,225 60,850 62,180 63,205 64,210 1,745 3,370 4,700 5,725 6,730

Housing Units Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to ² Permanent) 10,335 10,950 11,575 12,130 12,580 12,980 615 1,240 1,795 2,245 2,645

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

0 65 130 205 290 375 65 130 205 290 375 97.4%

Seasonal 8,090 8,190 8,280 8,350 8,410 8,465 100 190 260 320 375

Medium Density³ 100 105 115 125 135 150 5 15 25 35 50 1.4%

High Density ⁴ 255 260 265 270 285 295 5 10 15 30 40 1.1%

Total 18,780 19,570 20,365 21,080 21,700 22,265 790 1,585 2,300 2,920 3,485

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 3.06 3.03 2.99 2.95 2.91 2.88

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 168 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-12 Central Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 9,680 10,370 10,695 10,895 11,200 11,440 690 1,015 1,215 1,520 1,760

Population (Including Census Undercount) 12,300 12,750 12,915 13,115 13,270 13,490 450 615 815 970 1,190

Housing Units Conversions Net Low Density (From Seasonal to ² Permanent) 1,925 2,050 2,125 2,175 2,230 2,285 125 200 250 305 360

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

0 25 50 80 115 150 25 50 80 115 150 96.7%

Seasonal

Medium Density³

2,020 2,040 2,060 2,075 2,085 2,095 20 40 55 65 75

High Density ⁴

25 30 30 35 40 40 5 5 10 15 15 2.5%

40 40 40 40 45 45 0 0 0 5 5 0.8%

Total 4,010 4,185 4,305 4,405 4,515 4,615 175 295 395 505 605

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 3.07 3.05 3.00 2.98 2.94 2.92

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 169 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-13 Frontenac Islands Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 3,950 4,295 4,505 4,650 4,790 4,930 345 555 700 840 980

Population Housing Units (Including Conversions Net Low Density Medium Census (From Seasonal to Seasonal ² Density³ Undercount) Permanent) 3,800 800 0 505 0 3,975 870 5 505 0 4,080 920 10 505 0 4,155 960 15 505 0 4,225 1,000 20 505 0 4,295 1,040 25 505 0 175 70 5 0 0 280 120 10 0 0 355 160 15 0 0 425 200 20 0 0 495 240 25 0 0

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

100.0%

0.0%

High Density ⁴ 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Total 1,315 1,390 1,445 1,490 1,535 1,580 75 130 175 220 265

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 2.89 2.86 2.82 2.79 2.75 2.72

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 170 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-13a Howe Island Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 1,215 1,305 1,420 1,440 1,520 1,540 90 205 225 305 325

Population Housing Units (Including Conversions Net Low Density Medium Census (From Seasonal to Seasonal ² Density³ Undercount) Permanent) 1,015 260 0 120 0 1,060 280 0 120 0 1,120 300 5 120 0 1,130 310 5 120 0 1,170 325 10 120 0 1,180 335 10 120 0 45 20 0 0 0 105 40 5 0 0 115 50 5 0 0 155 65 10 0 0 165 75 10 0 0

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

100.0%

0.0%

High Density ⁴ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵

Total 380 400 425 435 455 465 20 45 55 75 85

2.67 2.65 2.64 2.60 2.57 2.54

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 171 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-13b Wolfe Island Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 2,735 2,985 3,090 3,210 3,270 3,390 250 355 475 535 655

Population Housing Units (Including Conversions Net Low Density Medium Census (From Seasonal to Seasonal ² Density³ Undercount) Permanent) 2,785 540 0 385 0 2,910 590 5 385 0 2,965 620 5 385 0 3,025 650 10 385 0 3,055 675 10 385 0 3,115 705 15 385 0 125 50 5 0 0 180 80 5 0 0 240 110 10 0 0 270 135 10 0 0 330 165 15 0 0

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

100.0%

0.0%

High Density ⁴ 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Total 935 990 1,020 1,055 1,080 1,115 55 85 120 145 180

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 2.98 2.94 2.91 2.87 2.83 2.79

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 172 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-14 North Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 3,830 4,150 4,335 4,455 4,515 4,585 320 505 625 685 755

Population Housing Units (Including Conversions Net Low Density Medium Census (From Seasonal to Seasonal ² Density³ Undercount) Permanent) 11,340 915 0 2,565 10 11,700 985 0 2,630 10 11,995 1,035 0 2,685 10 12,255 1,075 0 2,730 10 12,485 1,105 0 2,775 10 12,620 1,135 0 2,815 10 360 70 0 65 0 655 120 0 120 0 915 160 0 165 0 1,145 190 0 210 0 1,280 220 0 250 0

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

100.0%

0.0%

High Density ⁴

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

3,490 3,625 3,730 3,815 3,890 3,960 135 240 325 400 470

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 3.25 3.23 3.22 3.21 3.21 3.19

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 173 of 251

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F-15 South Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Household Forecast, 2011-2036

Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2011-2016 2011-2021 2011-2026 2011-2031 2011-2036

Population (Excluding Census Undercount) ¹ 37,610 39,115 41,010 42,580 43,705 44,655 1,505 3,400 4,970 6,095 7,045

Population Housing Units (Including Conversions Net Low Density Medium Census (From Seasonal to Seasonal ² Density³ Undercount) Permanent) 30,040 6,695 0 3,000 65 30,800 7,045 35 3,015 65 31,860 7,495 70 3,030 75 32,655 7,920 110 3,040 80 33,225 8,245 155 3,045 85 33,805 8,520 200 3,050 100 760 350 35 15 0 1,820 800 70 30 10 2,615 1,225 110 40 15 3,185 1,550 155 45 20 3,765 1,825 200 50 35

Percentage Household Growth by Unit Type, 2011-2036

96.7%

1.6%

High Density ⁴ 205 210 215 220 230 240 5 10 15 25 35 1.6%

Total 9,965 10,370 10,885 11,370 11,760 12,110 405 920 1,405 1,795 2,145

Person Per Unit (PPU) ⁵ 3.01 2.97 2.93 2.87 2.83 2.79

100.0%

Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.

1. Population excludes net Census Undercount of approximately 2.5%.
2. Includes single and semi-detached homes.
3. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
4. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
5. PPU calculations based on population including the Census undercount.

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 174 of 251

126 266 393 496 588 499 999 1,442 1,814 2,147 625 1,265 1,835 2,310 2,735

126 266 393 496 588 564 1,129 1,647 2,104 2,522 690 1,395 2,040 2,600 3,110

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 190 260 320 375 100 190 260 320 375

330 688 1,000 1,256 1,486 1,081 2,025 2,707 3,250 3,725 1,410 2,710 3,710 4,510 5,210

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 600 900 1,100 1,400 300 600 900 1,100 1,400

NET POPULATION IN NEW UNITS (INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION)

330 688 1,000 1,256 1,486 1,381 2,625 3,607 4,350 5,125 1,710 3,310 4,610 5,610 6,610

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 175 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

(46) (107) (182) (252) (318) (415) (963) (1,634) (2,265) (2,866) (461) (1,070) (1,816) (2,517) (3,185)

SEASONAL POPULATION INCREASE

376 795 1,182 1,508 1,804 1,496 2,988 4,341 5,515 6,591 1,871 3,780 5,526 7,027 8,395

PERMANENT NET POPULATION INCREASE

126 266 393 496 588 664 1,319 1,907 2,424 2,897 790 1,585 2,300 2,920 3,485

PERMANENT EXISTING POPULATION DECLINE

SEASONAL

TOTAL PERMANENT UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSIONS

seasonal to permanent)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65 130 205 290 375 65 130 205 290 375

PERMANENT POPULATION IN NEW UNITS

5 10 15 30 40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 10 15 30 40

CONVERSIONS (From

TOTAL PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS

APARTMENTS

5 15 25 35 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 15 25 35 50

TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING PERMANENT, CONVERSIONS & SEASONAL

2011‐2016 116 2011‐2021 241 2011‐2026 353 2011‐2031 431 498 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 499 2011‐2021 999 Frontenac County 2011‐2026 1,442 (Rural) 2011‐2031 1,814 2,147 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 615 2011‐2021 1,240 2011‐2026 1,795 Frontenac County 2011‐2031 2,245 2,645 2011‐2036 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014 Frontenac County (Urban Areas)

TOWNHOMES

SINGLES & SEMIS

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

TIMING

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F‐16 Frontenac County Permanent + Seasonal Population and Housing Growth, 2011 ‐ 2036

20 31 39 49 57 111 174 221 276 323 130 205 260 325 380

20 31 39 49 57 136 224 301 391 473 155 255 340 440 530

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 40 55 65 75 20 40 55 65 75

50 73 85 104 119 258 352 378 442 487 308 425 464 546 606

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 100 200 200 300 100 100 200 200 300

NET POPULATION IN NEW UNITS (INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION)

50 73 85 104 119 358 452 578 642 787 408 525 664 746 906

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 176 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

(8) (19) (32) (44) (56) (73) (169) (287) (398) (504) (81) (188) (319) (442) (560)

SEASONAL POPULATION INCREASE

58 92 117 148 175 331 521 665 840 991 389 613 783 988 1,166

PERMANENT NET POPULATION INCREASE

20 31 39 49 57 156 264 356 456 548 175 295 395 505 605

PERMANENT EXISTING POPULATION DECLINE

SEASONAL

TOTAL PERMANENT UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSIONS

seasonal to permanent)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 50 80 115 150 25 50 80 115 150

PERMANENT POPULATION IN NEW UNITS

‐ ‐ ‐ 5 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 5

CONVERSIONS (From

TOTAL PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS

APARTMENTS

5 5 10 15 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 5 10 15 15

TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING PERMANENT, CONVERSIONS & SEASONAL

2011‐2016 15 2011‐2021 26 Township of Central 2011‐2026 29 Frontenac (Urban) 2011‐2031 29 37 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 111 2011‐2021 174 Township of Central 2011‐2026 221 Frontenac (Rural) 276 2011‐2031 323 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 125 2011‐2021 200 Township of Central 2011‐2026 250 Frontenac 2011‐2031 305 360 2011‐2036 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

TOWNHOMES

SINGLES & SEMIS

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

TIMING

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F‐17 Township of Central Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Housing Growth, 2011 ‐ 2036

7 12 16 20 24 63 108 144 180 216 70 120 160 200 240

7 12 16 20 24 68 118 159 200 241 75 130 175 220 265

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

18 28 35 43 51 159 254 316 385 457 177 282 352 427 509

NET POPULATION IN NEW UNITS (INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

18 28 35 43 51 159 254 316 385 457 177 282 352 427 509

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 177 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

(3) (8) (13) (18) (23) (30) (69) (117) (162) (206) (33) (77) (130) (181) (228)

SEASONAL POPULATION INCREASE

21 36 48 61 74 189 323 433 547 663 210 359 482 608 737

PERMANENT NET POPULATION INCREASE

7 12 16 20 24 68 118 159 200 241 75 130 175 220 265

PERMANENT EXISTING POPULATION DECLINE

SEASONAL

TOTAL PERMANENT UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSIONS

seasonal to permanent)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25

PERMANENT POPULATION IN NEW UNITS

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CONVERSIONS (From

TOTAL PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS

APARTMENTS

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING PERMANENT, CONVERSIONS & SEASONAL

2011‐2016 7 2011‐2021 12 Township of Frontenac 2011‐2026 16 Islands (Urban) 2011‐2031 20 24 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 63 2011‐2021 108 Township of Frontenac 2011‐2026 144 Islands (Rural) 2011‐2031 180 216 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 70 2011‐2021 120 Township of Frontenac 2011‐2026 160 Islands 2011‐2031 200 240 2011‐2036 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

TOWNHOMES

SINGLES & SEMIS

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

TIMING

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F‐18 Township of Frontenac Islands Permanent + Seasonal Population and Housing Growth, 2011 ‐ 2036

11 18 24 29 33 60 102 136 162 187 70 120 160 190 220

11 18 24 29 33 60 102 136 162 187 70 120 160 190 220

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65 120 165 210 250 65 120 165 210 250

28 47 59 70 79 149 238 295 334 375 178 285 356 403 454

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200 400 600 800 900 200 400 600 800 900

NET POPULATION IN NEW UNITS (INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION)

28 47 59 70 79 349 638 895 1,134 1,275 378 685 956 1,203 1,354

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 178 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

(3) (7) (13) (17) (22) (29) (67) (114) (157) (199) (32) (74) (126) (175) (221)

SEASONAL POPULATION INCREASE

31 54 72 87 101 178 305 409 491 574 210 359 482 578 675

PERMANENT NET POPULATION INCREASE

11 18 24 29 33 125 222 301 372 437 135 240 325 400 470

PERMANENT EXISTING POPULATION DECLINE

SEASONAL

TOTAL PERMANENT UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSIONS

seasonal to permanent)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PERMANENT POPULATION IN NEW UNITS

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CONVERSIONS (From

TOTAL PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS

APARTMENTS

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING PERMANENT, CONVERSIONS & SEASONAL

2011‐2016 11 2011‐2021 18 Township of North 2011‐2026 24 Frontenac (Urban) 2011‐2031 29 33 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 60 2011‐2021 102 Township of North 2011‐2026 136 Frontenac (Rural) 2011‐2031 162 187 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 70 2011‐2021 120 Township of North 2011‐2026 160 Frontenac 2011‐2031 190 220 2011‐2036 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

TOWNHOMES

SINGLES & SEMIS

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

TIMING

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F‐19 Township of North Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Housing Growth, 2011 ‐ 2036

89 205 314 399 474 266 615 941 1,196 1,421 355 820 1,255 1,595 1,895

89 205 314 399 474 301 685 1,051 1,351 1,621 390 890 1,365 1,750 2,095

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15 30 40 45 50 15 30 40 45 50

235 540 821 1,040 1,237 515 1,181 1,718 2,090 2,406 748 1,721 2,538 3,130 3,642

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 100 100 200 ‐ 100 100 100 200

NET POPULATION IN NEW UNITS (INCLUDING SEASONAL POPULATION)

235 540 821 1,040 1,237 515 1,281 1,818 2,190 2,606 748 1,821 2,638 3,230 3,842

AgendaItem#11a)

Page 179 of 251 H:\Frontenac County\Growth 2013\Growth\Frontenac County Growth Model - June 2014.xlsx

(31) (73) (124) (172) (217) (283) (658) (1,116) (1,547) (1,957) (315) (731) (1,240) (1,719) (2,175)

SEASONAL POPULATION INCREASE

266 613 945 1,212 1,454 798 1,839 2,834 3,637 4,363 1,063 2,452 3,778 4,849 5,817

PERMANENT NET POPULATION INCREASE

89 205 314 399 474 316 715 1,091 1,396 1,671 405 920 1,405 1,795 2,145

PERMANENT EXISTING POPULATION DECLINE

SEASONAL

TOTAL PERMANENT UNITS INCLUDING CONVERSIONS

seasonal to permanent)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 70 110 155 200 35 70 110 155 200

PERMANENT POPULATION IN NEW UNITS

5 10 15 25 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 10 15 25 35

CONVERSIONS (From

TOTAL PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS

APARTMENTS

‐ 10 15 20 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 15 20 35

TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING PERMANENT, CONVERSIONS & SEASONAL

2011‐2016 84 2011‐2021 185 Township of South 2011‐2026 284 Frontenac (Urban) 2011‐2031 354 404 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 266 2011‐2021 615 Township of South 2011‐2026 941 Frontenac (Rural) 2011‐2031 1,196 1,421 2011‐2036 2011‐2016 350 2011‐2021 800 Township of South 2011‐2026 1,225 Frontenac 2011‐2031 1,550 1,825 2011‐2036 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014

TOWNHOMES

SINGLES & SEMIS

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

TIMING

2014-101 Population, Housing and

Table F‐20 Township of South Frontenac Permanent + Seasonal Population and Housing Growth, 2011 ‐ 2036

AgendaItem#11b)

Report 2014-107 INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL To:

Warden and Council Members of County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared By:

Colleen Hickey Manager of Human Resources

Date prepared:

June 6, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – Monthly Absenteeism Report Card - MAY

Recommendation This report is for information purposes only.

Background For the purpose of this report Absenteeism is defined as sick time. Job protected leaves covered under the Employment Standards Act such as emergency, maternity, parental and compassionate leave are not recorded in this report. Council directed that management provide a monthly report indicating the following information:

1. The efforts management staff is taking to ensure employee absenteeism due to illness is managed.
2. Hours of absenteeism due to illness for Emergency and Transportation Services, Fairmount Home and Corporate Services.
3. Cost of paid absenteeism for Emergency and Transportation Services, Fairmount Home and Corporate Services. Comment Effective May, 2014 the County implemented a replacement code for all departments. This new code provides financial data to show the replacement cost when an employee is to be replaced albeit through collective agreement language or needs of the Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Monthly Attendance Report Card to Council June 18, 2014

2014-107 Corporate Services

Page 1 of 4

Page 180 of 251

AgendaItem#11b)

Corporation. The codes are now active and this June report provides the replacement cost in Chart 3B.

1. Management continues to monitor employee absenteeism on a daily basis and works within legislation, County policies, procedures and collective agreements.
2. Total Hours of Absenteeism for 2012, 2013 & 2014. (100%, 75% and Unpaid Sick Time) A. Total Hours of Absenteeism for Fairmount Home Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual Total

2014 2012 2013 998.58 1620.50 1273.50 832.00 1599.83 772.02 716.22 1648.59 531.75 859.20 1396.47 358.25 1141.00 398.19 1035.34 1016.25 808.25 847.50 1402.84 677.25 1618.33 1243.50 1266.75 1488.42 1031.08 1052.50 1079.90 1068.33 978.40 14800.14 11519.26

B. Total Hours of Absenteeism for Emergency & Transportation Services Month January February March April May June July August September October Nov Dec Annual Total

2012 2013 1253.50 1484.42 1562.12 1168.11 1378.83 1309.87 923.00 1980.88 1512.83 1754.05 1848.67 1789.37 1685.13 1607.87 1489.00 1839.00 1689.22 2019.85 2167.25 2250.75 2276.70 2485.85 1866.28 2223.17 19652.53 21913.19

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Monthly Attendance Report Card to Council June 18, 2014

2014-107 Corporate Services

2014 2150.50 1574.25 1207.41 1432.59 1245.22

Page 2 of 4

Page 181 of 251

AgendaItem#11b)

C. Total Hours of Absenteeism for Corporate Services Month Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Total

2012 67.00 37.00 22.50 21.50 90.75 29.50 30.00 37.50 25.00 59.50 31.50 29.50 481.25

2013 63.25 22.50 82.00 44.50 195.50 160.50 183.75 136.50 22.58 21.50 15.00 29.50 977.08

2014 16.87 94.00 7.50 22.50 37.50

3. Operational cost of paid sick leave for Emergency & Transportation Services, Fairmount Home and Corporate Services A.

2012 2013 2014 accumulated January February March April May

Emergency & Corporate Transportation Services Services $ $ 16,999.13 608,289.23 23,142.00 654,142.96 4,798.42 503.70 2,782.45 228.23 490.89 793.15

220,638.27 66,818.75 42,704.38 26,556.51 44,460.64 40,097.99

Fairmount $ 309,617.67 203,232.24 79,807.56 13,919.04 12,410.92 12,645.12 16,575.55 24,250.93

Replacement cost (for positions that require replacement) for Emergency & Transportation Services, Fairmount Home and Corporate Services B. Emergency & Corporate Transportation 2014 Services Services Fairmount $ $ $ May 0 40,879.56 16,556.05

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Monthly Attendance Report Card to Council June 18, 2014

2014-107 Corporate Services

Page 3 of 4

Page 182 of 251

AgendaItem#11b)

Sustainability Implications Working together to identify and reduce absenteeism and maintain key policies and consistent practices will create a renewed awareness in the overall improvement required in this area. Financial Implications Using consistent policies and practices will assist to create awareness in the need to minimize the impact on high absenteeism and associated cost. Absenteeism is a significant cost to the Employer and must be managed to ensure fiscal responsibility. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Finance – Susan Brant

Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Monthly Attendance Report Card to Council June 18, 2014

2014-107 Corporate Services

Page 4 of 4

Page 183 of 251

AgendaItem#13a)

Report 2014-106 RECOMMEND REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender Chief Administrative Officer

Date prepared:

June 3, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Corporate Services – County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback

Recommendation BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Performance Concepts Consulting Inc. – County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback Report for information; AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the draft County of Frontenac Strategic Plan provided by Performance Concepts Consulting Inc, attached to this report as Appendix A, as amended.

Background In December 2013, the County of Frontenac issued a Request for Proposals for the services of a consultant to undertake a County Strategic Plan. The contract was successfully awarded to Performance Concepts Consulting Inc. As part of the requirements of the Request for Proposal, the Project involved leading Council members through a day-long strategic planning session supported by senior staff, anticipating outcomes to include: confirmation of the mission and vision statements, values, goals, objectives, and reporting/monitoring considerations. The Project also involved consultation with the Townships’ Councils, one meeting in each Township and to have one or more public meetings held across the County to gain input from the community prior to the completion of the draft report.

Recommend Report to Committee of the Whole Corporate Services – County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback June 18, 2014

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Page 1 of 2

Page 184 of 251

AgendaItem#13a)

A day-long strategic planning session was held on Wednesday, January 28, 2014, resulting in the draft report by Performance Concepts Consulting Inc. Comment Meetings were held with the Township Councils on April 14th and 15th. A public meeting was held on May 15th. The discussion from those meetings is presented in the attached report from Performance Concepts. Sustainability Implications As noted in Directions for our Future, Government decision-making processes are clear, transparent, forward thinking and focused on the longer term.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Performance Concepts Consulting Inc.

Attachments Appendix A Performance Concepts Consulting Inc. – County of Frontenac Strategic Plan Feedback Report

Recommend Report to Committee of the Whole Corporate Services – County of Frontenac Draft Strategic Plan Feedback June 18, 2014

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Page 2 of 2

Page 185 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

“Wildly Important Goals” for County of Frontenac

County Council Strategy & Priority Setting: Finalizing Council’s Wildly Important Goals

AgendaItem#1

Page 186 of 251

June 18th 2014

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Today’s Agenda

1. Recap of Strategic Priority Setting Process (To Date)
2. Consultations with Township Councils
3. Public Consultations
4. Finalizing Strategy & Wildly Important Goals

AgendaItem#1

Page 187 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Process Recap Council & Staff Interviews Background & Current Situation Analysis

All day Council Workshop

Review of Problems, Exploration of Strategy, Council consensus re. WIGS

Council Priority Document Strategy of County as “quarterback” with emphasis on coordination role 3 WIGS: Seniors, Solid Waste, Spending Control/Economic Development

AgendaItem#1

Page 188 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Process Recap Township Council Consultations Public Consultation Meeting Received thoughtful, Finalize Council WIGs engaged feedback from all Sparse attendance with 4 Councils some limited Consider potential insights/suggestions refinements to WIGS Provide implementation direction to County staff

AgendaItem#1

Page 189 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Township Consultations

AgendaItem#1

Page 190 of 251

• Appreciation for County’s consultation process • Broad support for County Council’s Strategy as coordination “quarterback’ • Overall support for County as an important actor promoting economic development/job creation objectives (with some dissenting voices) • Strong/unanimous support for Seniors WIG (Transit & Housing) • Overall support for Solid Waste WIG (need for longer term planning) • Some limited commentary on lack of WIG dealing with EMS or Long Term Care (more of an observation than a criticism)

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Public Consultations • Approximately a half-dozen members of the public (sparse) • A suggestion that the Seniors WIG be expanded to include a broader transit mandate beyond medical appointments • Strong support expressed for transitional housing component of Seniors WIG • Question raised whether there is actually a Seniors transit “gap” beyond the islands? • Animated discussion of economic development/job creation imperatives…the WIG was not well understood/clarity issue AgendaItem#1

Page 191 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Any Council Direction? Council Priority Document Components

Township Councils

Public Input

Issues for Discussion and/or Potential Direction

Coordination Quarterback Strategy

Strong support

No significant feedback

No refinements to consider

Seniors WIG

Strong support

Questioning whether seniors transit is even an issue? Is there a real service gap anywhere other than the islands?

Make transitional housing a higher relative priority than transit within the WIG?

Limited commentary that seniors housing is a higher relative priority

AgendaItem#1

Page 192 of 251

Expand Transit beyond seniors

Expand transit mandate beyond Seniors within the WIG?

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

Any Council Direction? Township Councils

Public Input

Issues for Discussion and/or Potential Council Direction

Solid Waste WIG

Consistent support

Support for long term $ planning & coordinated position for postlandfill solutions

No refinements to consider beyond dropping the WIG

Sense that a greater priority be given to job creation/economic development priorities

Refinement of WIG language to emphasize twin roles of Fiscal Controllership & Economic Development?

Very limited perspective to eliminate this WIG since County has no jurisdiction Controllership/ Economic Development WIG Page 193 of 251

Acceptance of County role in economic development…offere d series of specific “how” ideas to consider

AgendaItem#1

Council Priority Document Components

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

AgendaItem#1

Page 194 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

AgendaItem#1

Page 195 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

AgendaItem#1

Page 196 of 251

2014-106 County of Frontenac Draft

AgendaItem#1

Page 197 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

REPORT 2014-102 RECOMMEND REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members Council

From:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Date prepared:

June 2, 2014

Date of meeting:

June 18, 2014

Re:

Senior’s Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) Request for Proposals and Preliminary Pro-Forma Cash Flow

Recommendation Note: Subject to Council allocating funding to Senior’s Issue as recommended in the current draft Strategic Plan, staff would recommend the following motion: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive report 2014-103 Senior’s Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) – Request for Proposals and Preliminary Pro-Forma Cash Flow; AND FURTHER, that staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposals for a Business Plan for the Frontenac Islands Senior’s Housing Business Plan, (to a maximum upset of $25,000) plus costing for second and subsequent iterations and that the Warden and Clerk be authorized to sign a contract with the successful consultant; AND FURTHER, that funding for the business plan be taken from monies allocated by County Council for Senior’s projects based upon the formula noted in the report; AND FINALLY, that the successful Consultant report back to County Council on the project by October 15, 2015.

Recommend Report Corporate Services – Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) June 18, 2014

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 1 of 4

Page 198 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Background A Senior’s Housing Task Force meeting was held at the Frontenac Islands Township on May 26, 2014. At the meeting, the committee reviewed possible directions for the proposed project and a draft terms of reference for a housing consultant to evaluate options and develop a business plan. Staff were asked to bring to County Council a Request for Proposals (RFP) outline and process for further consideration. Comment Considerable discussion has taken place over the course of three Task Force meetings regarding the potential shape and direction of Senior’s Housing. Issues include: • • • • •

Location Unit size Other County projects (Central Frontenac) Subsidized vs market rents Roles and responsibilities

The Task Force has been looking at a five unit complex with a common area to be located in the Marysville community. The group has toured a similar facility in Central Frontenac. At the same time, County Council is discussing corporate directions arising from the strategic planning session. Further discussion will take place on the same date as this report. The current draft goal statement in the strategic plan is as follows: “Meet Aging Tsunami challenge for Frontenac Seniors by: 9 Addressing the existing gap in Seniors Transportation by ensuring 100% of Seniors receive a timely, affordable ride to scheduled medical appointments (when requests received in a timely fashion) – to be accomplished by the end of the 2015-18 term of County Council 9 Addressing the existing gap in Seniors Affordable Housing stock by leveraging and/or funding the construction of a project in each of the four Frontenac townships – to be accomplished by the end of the 2015-18 term of County Council.” The Senior’s Housing Task Force clearly supports housing aspect of this objective. A decision regarding the “affordable” nature of the housing is still being debated by the task force and would be a component of the Business Plan. Section 5.3 of the Draft County Official Plan speaks to aging in place, affordability, extension of services and the facilitation of “the development of seniors housing on a consistent and inclusive basis across the Frontenacs”. The ‘Implementation Report’ that was included in the Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project (2012) concluded that the preferred option was an assisted/supportive housing Recommend Report Corporate Services – Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) June 18, 2014

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 2 of 4

Page 199 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

project providing rental accommodation, either through new construction or redevelopment of an existing building. The report noted that the sizeable capital costs for starting this project would need to be borne by the owner and recouped over the long term based on collected rents. Furthermore, if affordability was a key consideration, then rents would be intended to cater to low or moderate income households (of which Frontenac County has a higher percentage than the Provincial average). The report emphasized that, “while private sector initiatives that cater to independent seniors options are most welcome, affordable semi-independent options are less likely to be supported by the private sector and as such, the County’s ability to facilitate these projects may be of more value to seniors in need.” The Business Plan would include an analysis of the following:

1. Size, scope and scale of the project
2. Community Input and Frontenac Islands Council input
3. Engagement with the Housing Service Manager (City of Kingston)
4. Identification of the Target Market
5. Definition of Roles and Responsibilities
6. Site location options
7. Site servicing considerations
8. Planning considerations
9. Delivery options and identification of preferred option
10. Funding and pro forma analysis
11. External funding and grant opportunities
12. Recommendations The business plan would be designed in such a manner that it could be updated for second and subsequent iterations of the plan for future roll outs in other townships. Suggested timelines for the business plan development are as follows: Request for Proposals - Action Request for Proposals Issued Last Day for Enquiries Request for Proposals Closing Date and Time Short List Developed by Selection Committee Presentation to Selection Committee Notifications of Award Of Contract Draft Presented to Task Force Project Completion End Date for Completion of Second and Subsequent Projects in Other Locations

Recommend Report Corporate Services – Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) June 18, 2014

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Date and Time Friday June 20, 2014 Monday July 14, 2014 @ 3:00 p.m. Thursday July 17, 2014 @ 3:00 p.m. Tuesday July 22, 2014 Friday July 25, 2014 (a.m.) Tuesday July 29, 2014 October 1, 2014 October 15, 2014 October 15, 2017

Page 3 of 4

Page 200 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Sustainability Implications Section 10 of the Directions for our Future document, in particular points 89 and 90, speak to support for age friendly communities and transitional/assisted living environments. This initiative will support this aspect of the plan. Financial Implications Staff estimate that the initial business plan will cost approximately $20-25,000 and second and subsequent iterations would cost $3-5,000. As noted, the senior’s objective of the strategic plan, including financial implications is currently being discussed by Council. The preliminary amount assigned to this objective is $1.5m or $375k per municipality. Should Council approve a motion to proceed with the Frontenac Islands business plan and funding allocation, our recommendation would be to allocate a maximum of 25% of the total plan to each municipality for studies. Assuming $25k for the base study and an additional $15k in subsequent studies, a total of $10k would be charged to each of the potential 4 projects. The actual amount would be calculated based upon the approved bid amount. An initial pro-forma cash flow has been developed for a five unit project, based upon the Central Frontenac capital costs and estimates on ongoing costs. This is attached Schedule “A” to this report and will be reviewed in greater detail with the Committee at the meeting. The level of grant funding received by the Central Frontenac group will mean the project will be cash flow positive from the outset (subject to occupancy). With funding only from the County of Frontenac (at the level currently being contemplated), a five unit facility would not be cash flow positive, even over a 25 year time horizon, without an influx of funding from other sources.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Senior’s Housing Task Force North Frontenac Non Profit Housing Corporation

Recommend Report Corporate Services – Housing Task Force (Wolfe Island) June 18, 2014

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 4 of 4

Page 201 of 251

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

County of Frontenac - Senior’s Housing Task Force Business Planning Dashboard

3-Jun-14

CAPITAL COST SUMMARY Building Costs Land & Site Costs Unit Size 741 sq.ft. Land Acquisition $ 40,000

of Units

5 Appraisal $ 1,500 Total Size 3,705 sq.ft. Site Reports $ 5,000 Common Area Gross Up 25.0% Site Remediation $ Common Area 926 sq.ft. Well $ 6,000 Total Size 4,631 Septic $ 12,000 Cost/Sq. Ft. $ 180 Parking $ 15,000 Landscaping $ 15,000 Total Building Cost $ 833,580 Other $ 8,920 Total Capital Costs $ 937,000 Total Cost/Unit $ 187,400

Exp Infl Rent Infl

2.50% 2.50%

CAPITAL FUNDING SUMMARY Revenue Fund Raising Grant Township County Other $ 784,600 Total Funding $ 784,600 Amt to Be Financed $ 152,400 Interest Rate 5.00% Term 25 yrs Annual PMT -$ 10,813

Total Land & Site Costs $ 103,420

ASSUMPTIONS & RETURNS Rent Subsidy $ /mo./unit $ Rent Subsidy $ 25 yrs (incl Subsidy) % Capital Subsidy 83.7% $ Return $ 385,500 25 yrs $ Capital Re-Invest $ 409,893 25 yrs $ Subsidy/Unit $ 156,920 Total Negative Cash Flow $

$25 $20 $15 $10

$8

$10 $10 $9 $9

$11 $11

$13 $12 $13

$14 $14

$15 $16

Monthly Rent/Unit $ 1,000 Yr. One Occupancy 95.0% Total Rev $ 57,000 / yr. EXPENSE SUMMARY Heat $ 500 mo. Hydro $ 500 mo. Utilities $ mo. Custodial $ 500 mo. Winter Maint. $ 250 mo. (6) Capital Re-investment $ 1,000 mo. Taxes $ 400 mo. Other $ mo. Other $ mo. Other $ mo. Total Annual Costs -$ 36,300

Revenues/Expenditures

$30

$16 $17

$18 $18

$21 $19 $20

$21 $22

$23 $24

Thousands

Thousands

Net (Profit/Loss)

REVENUE SUMMARY

$150 $100 $50 $0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-$50 $5 -$100 $0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Notes:

1. Analysis does not include tax considerations

Revenues

Expenditures

AgendaItem#13c)

Page 202 of 251

1

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

County of Frontenac - Senior’s Housing Task Force Pro Forma Cash Flow Statement

3-Jun-14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

57,000 0

58,425 0

59,886 0

61,383 0

62,917 0

64,490 0

66,103 0

67,755 0

69,449 0

71,185 0

72,965 0

74,789 0

76,659 0

78,575 0

80,540 0

Total Revenue

57,000

58,425

59,886

61,383

62,917

64,490

66,103

67,755

69,449

71,185

72,965

74,789

76,659

78,575

80,540

EXPENDITURES Heat Hydro Utilities Custodial Winter Maint. Capital Re-Investment Taxes Mortgage PMT

6,000 6,000 0 6,000 3,000 12,000 4,800 10,813

6,150 6,150 0 6,150 3,075 12,300 4,920 10,813

6,304 6,304 0 6,304 3,152 12,608 5,043 10,813

6,461 6,461 0 6,461 3,231 12,923 5,169 10,813

6,623 6,623 0 6,623 3,311 13,246 5,298 10,813

6,788 6,788 0 6,788 3,394 13,577 5,431 10,813

6,958 6,958 0 6,958 3,479 13,916 5,567 10,813

7,132 7,132 0 7,132 3,566 14,264 5,706 10,813

7,310 7,310 0 7,310 3,655 14,621 5,848 10,813

7,493 7,493 0 7,493 3,747 14,986 5,995 10,813

7,681 7,681 0 7,681 3,840 15,361 6,144 10,813

7,873 7,873 0 7,873 3,936 15,745 6,298 10,813

8,069 8,069 0 8,069 4,035 16,139 6,455 10,813

8,271 8,271 0 8,271 4,136 16,542 6,617 10,813

8,478 8,478 0 8,478 4,239 16,956 6,782 10,813

Total Expenditures

48,613

49,558

50,527

51,520

52,537

53,580

54,650

55,745

56,869

58,020

59,200

60,410

61,650

62,921

64,224

Net (Profit/Loss)

8,387

8,867

9,359

9,863

10,380

10,910

11,453

12,010

12,580

13,165

13,764

14,379

15,009

15,654

16,316

AgendaItem#13c)

Page 203 of 251

Year-> REVENUES Rent Rent Subsidy

AgendaItem#13c)

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC SENIORS COMMUNITY HOUSING PILOT PROJECT STUDY

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

Submitted by:

re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 204 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

2.0

Preferred Options…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

2.1

The County Role in Seniors Housing……………………………………………………………………………….. 2

2.2

Detailed description of each housing option …………………………………………………………………… 3

2.3

Possible variations for each option ………………………………………………………………………………… 5

2.4

Identifying challenges…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6

3.0

Projected Costing……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

3.1

Costing models ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

3.2

Financial analysis of ‘bricks and mortar’ options ……………………………………………………………… 9

3.3

Resourcing/funding opportunities ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14

3.4

Home Care/Support Services ………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

4.0

Moving a Pilot Project Forward…………………………………………………………………………………. 15

4.1

Critical path/milestones ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17

4.2

Essential components necessary for success …………………………………………………………………. 17

5.0

Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

5.1

Summary of Primary Opportunities ……………………………………………………………………………… 19

5.2

Facilitating Other Options …………………………………………………………………………………………… 19

5.3

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

Appendix A – Detailed Financial Analysis of Models………………………………………………………………..A‐1

re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 205 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

1.0

Introduction

The County of Frontenac Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project is being undertaken as a response to the aging of the local population and the broader desire to plan for the future in a more sustainable way. Through the study process, the County aims to acquire a better understanding of the housing needs of local seniors and identify tangible opportunities that may exist to help address these needs. The overall approach to the study involves four distinct phases, incorporating a range of research, stakeholder consultations and relevant literature reviews as well as preliminary financial analysis. This report presents findings from Phase 4: Implementation Strategy.

Building on the preferred options identified in Phase 3, this report sets out the context for the role of the County in Housing. It goes on to explore each option in more detail, examining the possible features associated with each. The report also provides an initial financial analysis which examines project viability based on set assumptions. Factors that influence costs and resources available to advance development options are also discussed. Key factors for success are also identified in order to help frame the necessary ingredients to move a pilot project from the idea stage to the development stage. The report concludes with a series of recommendations designed to help the County advance a pilot project for seniors housing in Frontenac. A technical appendix is also provided with detailed financial analysis results for tested options. County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 1 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 206 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

2.0

Preferred Options

2.1

The County Role in Seniors Housing

Before examining the preferred seniors pilot opportunities that may exist, it is helpful to establish the context in which the County is involved with seniors housing as well as areas where it may choose to engage. A key reason for this is to help frame preferred housing options within the prospect of viability, ensuring that a realistic perspective is maintained when considering County actions that may be taken to respond to needs. Like other jurisdictions, the majority of housing in Frontenac is provided by the private sector. Affordable or assisted housing tends to be provided by interested local organizations – typically non‐profit or charitable ‐ but is highly reliant on funding from senior government programs. The City of Kingston, as the designated Service Manager for the Kingston and Frontenac area, is responsible for distributing and administering funds for a number of these programs, some of which are cost‐shared with Frontenac County. Likewise, the City is also responsible for administering social services and more recently has been vested with responsibility for managing consolidated homelessness funding. As noted in the Existing Conditions report completed as part of this study, semi‐independent care options also exist which are privately run, either by agencies or individuals. Funding typically comes from senior governments, depending on the department/ministry responsible. Retirement homes are primarily private sector businesses, housing individuals on a user‐pays basis. While some beds may be subsidized by senior government, the majority are not. Long terms care facilities offer a higher level of care and can be either private or municipally operated. In Frontenac, the Fairmont Home for the Aged is operated by the County with substantial funding from the Ministry of Health. As part of the health care system, delivery of LTC services falls within the purview of the Southeast LHIN (Local Health Integration Network). In that same vein, home care and like support services are provided by community‐based agencies and private interests. They too are largely funded under senior government programs linked to the Ministry of Health and Southeast LHIN. The County has no direct link to delivery of these services and is not a program funder. In terms of seniors housing then, the direct role of the County is somewhat limited and can be summarized as follows:  Funding contributor – for prescribed social housing programs and services  Delivery agent/operator – for Fairmount Home for the Aged County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 2 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 207 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

The County has a less direct but equally important role in other areas of seniors housing namely:  Stakeholder – As a delivery agent, the County has a vested role in those aspects of the local housing system which address seniors needs  Advocate – Given the program funding administered by the City of Kingston and from senior levels of government, there is a clear role for advocacy by the County to help marshal resources to help support local housing needs.  Facilitator – Given its municipal status and authorities, the County can also act as an enabler, promoting partnerships, setting priorities and providing leadership in the pursuit of seniors housing issues. Given the limited direct involvement and limited local tax base with which to address community issues, the role of facilitator is perhaps the most critical of these. The key here is leveraging the resources that do exist within the system to achieve preferred outcomes. The County also has a direct role in regulating land use and, in conjunction with local townships, is responsible for making land use decisions which guide housing development for both the private and public sector. These include zoning standards, community improvement areas and the directing of servicing. As was highlighted in the Policy Framework report completed as part of this study, there are additional opportunities for the County to exercise authorities under surplus land and capital facility provisions of the Municipal Act. While not as readily used, these offer tangible ways for the County to facilitate housing outcomes by offering inducements in exchange for meeting seniors housing needs. Again, the indirect housing role and limited resources at the County’s disposal make it very challenging to directly engage in the housing solutions. The sizable geography and dispersed population of the County only serve to make this more difficult. However, facilitating the work of partners and leveraging resources is essential to advancing plausible seniors housing options. 2.2

Detailed description of each housing option

The Phase 2 report on Housing Options Analysis provided a comprehensive review of possible housing options for seniors, ranging from independent living options through to custodial care. The wide range of options was narrowed to reflect those opportunity nodes within the County which would best address priorities within the Frontenac context. These options were then measured against criteria to ascertain where the most prominent opportunities would lie for a possible seniors pilot project. County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 3 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 208 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

As a result, the preferred option identified was an assisted/supportive housing project, located in an existing settlement area such as Verona, Sydenham or Sharbot Lake. In the case of Verona or Sydenham, opportunities exist for a new infill project or redevelopment. Adaptive reuse of the surplus school in Sharbot Lake could also accommodate this model. By locating the options within an established settlement, a wide catchment area can be served and the stability of the communities in which they would be situated would be enhanced. By building on the ‘aging in place’ philosophy that LHIN’s appear to be embracing, this project could help ensure that seniors housing needs are addressed in the community and not in an institutional LTC setting. This model would also help expand the continuum of housing services for seniors within the County. The assisted/supportive housing model accommodates seniors with moderate care needs, (i.e. those who require assistance with some activities of daily living), providing self‐contained accommodations with access to on‐site and off‐site supports as needed. Typically, coordination of supports and daily monitoring of residents are basic services provided. Other services like assistance with medication, meal preparation, housekeeping and transportation can also be included either as a service package or on a fee for service basis. To make this model viable, support service resources are required in addition to the ‘bricks and mortar’ capital. While this model is available in an ownership format, feedback from consultation sessions noted that rental accommodation would be more desirable to County residents. However, unlike ownership options, the sizable capital costs for establishing the project would need to be borne by the owner and recouped over the longer term based on collected rents. Furthermore, affordability is of prime importance and as such, rents are intended to cater to low/moderate income households. Typically, single person households will be accommodated but there is an ability to have both one and two bedroom units for couples. Having some common space for residents as well as space for support services is important but typically this space reflects the scale of the project size (i.e. larger projects create more opportunities to accommodate non‐ residential space) Given the scale and distribution of need, it was also noted that an option geared to home care services would best serve the housing needs of residents in more remote parts of the County, especially those in the north near Ompah, Plevna and Cloyne. The flexibility that Home Care programs provide can help address changing needs over time by addressing these needs in‐ home and by improving the quality of life for isolated seniors. While expanding the Home Care model can assist in proactively addressing support needs throughout the County, enhancing

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 4 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 209 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

services in more remote areas can help better address needs where they might not otherwise be met by traditional housing models. It is worth noting that in the model evaluation process there was an emphasis on smaller scale projects, given the distribution of need and the sustainability of potential of projects in rural settlement areas. Focus was also directed to independent and semi‐independent options rather than dependent options (i.e. custodial care such as LTC homes), given the existing supply of units and the reliance on senior government funding for these types of projects with high care components. While these realties are reflected in the preferred choices, it is important to not preclude any of the other possible housing options cited since partnership and funding opportunities that may become available over time may make certain options more viable. This is particularly true of the Abbeyfield model of congregate living which garnered stakeholder interest through the consultation phase of the study. While private sector initiatives that cater to independent seniors options are most welcome, affordable semi‐independent options are less likely to be supported by the private sector and as such, the County’s ability to facilitate these projects may be of more value to seniors in need. 2.3

Possible variations for each option

In terms of the assisted/supportive housing option, the manner in which a project could be delivered can vary depending on land and housing stock availability. Both new construction and redevelopment or conversion options could accommodate this model, provided development requirements can be met. In the case where sufficient land supply exists and new growth is anticipated, a new build can make more sense. Where growth is not as strong or where a limited supply of suitable sites exists, the conversion or redevelopment of a site or building may make the most sense. A careful evaluation of costs and benefits would need to be carried out to help determine which of these variations may be the most suitable for a given location. In terms of the support services component of these projects, variations can also occur. Providing sufficient space to address the service needs of residents is fundamental. In the case of support services, however, there may be a service threshold that needs to be met in order to make the support component viable. In certain instances, expanding the service component to also meet needs in the surrounding area can help improve the sustainability of the service model while at the same time improving service to the community. In this way, co‐location of

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 5 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 210 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

support services within the housing project can have the benefit of meeting the needs of project residents as well as those in the surrounding community. This ‘spoke & hub’ model is beneficial in that it creates a critical mass for services to cluster on, making the service package more sustainable for the community in which it is located. This variation can be realized in either a new build or conversion/redevelopment scenario, provided service resources exist and where required space needs can be accommodated. This model has been successfully proven to support the ’age in place’ principle in other jurisdictions and could be replicated in Frontenac County. In terms of the home care model, there are multiple variations which can be entertained to help minimize unnecessary institutionalization. Some examples that may be pertinent for Frontenac include:  Home care enhancements – improving or enhancing existing service offerings by building on services and better addressing gaps. This can result in service to more seniors or a broader range of services to assist them in maintaining their independence in their own home.  Retrofits/adaptations – Likewise, a complementary approach can be minor adjustments to seniors homes to assist with mobility or upkeep, thereby enabling them to maintain independence for longer. Grants or loans were previously provided under the RRAP program to help support this objective.  Paramedic assessments – The addition of early warning systems that triage seniors at risk in their homes can also help improve the quality of life for isolated seniors. By building on existing paramedic assessment services and improving referrals to support service agencies, seniors can get the services they need more quickly and maintain their independence within their own home. 2.4

Identifying challenges

Regardless of the preferred model, there are a number of common challenges that each will face in terms of implementation. These include:  Scale economies ‐The limited population base of the County means that smaller scale models are required in order to remain sustainable. This, of course, creates cost challenges as scale economies of project size cannot be realised.  Project sponsor – Having an experienced sponsor is critical to getting a project concept developed and even more important to the project’s long term operations. Without this resource on‐hand, it is probable that the project’s sustainability will be challenged.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 6 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 211 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

 Capital funding – For new buildings or conversion/redevelopment, there continues to be a reliance on heavy capital injections to make these projects viable at an affordable rent. In the absence of the funding, the ability to realize these projects is quite constrained.  Support service funding – Like capital funding, maintaining support service funding to address need has continued to present challenges for assisted/supportive housing providers. Given that funds typically come from different sources and have different purposes, the ability to align resources and apply results has continued to be a challenge. Each of these factors can present challenges to a successful project and where multiple problems exist, the delivery of housing solutions may be difficult to achieve.

3.0

Projected Costing

The following section provides preliminary costing for several potential housing options. The information provided is based on general benchmarks typically utilized in analysis of this nature. Should any of these options be pursued, more detailed investigations and analysis of costs would be required to obtain a more detailed understanding of financial requirements and long term sustainability. 3.1

Costing models

Section 2 above outlines the preferred options for meeting seniors housing needs in Frontenac County. It points out that preferred options include both a “bricks and mortar” solution to expand the supply of units suited to the needs of seniors and a “home care” solution to help existing seniors age in place and remain within their traditional communities, especially in smaller and more remote communities where a sufficient population base does not exist to support a seniors facility. The bricks and mortar solution can essentially take any of the following forms:  A new seniors rental housing project developed with funding assistance through the “Investment in Affordable Housing Program” administered by the City of Kingston (in its role as municipal Service Manager). This form of development can be enhanced by supportive services delivered through local seniors support agencies. The funding assistance available through this Program enables rents to be affordable for low and moderate income seniors, which is a critical need in the County. Our examination of potential locations across the County found at least two potential opportunities (one in Sydenham and one in Verona) for such a development. Both locations have the potential to take the form of a “seniors hub” where housing and supports can be

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 7 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 212 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

delivered from one centralized location and serve a wide population base across South Frontenac, although the location in Sydenham is more established in that regard. 

Conversion/renovation of a non‐residential building into a seniors rental housing project. This type of development can also potentially be undertaken with funding assistance through the Investment in Affordable Housing Program administered by the City of Kingston, either under the new supply component of the program or the conversion/renovation component of the program. Here again, rents in such a project would be affordable for low and moderate income seniors, which addresses the most critical need in the County. Our examination of potential locations across the County found at least two possible opportunities (one in Sharbot Lake and one in Parham) for such a conversion/renovation project in the form of surplus school properties that might lend themselves to conversion. The Sharbot Lake opportunity also has the potential to take the form of a “seniors hub” where housing and supports can be delivered from one centralized location and serve a wide population base across Central and North Frontenac. Several support agencies are already active in the area and the hub could provide a means to consolidate administrative space. It is recognized that the Sharbot Lake school may pose several challenges in terms of condition of the existing building, grade, underlying soil structure, etc. and would have to be assessed extremely carefully before undertaking a redevelopment initiative at that location.



A smaller facility modelled after the “Abbeyfield” congregate living concept, whereby a single detached home (possibly an existing bed and breakfast residence) is renovated to create individual bedrooms for seniors with shared living room, dining room, kitchen and washrooms. Such facilities typically employ a caregiver to prepare meals, do housekeeping and maintenance work, provide transportation for residents and provide other such supports. Charges for such accommodation include both room and board and are often well below charges in a typical retirement home, although there are no forms of government assistance involved (unless the County offers some form of incentive). Our examination of potential locations across the County found at least one possible opportunity, located in Marysville.

The “home care” solution involves intensifying the level of supports to seniors living within smaller and more remote communities and perhaps also providing some forms of assistance over time for renovations to enable existing residences to be adapted to enable residents to age in place (such as installing ramps, grab bars, modified appliances, etc).

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 8 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 213 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

A further element of the strategy would be ongoing encouragement to private sector investors to expand the supply of market level ownership and “assisted living” forms of seniors housing to provide increased options for seniors at the middle and upper end of the income scale. Financial analysis of ‘bricks and mortar’ options

3.2

In the following section we provide a summary of the financial feasibility analyses conducted for the three “bricks and mortar” options. These include both capital and operating budget estimates. Detailed pro forma worksheets are provided in Appendix A with greater details and defined assumptions. It should be noted that figures used are for illustrative purposes and reflect typical project costs for projects of this scale. Costing for specific projects would require more detailed assessments in order to fully account for individual project variables. While the Abbeyfield model is not specifically recommended as a pilot project, a financial work‐up has been provided here for means of comparison with the assisted/supportive options. Model One: New Build Key Capital Assumptions            

20 unit new development 75% one bedroom units, 25% two bedroom units 1 storey height, no elevator One bedroom units at 550 sq. ft., two bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. Land cost of $5,000 per unit Base construction cost of $170/sq. ft. Community meeting space for residents Management office Surface parking Energy efficient construction (high insulation values, triple glazed windows, etc.) Rents at 80% of market Capital investment of $3,000,000

Capital budget Model One – Capital Summary Costs A Construction Costs Sub‐total B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Total (A+B) C Soft Cost Total Total Project Cost (A+B+C) Contributions D Capital Funding ($150,000/unit) E HST Rebate (82%) F Mortgage Financing Total Contributions (D+E+F) Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Project 3,138,858 119,780 3,258,638 599,671 3,858,309 Total Project $3,000,000 335,688 522,621 3,858,309 0

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit 156,943 5,989 162,932 29,983 192,915 Per Unit 150,000 16,784 26,131 192,915 0

Page | 9 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 214 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

The above table shows that total capital costs are estimated at $3,858,309, or $192,915 per unit. The main financial contribution would be a capital investment of $3,000,000 ($150,000 per unit), which could come from a variety of sources. Operating Budget Below we outline the operating budget estimates for the first five years of project operations, based on the capital cost estimates. Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents are set at 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent for Kingston Zone 4 Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 3% annual vacancy rate Property tax set at single family residential rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $200/unit/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues

Model One – Operating Summary

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

Net Annual Revenue

160,298

163,505

166,775

170,110

173,511

Total operating costs

142,042

144,318

146,642

149,010

151,426

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

18,256

19,187

20,133

21,100

22,085

CMHC, which provides mortgage insurance on projects of this nature, requires a debt coverage ratio of at least 1.10 in order to approve the financing for projects of this nature. The above project would have a debt coverage ratio (net operating income/mortgage payment) of 1.64, which demonstrates that it is financially feasible and sustainable. Some municipalities have found that they are able to improve affordability of such projects through contributing further local incentives such as waiving municipal fees and charges. Given a cost of approximately $100,000 for development charges and permit fees, this could be considered in this case and would reduce annual mortgage payments by approximately $5,600, which would enable a reduction of about $25 per month in unit rents. Model Two: Conversion/Renovation of Surplus School Key Capital Assumptions      

10,000 sq. ft. of existing space (approximate size of Sharbot Lake School) 75% one bedroom units, 25% two bedroom units One bedroom units at 550 sq. ft., two bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. School building transferred for $100,000 Base renovation cost of $130/sq. ft. (includes demolition of internal walls, etc.) 25% of existing space allocated to common areas, meeting space, management office County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 10 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 215 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

    

Total yield of 13 units; 10 one bedroom units, and 3 two bedroom units Surface parking Energy efficient construction Rents at 80% of market Capital investment of $1,625,000 ($125,000 per unit)

Capital Cost Budget Model Two – Capital Summary Costs A Construction Costs Sub‐total B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Total (A+B) C Soft Cost Total Total Project Cost (A+B+C) Contributions D IAH Funding ($125,000/unit) E HST Rebate (82%) F Mortgage Financing Total Contributions (D+E+F) Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Project 1,569,739 119,780 1,689,519 447,166 2,159,043 Total Project $1,625,000 192,215 341,828 2,159,043 0

Per Unit 120,749 9,213 129,963 34,397 166,080 Per Unit 125,000 14,785 26,294 166,080 0

The above budget is very preliminary and would have to be revisited should this potential option be pursued. The existing surplus school buildings would have to be carefully assessed for structural condition, available floor area, configuration, presence of any hazardous materials (such as asbestos), suitability of site services and parking areas, and so on. However, there are many examples of successful conversions of this nature in communities across Ontario. The main financial contribution would be a capital investment of $1,625,000 ($125,000 per unit), which could come from a variety of sources. Operating Budget Below we outline the operating budget estimates for the first five years of project operations, based on the capital cost estimates. Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents are set at 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent for Kingston Zone 4 Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 3% annual vacancy rate Property tax set at single family residential rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $200/unit/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 11 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 216 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Model Two – Operating Summary

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Net Annual Revenue

103,464

105,533

107,644

109,747

111,993

Total operating costs

92,520

93,999

95,508

97,052

98,625

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

10,944

11,534

12,136

12,745

13,368

CMHC, which provides mortgage insurance on projects of this nature, requires a debt coverage ratio of at least 1.10 in order to approve the financing for projects of this nature. The above project would have a debt coverage ratio (net operating income/mortgage payment) of 1.59, which demonstrates that it is financially feasible and sustainable. This high debt coverage ratio would permit rents to be lowered somewhat and still achieve financial feasibility. As with the new build option, further affordability could be achieved by waivers of municipal fees and charges. In addition, it might also be possible to achieve further cost reductions and affordability through negotiating a reduced purchase price for the surplus school building from the school board.

Model Three: Abbeyfield Seniors Residence Many Abbeyfield‐type residences have been developed through acquisition and renovation of an existing single detached home or bed and breakfast residence. To be suitable, the home should possess a large number of existing bedrooms (at least 8) and/or space to create additional bedrooms. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed the purchase of an existing 8 bedroom home of 5,000 sq. ft. Key Capital Assumptions  Purchase of existing 5,000 sq. ft. 8 bedroom home for $500,000  Renovation cost of $100/sq. ft.  No government funding assistance  Energy efficient construction (high insulation values, triple glazed windows, etc.)  Rents cover the cost of food and support services provided by caregiver Capital Cost Budget Model Three – Capital Summary Costs A Construction Costs Sub‐total B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Total (A+B) C Soft Cost Total Total Project Cost (A+B+C)

Total Project 611,240 576,300 1,187,540 187,073 1,374,613

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit 76,405 72,037 148,442 23,384 171,826

Page | 12 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 217 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Contributions D HST Rebate (82%) E Fundraising F Mortgage Financing Total Contributions (D+E+F) Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Project 122,430 221,223 1,030,960 1,374,613 0

Per Unit 15,303 27,652 128,870 171,826 0

The above table shows that total capital costs are estimated at $1,374,613, or $171,826 per unit. Mortgage lenders will require a minimum of 25% equity investment; therefore, the maximum mortgage amount would be $1,030,960. HST rebates would total approximately $122,430. The balance of $221,223 would have to be generated through some form of fundraising. Some municipal Service Managers and/or area municipalities have contributed funding through the Investment in Affordable Housing Program or its predecessor programs to assist Abbeyfield organizations in achieving financial feasibility and affordability of projects of this nature. This could be considered in order to support such initiatives in Frontenac County.

Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents include sufficient revenues to cover facility operations, cost of food and cost of caregiver, plus achieve debt coverage ratio of at least 1.20. Calculation comes to $1,700 per month Caregiver salary $35,000/year Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 6% annual vacancy rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $600/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues

Operating Budget Model Three – Operating Summary

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Net Annual Revenue

153,408

156,476

159,606

162,798

166,054

Total operating costs

138,253

139,905

141,588

143,308

145,064

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

15,155

16,571

18,018

19,490

20,990

Some municipalities have found that they are able to improve the affordability of such projects through contributing further local incentives such as capital contributions through programs such as Investment in Affordable Housing, waiving municipal fees and charges, or granting reductions in property taxes. Another incentive that could facilitate developments of this nature could be low interest or interest free loans to enable the sponsor group to meet the equity requirement (in this case, $221,223). Such contributions would enhance the viability of this option.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 13 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 218 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

3.3

Resourcing/funding opportunities

The above analysis points out that there are a number of potential opportunities for local incentives that can encourage and facilitate the expansion of seniors housing facilities. These initiatives are most effective when consolidated as part of a package of contributions and incentives coming from many partners and sources. Some of the potential incentives that could enhance the financial feasibility and affordability of seniors housing facilities would include:  Waivers/reductions in County and/or local municipal building and development fees and charges  Reductions in County/local property taxes  Contributions of municipally‐owned land  Contributions of surplus school buildings  Low interest or interest free loans  Funding to assist in adapting homes for aging in place  Allocations of Municipal Service Manager funding under the Investment in Affordable Housing Program (i.e., rent supplements, etc.) These incentives would provide strong encouragement to proceed with such a development and play a highly effective role in supporting the expansion of seniors housing options in the County. Where a project sponsor brings equity to the table, these incentives can be further leveraged to improve operational viability or improve affordability to project residents. As discussed in the Policy Framework report produced for this study, the authorities and vehicles for granting municipal incentives are well documented. Two key affordable housing tools that are being used by municipalities and that could be applied in Frontenac are Municipal Capital Facilities by‐laws and Community Improvement Plan incentives. In order to extend these incentives, the County would need to establish authorities and guidelines for conveying the incentives. At the same time, adaptations to existing homes to support aging in place could be funded through a County fund set up for that purpose. A budget of about $15,000 per home, for example, would likely be sufficient for installation of ramps, grab bars, and/or modified appliances which would enable a senior to remain within the unit. An annual fund of $300,000, for example, would enable 20 seniors to adapt their homes and age in place, rather than having to leave the area to find more suitable accommodation.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 14 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 219 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

3.4

Home Care/Support Services

Each of the above options would provide affordable forms of accommodation suited to rural and small town locations for seniors who are basically capable of independent living and wish to remain in their existing community, or are looking to retire to Frontenac. As noted previously, many centres and more remote rural locations within the County do not possess sufficient population to support a seniors facility and would be better served through adapting existing homes and expanding home care services to encourage aging in place. In addition, the effectiveness of the “bricks and mortar” options outlined above would be enhanced through the provision of an increasing range of services and supports to enable the seniors occupying such units to maintain residence in these facilities over time, rather than moving to more costly long term care facilities when they age or ending up in an “ALC” (alternative level of care) situation in hospital, where they are unable to return to their home due to a lack of support services. The LHIN plays a key role in both elements of this approach. They provide much of the funding required to deliver home supports across Frontenac County, working in partnership with the CCAC and local service agencies. They also administer some funding programs to enable the purchase and installation of equipment required to adapt homes to enable seniors to age in place. In view of this key role, it is critical that the County liaise with the LHIN on a regular basis to ensure they are fully aware of the critical need for home supports across the area and the need to expand budgets to ensure these supports can be provided.

4.0

Moving a Pilot Project Forward

The financial analyses provided in this report are based on preliminary estimates and benchmarks commonly used for such facilities. In order to move towards development of one of the preferred options, a number of steps need to be taken to enable the project to proceed. Apart from establishing an initial project scope and development concept, a significant part of advancing development relies on proof of the concept. This is typically undertaken by completing a business plan for the project. A detailed business plan for a typical project would involve:  Identifying potential community partners to assist with the development  Determining what local incentives will be offered to support the project  Determining the preferred option for development  Identifying the preferred property and negotiating a conditional agreement of purchase and sale County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 15 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 220 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

       

Preparing a concept plan for the development Preparing preliminary capital and operating budgets for the development Identifying potential sources of funding Determining the current planning status and required steps to achieve full development approval Conducting environmental testing to ensure the site has no environmental constraints Conducting an analysis of hard service infrastructure to ensure sufficient capacity is available to service the development Identifying the organizational structure for developing and operating the facility Identifying potential support services to be delivered to residents

While the County may choose to take a leadership role in developing the necessary business case itself, Frontenac may instead choose to seek out local partners who are interested in sponsoring such a project. As proponents, project sponsors may have equity or other resources to contribute to the project as well as a long term commitment to developing, owning and operating the project upon completion. Under this sponsor approach, the County would act as a facilitator, helping to guide development of a pilot project to reality using local incentives. Typically, municipalities will call for Expressions of Interest (EOI’s) or issue Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) to solicit project concepts from interested sponsors. In the issued documents, the County would articulate its housing aspirations for seniors, the incentives being offered to facilitate project development and the conditions associated with the incentives. The County would then evaluate submissions based against criteria such as financial viability, responsiveness to local needs, affordability, etc. There would also be an opportunity to assess each proposal’s use of incentives to ensure that public resources are generating a clear public benefit for the investment made. In the case of either a direct municipal or sponsored project approach, resources to complete the necessary business plan will be required. CMHC operates a program entitled “SEED Funding” which is designed specifically to fund the development of business plans for potential affordable and special needs housing projects. The funding totals up to $20,000 and is comprised of an initial $10,000 grant and a further $10,000 interest free loan to enable such plans to be put together. In order for the County to move ahead with a preferred development concept, a submission could be made to CMHC for SEED Funding to develop the business plan for the preferred option.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 16 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 221 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

4.1

Critical path/milestones

In the case of a typical housing project, there are a number of significant milestones in moving a project stepwise from its initial concept through to construction and operation. Following is a brief overview of some of the more notable activities that are undertaken:

1. Concept development – establishing an initial project team, establishing the proposed approach to project development, the involvement of potential partners/sponsors and a working concept of the project
2. Proof of concept – establishing the demand for the project within the housing market, defining the working concept in more detail and identifying general development and procurement options
3. Preliminary business plan – testing the development potential and financial feasibility of the project, determining its fundability and capacity to sustain itself over the longer term
4. Initial funding commitment – securing the necessary financial resources to move the project through its initial pre‐development phase and establishing a project site/location
5. Pre‐development activities – establishing a project design team as well as undertaking necessary due diligence, technical testing and design work to prepare the project for construction, marshalling necessary resources or financing to construct the project
6. Construction – where sufficient resources have been committed to enable development of the project, construction would proceed via a determined procurement process (tendering, fixed price contract, etc.)
7. Pre‐occupancy planning ‐ organizational preparedness for operation of the project including initial unit rent‐up strategies/marketing, operational planning for project management and mortgage transitioning (if applicable)
8. Post‐occupancy wrap‐up – activities related to finalizing any construction deficiencies, addressing warranty issues and winding up matters with the project/development teams The milestones associated with each project can vary, as can the time to move through the development process. On average, projects can move from concept to complete within 24‐36 months, provided resources are in place to fund pre‐development and construction activities. Careful planning with an experienced project team at the outset and on‐going monitoring can help ensure that the project meets critical milestones. 4.2

Essential components necessary for success

As noted in the previous section, moving from concept to operation is a stepwise process requiring significant work with multiple decision points along the way, regardless whether the project is direct managed or sponsored. Within the development process, it is possible that a project could end up being unable to move forward for any number of reasons. To ensure County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 17 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 222 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

project success, there are a number of critical ingredients that can help minimize the roadblocks that can be encountered in the development process. Some of the key components include:  Clear and articulated project vision – establishing a clear project scope and vision at the outset will help ensure that as issues are encountered in the development process, project ‘edges’ can be maintained  Experienced development team – having experienced and knowledgeable team members will help ensure that the project direction is set and stays on track through the development process. This is particularly evident where team expertise can be brought to bear when unanticipated issues are encountered.  Dedicated project sponsor – where a sponsor‐based approach is used, an experienced and reliable project partner is critical to successful project development and the long term success of the project. A sponsor with demonstrated leadership and capacity to undertake the project further enhances success.  Secured location/facility – having a site or building procured for the project is most useful as it can reduce the time necessary to search, acquire and undertake due diligence for the project. Having land use approvals in place and securing the site/building at a reduced price or in‐kind donation can further enhance project success.  Solid business case demonstrating feasibility – Rigorous financial testing using realistic assumptions for both construction and operation is critical to ensuring development and sustainability of the project. Where project financing is required, this business case will form the foundation on which to secure such financing – without it, the project may not be able to secure these resources.  Funding and/or financing – Having sufficient resources to undertake pre‐development activity is critical to get the project off the page. While a smaller component of overall project costs, this front end funding is essential to move a project forward to the point that it can be considered for construction. Once there, the substantial funding or financing to build the project must be committed/in place prior to tendering/procurement. Typically this is the largest single roadblock to affordable housing development.  Support services/resources – In the case of seniors housing like that being proposed, having the resources to cover the ‘bricks & mortar’ is, of course, essential. However, while this provides a roof over the heads of residents, there are still resources necessary to provide the services and supports that seniors require. Without these supports, the needs of seniors’ residents cannot be adequately met. Like financing, having a tangible commitment for support service prior to project construction is key in order to provide a successful living environment.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 18 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 223 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

5.0

Summary

5.1

Summary of Primary Opportunities

Initial analysis has demonstrated that with certain resources at hand, an assisted/supportive housing project can be successfully developed in Frontenac County. This project could take the form of a new development or a conversion/redevelopment approach. Given the opportunity nodes that exist and their characteristics, the project could be best located in an established settlement area, like Verona, Sydenham or Sharbot Lake. While more detailed work would be required to fully test these scenarios, a small scale project could be sustainable and help enhance the range of housing available to seniors in any one of these communities. This option could be further enhanced where a ‘hub & spoke’ approach is used, building on support services that already exist. Working with established service providers, there would be real opportunities to align service efforts in the community where a project was situated. By enhancing this capacity in the seniors pilot project, services that are provided to the surrounding community could also be enhanced, raising the quality of life for those able to live independently in their own homes. While not a specified option that is within the service purview of the County, the enhancement of home care services is also seen as important. Securing additional LHIN resources to fund more supports would help improve quality of life for residents throughout the County. However, this would be most important for residents in the northern reaches of Frontenac where limited growth and development make building a seniors housing facility less attractive. Experienced partners and tangible resources will be required to bring a pilot project to fruition and the County will need to determine the role it wishes to assume ‐ as a project sponsor or as a project facilitator. It will also need to reflect on the resources it can commission for such a project, the resources it may otherwise be able to marshal (i.e. via other funding partners), and the long term role it wishes to maintain in the project. Determining this role will be influenced by the broader role the County wishes to assume as part of the local housing system. 5.2

Facilitating Other Options

It is worth noting again that the preferred options presented in this study are deemed to be projects which best serve the priority needs of seniors based on the opportunity nodes that exist in the County. This is not to say that other options discussed would not work or could not be developed. In fact, as the study has shown, there are very real reasons why the County should continue to encourage development of multiple forms of seniors housing. Creating the County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 19 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 224 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

right environment to encourage appropriate development is a broader planning objective that is equally suited to meeting seniors housing needs of the aging population. As noted in the Policy Framework component of the study, the County ‐ in its role as regulator and facilitator ‐ can help foster the development of other seniors housing, especially by the private sector and interested community‐based organizations (i.e. Abbeyfield). 5.3

Recommendations

As a result of the detailed assessment of preferred options and the preceding work undertaken as part of the study, there are concrete actions which the County can take to move forward with a seniors pilot housing project. While these depend to some degree on the role the County wishes to assume, there are steps which we would recommend at this time, namely:

1. That the County form an implementation group/task force for a seniors pilot project To help frame the role the County wishes to take for the pilot initiative and to plan the next steps forward, it is advisable for the County to establish a small but active task force involving staff and elected officials to take carriage of the project and establish its scope.
2. That the County adopt a preferred housing pilot target and define its role for the pilot As part of the initial task force work, a review of the study report and recommendations should be used to help determine specific goals, objectives and parameters on which the pilot project will be based. This process will help define the County’s requirements for the project as well as articulating its role.
3. That the County identify funding, resources and incentives that it is willing to provide to support a seniors pilot project. In addition to establishing Municipal Capital Facility authorities, the County should consider the use of the following incentives:  Capital funding  Waivers/reductions in County and/or local municipal building and development fees/charges  Reductions in County/local property taxes  Contributions of municipally‐owned land/buildings  Low interest or interest‐free revolving loans As part of the scoping exercise, the County should review the policy recommendations in the study regarding incentives it can use to support a seniors project. From this, the range of incentives which the County is prepared to put forward for the project should be established, whether in the form of direct contributions (i.e. cash), fee/tax relief (i.e.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 20 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 225 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

development applications, property tax reductions), in‐kind contributions (i.e. land) or some combination thereof. 4. That the County seek from the City of Kingston (as Service Manager) a funding commitment to help support the pilot project and local seniors housing needs As the Service Manager, Kingston is responsible for distribution of housing program monies including IAH capital funding. The County should seek support and/or financial commitments under available programs to help contribute towards pilot project development. Other programs which support seniors home renovations/adaptations should also be targeted to help support ‘aging in place’ for Frontenac seniors. 5. That the County promote SEED funding to possible pilot project sponsors in order to build local capacity and undertake project viability investigations Given the resources needed to advance ideas to the concrete assessment stage, the SEED program offered by CMHC should be accessed to defray these costs. Where the County does not wish to pursue direct delivery of the pilot project, the SEED program should be promoted among prospective local sponsors to assist them in advancing their seniors project concepts. 6. That the County solicit detailed project proposals from interested community partners using an Expression of Interest or Request for Proposal process Where incentives are to be offered by the County, there is a clear desire to seek tangible and appropriate projects which will address seniors needs and be sustainable. To ensure project readiness and leverage community equity, it is recommended that a proposal call or similar process be used to evaluate and select projects for County incentives. Prior to launching such a proposal call, it would be advisable to confirm what funding commitment may be available from the City of Kingston (as Service Manager) for a housing project of this nature. This would provide an opportune way to bundle together resources and attract viable community partners. 7. That the County, in conjunction with local support agencies, seek funding enhancements from the Southeast LHIN for local seniors support services, local home care services, community paramedicine initiatives and home adaptation initiatives. The LHIN is a key service funder and as such, is a critical partner in Home Care initiatives that are delivered by local support service agencies. In addition to this on‐going service funding, resources for the pilot project, community paramedicine and home adaptations could also be pursued with the LHIN, especially as these assist in promoting the ‘age in place’ initiatives and ALC objectives espoused by the LHIN. County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 21 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 226 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

8. That the County foster the development of other forms of affordable and appropriate seniors housing by creating a more flexible local regulatory environment. As noted, the ability to encourage appropriate seniors housing development within Frontenac goes beyond the pilot project objectives framed in this study. Implementing policy framework adjustments for surplus lands, establishing capital facilities authorities and refining land use policies can all have a positive effect on creating a more conducive development environment for seniors housing.

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page | 22 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 227 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Appendix A – Detailed Financial Analysis of Models

Model One: New Build under Investment in Affordable Housing Program Key Capital Assumptions            

20 unit new development 75% one bedroom units, 25% two bedroom units 1 storey height, no elevator One bedroom units at 550 sq. ft., two bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. Land cost of $5,000 per unit Base construction cost of $170/sq. ft. Community meeting space for residents Management office Surface parking Energy efficient construction (high insulation values, triple glazed windows, etc.) Rents at 80% of market Capital investment of $150,000 per unit

(a) CAPITAL COST BUDGET AREAS AND ASSUMPTIONS General Units to Be Provided 1 Bedroom units

Number 15

2 Bedroom units

5

Total Units

20

Rent $ $615 (80% of AMR) $870 (80% of AMR)

Rm or Unit Size (ft2) 550 ft2 700 ft2

Sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units 20 Non‐Residential floor area (meeting space, management office, laundry/storage/offices, corridors) Residential floor area (area of units only, excluding corridors, common areas, etc.) Total Floor Area (sq. ft.) Surface Parking spaces Base Construction Cost (per sq. ft.)

3,915 11,750 15,665 25 $170

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

n/a

Page |A‐ 1 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 228 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

HARD COSTS Construction Costs 1 Base Construction Cost ($170/sq. ft.): 2 Site Preparation and Landscaping 3 Appliances 4 Furniture and Equipment 5 Environmental remediation Construction Costs 6 Construction Bond 7 Contract Management Fee 8 Contingency and Escalation (5%) 9 HST 13% A Construction Costs Sub‐total Land Cost 10 Land purchase price 11 Land Transfer Tax 12 Legal fees and disbursements 13 HST B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Summary C Hard Costs Total (A+B) SOFT COSTS Building Consultants: 14 Architectural 15 Structural 16 Mechanical and Electrical 17 Landscape 18 Code/Cost (Quantity Surveyor) 19 Development Consultant 20 Printing and Disbursements 21 HST 13% D Building Sub‐total Site 22 Building and Property Appraisal 23 Survey 24 Geotechnical Assessment 25 Environmental Assessment 26 Inspection Costs 27 HST 13% E Site Sub‐total

Total Cost 2,630,050 Included in line 1 20,000 10,000 0 2,660,050 Included in line 1 Included in line 1 133,002 345,806 3,138,858 Total Cost 100,000 1,000 5,000 13,780 119,780

Per Unit $131,502 0 1,000 500 0 133,002 0 0 6,650 17,290 156,943 Per Unit 5,000 50 250 689 5,989

3,258,638

162,932

Total Cost

Per Unit

160,000 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 15,000 150,000 7,500 43,225 375,725 Total Cost 4,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 2,340 20,340

8,000 0 0 0 750 7,500 375 2,161 18,786 Per Unit 200 100 100 250 250 117 1,017

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 2 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 229 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Legal and Organisational 28 Legal Fees – contracts and agreements 29 Organisational Expenses 30 Insurance and Audit 31 HST 13% F Legal and Organisational Sub‐total Financing Costs 32 Construction Financing G Financing Costs Sub‐Total Fees and Permits 33 Building Permit Fees (including development charges) 34 School Board Levy 35 Hydro Connection Fee (bulk meter) 36 Property Taxes During Construction H Fees and Permits Sub‐total

Total Cost 15,000 7,500 10,000 4,225 36,725 Total Cost 21,250 21,250 Total Cost 100,000 12,000 5,000 76 117,076

Per Unit 750 375 500 211 1,836 Per Unit 1,062 1,062 Per Unit 5,000 600 250 4 5,853

Soft Costs Summary Soft Costs Sub‐total (D+E+F+G+H) 37 Contingency (5%) J Soft Costs Total (total above 2 lines)

Total Cost 571,116 28,555 599,671

Per Unit 28,555 1,427 29,982

Cost Summary Hard Cost Total (C) Soft Cost Total (J) Total Project Cost (total above 2 lines) HST included in Total Project Cost

Total Cost 3,258,638 599,671 3,858,309 409,376

Per Unit 162,932 29,983 192,915 20,469

CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions 38 Capital Investment ($150,000/unit) 39 HST Rebate (82%) 40 Mortgage Financing Total Contributions Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Cost $3,000,000 335,688 522,621 3,858,309 0

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit 150,000 16,784 26,131 192,915 0

Page |A‐ 3 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 230 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

(b) OPERATING BUDGET Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents are set at 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent for Kingston Zone 4 Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 3% annual vacancy rate Property tax set at single family residential rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $200/unit/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues

Total Project Revenue (Per Year) CATEGORY Total Gross Annual Rental Revenue Laundry and Parking Income Minus Vacancy Allowance (3%)

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

162,900

166,158

169,481

172,870

176,328

2,285

2,331

2,377

2,425

2,473

‐4,887

‐4,984

‐5,084

‐5,186

‐5,290

160,298

163,505

166,775

170,110

173,511

CATEGORY

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

Administration Costs (bookkeeping, audit, legal, phone, supplies etc.)

3,715

3,789

3,865

3,942

4,021

Property Tax

18,000

18,360

18,727

19,101

19,484

Utilities (common area and units)

48,000

48,960

49,940

50,938

51,957

Mortgage Payments

28,195

28,195

28,195

28,195

28,195

Property Management (staffing costs including benefits or management company) Repairs and Maintenance (staff, supplies and trades)

12,720

12,974

13,234

13,499

13,769

8,000

8,160

8,323

8,490

8,659

Reserve for Capital Repairs or Replacement

6,412

6,540

6,671

6,804

6,940

Other Operating Expenses (i.e. insurance, waste removal, landscaping services, snow removal, etc.) TOTAL

17,000

17,340

17,687

18,041

18,401

142,042

144,318

146,642

149,010

151,426

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

18,256

19,187

20,133

21,100

22,085

Net Annual Revenue

Projected Operating Expenses

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 4 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 231 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Model Two: Conversion/Renovation of Surplus School Key Capital Assumptions           

10,000 sq. ft. of existing space (approximate size of Sharbot Lake School) 75% one bedroom units, 25% two bedroom units One bedroom units at 550 sq. ft., two bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. School building transferred for $100,000 Base renovation cost of $130/sq. ft. (includes demolition of internal walls, etc.) 25% of existing space allocated to common areas, meeting space, management office Total yield of 13 units; 10 one bedroom units and 3 two bedroom units Surface parking Energy efficient construction Rents at 80% of market Capital investment of $1,625,000 ($125,000 per unit)

(a) CAPITAL COST BUDGET AREAS AND ASSUMPTIONS General Units to Be Provided 1 Bedroom units

Number 10

2 Bedroom units

3

Total Units

13

Rent $ $615 (80% of AMR) $870 (80% of AMR)

Rm or Unit Size (ft2) 550 ft2 700 ft2

Sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units 13 Non‐Residential floor area (meeting space, management office,laundry/storage/offices, corridors) Residential floor area (area of units only, excluding corridors, common areas, etc.) Total Floor Area (sq. ft.) Surface Parking spaces Base Renovation Cost (per sq. ft.) HARD COSTS Construction Costs 1 Base Renovation Cost ($130/sq. ft.): 2 Site Preparation and Landscaping 3 Appliances 4 Furniture and Equipment 5 Environmental remediation Construction Costs 6 Construction Bond

2,500 7,500 10,000 15 $130

n/a

Total Cost 1,300,000 Included in line 1 13,000 10,000 0 1,323,000 Included in line 1

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit $100,000 0 1,000 770 0 101,770 0

Page |A‐ 5 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 232 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

7 8 9

Contract Management Fee Contingency and Escalation (5%) HST 13% A Construction Costs Sub‐total Land Cost 10 Land purchase price 11 Land Transfer Tax 12 Legal fees and disbursements 13 HST B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Summary C Hard Costs Total (A+B) SOFT COSTS Building Consultants: 14 Architectural 15 Structural 16 Mechanical and Electrical 17 Landscape 18 Code/Cost (Quantity Surveyor) 19 Development Consultant 20 Printing and Disbursements 21 HST 13% D Building Sub‐total Site 22 Building and Property Appraisal 23 Survey 24 Geotechnical Assessment 25 Environmental Assessment 26 Inspection Costs 27 HST 13% E Site Sub‐total Legal and Organisational 28 Legal Fees – contracts and agreements 29 Organisational Expenses 30 Insurance and Audit 31 HST 13% F Legal and Organisational Sub‐total Financing Costs 32 Construction Financing G Financing Costs Sub‐Total

Included in line 1 66,150 180,589 1,569,739 Total Cost 100,000 1,000 5,000 13,780 119,780

0 5,088 13,891 120,749 Per Unit 5,000 50 250 689 5,989

1,689,519

129,963

Total Cost

Per Unit

125,000 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 15,000 125,000 7,500 33,475 375,725 Total Cost 4,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 2,340 20,340 Total Cost 15,000 7,500 10,000 4,225 36,725 Total Cost 21,250 21,250

9,660 0 0 0 750 9,660 577 2,575 18,786 Per Unit 308 154 154 385 385 180 1,565 Per Unit 1,154 577 769 325 2,825 Per Unit 1,062 1,062

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 6 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 233 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Fees and Permits 33 Building Permit Fees (including development charges) 34 School Board Levy 35 Hydro Connection Fee (bulk meter) 36 Property Taxes During Construction H Fees and Permits Sub‐total

Total Cost 65,000 7,800 5,000 76 77,876

Per Unit 5,000 600 385 6 5,990

Soft Costs Summary Soft Costs Sub‐total (D+E+F+G+H) 37 Contingency (5%) J Soft Costs Total (total above 2 lines)

Total Cost 447,166 22,358 469,524

Per Unit 34,397 1,720 36,117

Costs Summary Hard Cost Total (C) Soft Cost Total (J) Total Project Cost (total above 2 lines) HST included in Total Project Cost

Total Cost 1,689,519 469,524 2,159,043 234,409

Per Unit 129,963 36,117 166,080 18,031

CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions 38 Capital Investment ($125,000/unit) 39 HST Rebate (82%) 40 Mortgage Financing Total Contributions Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Cost $1,625,000 192,215 341,828 2,159,043 0

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit 125,000 14,785 26,294 166,080 0

Page |A‐ 7 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 234 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

(b) OPERATING BUDGET Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents are set at 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent for Kingston Zone 4 Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 3% annual vacancy rate Property tax set at single family residential rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $200/unit/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues

Total Project Revenue (Per Year) CATEGORY Total Gross Annual Rental Revenue Laundry and Parking Income Minus Vacancy Allowance (3%) Net Annual Revenue

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

105,132

107,234

109,379

111,567

113,798

1,485

1,515

1,545

1,576

1,607

‐3,153

‐3,216

‐3,280

‐3,346

‐3,413

103,464

105,533

107,644

109,797

111,993

Projected Operating Expenses CATEGORY

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

Administration Costs (bookkeeping, audit, legal, phone, supplies etc.)

2,500

2,550

2,600

2,653

2,706

Property Tax

11,700

11,934

12,172

12,416

12,664

Utilities (common area and units)

31,200

31,824

32,460

33,110

33,772

Mortgage Payments

18,432

18,432

18,432

18,432

18,432

Property Management (staffing costs including benefits or management company) Repairs and Maintenance (staff, supplies and trades)

8,270

8,433

8,602

8,774

8,950

5,200

5,304

5,410

5,518

5,629

Reserve for Capital Repairs or Replacement

4,168

4,251

4,336

4,423

4,511

Other Operating Expenses (i.e. insurance, waste removal, landscaping services, snow removal, etc.) TOTAL

11,050

11,271

11,496

11,726

11,961

92,520

93,999

95,508

97,052

98,625

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

10,944

11,534

12,136

12,745

13,368

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 8 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 235 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Model Three: Abbeyfield Seniors Residence Key Capital Assumptions     

Purchase of existing 5,000 sq. ft. 8 bedroom home for $500,000 Renovation cost of $100/sq. ft. No government funding assistance Energy efficient construction (high insulation values, triple glazed windows, etc.) Rents cover the cost of food and support services provided by caregiver

(a) CAPITAL COST BUDGET AREAS AND ASSUMPTIONS General Units to Be Provided 1 Bedroom units

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.) Surface Parking spaces Base Renovation Cost (per sq. ft.) HARD COSTS Construction Costs 1 Base Renovation Cost ($100/sq. ft.): 2 Site Preparation and Landscaping 3 Appliances 4 Furniture and Equipment 5 Construction Costs 6 Construction Bond 7 Contract Management Fee 8 Contingency and Escalation (5%) 9 HST 13% A Construction Costs Sub‐total Land Cost 10 Property purchase price 11 Land Transfer Tax 12 Legal fees and disbursements 13 HST B Land Cost Sub‐total Hard Costs Summary C Hard Costs Total (A+B)

Number 8

Rent $ (see operating budget) Sq. ft. 5,000 9 $100

Rm or Unit Size (ft2) 350 ft2

n/a

Total Cost 500,000 Included in line 1 6,000 12,000 518,000 Included in line 1 Included in line 1 25,900 67,340 611,240 Total Cost 500,000 5,000 5,000 66,300 576,300

Per Unit $62,500 0 750 1,500 64,750 0 0 3,237 8,417 76,405 Per Unit 62,500 625 625 8,287 72,037

1,187,540

148,442

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 9 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 236 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

SOFT COSTS Building Consultants: 14 Architectural 15 Structural 16 Mechanical and Electrical 17 Landscape 18 Code/Cost (Quantity Surveyor) 19 Development Consultant 20 Printing and Disbursements 21 HST 13% D Building Sub‐total Site 22 Building and Property Appraisal 23 Survey 24 Geotechnical Assessment 25 Environmental Assessment 26 Inspection Costs 27 HST 13% E Site Sub‐total Legal and Organisational 28 Legal Fees – contracts and agreements 29 Organisational Expenses 30 Insurance and Audit 31 HST 13% F Legal and Organisational Sub‐total Financing Costs 32 Construction Financing G Financing Costs Sub‐Total Fees and Permits 33 Building Permit Fees (including development charges) 34 School Board Levy 35 Hydro Connection Fee 36 Property Taxes During Construction H Fees and Permits Sub‐total Soft Costs Summary Soft Costs Sub‐total (D+E+F+G+H) 37 Contingency (5%) J Soft Costs Total (total above 2 lines)

Total Cost

Per Unit

50,000 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 Included in line 14 5,000 30,000 2,500 11,375 98,875 Total Cost 2,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 2,000 1,690 14,690 Total Cost 10,000 5,000 5,000 2,600 22,600 Total Cost 20,000 20,000 Total Cost 10,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 22,000

6,250 0 0 0 625 3,750 312 1,422 12,359 Per Unit 250 250 250 625 250 211 1,836 Per Unit 1,250 625 625 325 2,825 Per Unit 2,500 2,500 Per Unit 1,250 250 625 625 2,750

Total Cost 178,165 8,908 187,073

Per Unit 22,270 1,113 23,384

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 10 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 237 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

Costs Summary Hard Cost Total (C) Soft Cost Total (J) Total Project Cost (total above 2 lines) HST included in Total Project Cost CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions 38 HST Rebate (82%) 39 Fundraising 40 Mortgage Financing Total Contributions Total Contributions Less Total Project Costs

Total Cost 1,187,540 187,073 1,374,613 149,305

Total Cost 122,430 221,223 1,030,960 1,374,613 0

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Per Unit 148,442 23,384 171,826 18,663

Per Unit 15,303 27,652 128,870 171,826 0

Page |A‐ 11 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 238 of 251

AgendaItem#13c)

(b) OPERATING BUDGET Key Operating Assumptions       

Rents include sufficient revenues to cover facility operations, cost of food and cost of caregiver, plus achieve debt coverage ratio of at least 1.20. Calculation comes to $1,700 per month Caregiver salary $35,000/year Revenues and expenses increase at 2% per year 6% annual vacancy rate Utilities (heat, hydro, water) average $600/month Mortgage rate of 4.5% amortized over 40 years Capital reserve contribution of 4% of revenues

Total Project Revenue (Per Year) CATEGORY Total Gross Annual Rental Revenue Minus Vacancy Allowance (6%)

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

163,200

166,464

169,793

173,189

176,653

‐9,792

‐9,988

‐10,188

‐10,391

‐10,599

153,408

156,476

159,606

162,798

166,054

CATEGORY

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

Administration Costs (bookkeeping, audit, legal, phone, supplies etc.)

2,500

2,550

2,601

2,653

2,706

Property Tax

7,200

7,344

7,490

7,640

7,793

Net Annual Revenue

Projected Operating Expenses

Utilities

7,200

7,344

7,490

7,640

7,793

Mortgage Payments

55,617

55,617

55,617

55,617

55,617

Repairs and Maintenance (staff, supplies and trades)

6,000

6,120

6,242

6,367

6,495

Caregiver salary

35,000

35,700

36,414

37,142

37,885

Food

9,600

9,792

9,987

10,187

10,391

Reserve for Capital Repairs or Replacement

6,136

6,258

6,384

6,511

6,642

Other Operating Expenses (i.e. insurance, waste removal, landscaping services, snow removal, etc.)

9,000

9,180

9,363

9,551

9,742

TOTAL

138,253

139,905

141,588

143,308

145,064

Operating Surplus (Deficit)

15,155

16,571

18,018

19,490

20,990

County of Frontenac ‐ Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project

Page |A‐ 12 re fact consulting

2014-102 Senior’s Housing Task Force

Page 239 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 240 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 241 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 242 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 243 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 244 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 245 of 251

AgendaItem#18a)

Accounts for the period of: May 15, 2014 to June 11, 2014

Page 246 of 251

AgendaItem#24a)

BY-LAW NO. 2014-0029 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC being a by-law to amend By-law 2014-0027 which authorizes the Warden and Clerk to Execute the Amending Agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues to 2024 WHEREAS the Council of the County Frontenac at its regular meeting held May 21, 2014 passed By-law 2014-0027 authorizing the Warden and Clerk to Execute an Amending Agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues to 2024; and WHEREAS the County of Frontenac has been advised by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) that this Agreement is a new Agreement and not an amending Agreement; and, WHEREAS the County of Frontenac has been asked by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) to amend By-law 2014-0027 by substituting “Municipal Funding Agreement” in place of “Amending Agreement” NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac enacts as follows: 1.

THAT By-law 2014-0027 be amended by substituting “Municipal Funding Agreement” in place of “Amending Agreement

THAT this By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.

Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of June, 2014. Read a Third Time, Signed, Sealed and Finally Passed this 18th day of June, 2014.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Bud Clayton, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

County of Frontenac By-law No. 2014-0029 – To amend by-law 2014-0027 authorizing the Execution of an Amending Agreement with AMO for Transfer of Federal Gas Revenues to 2024 June 18, 2014 Page 1 of 1

By-Law No. 2014-0029 - to amend by-law 2014-0027 authorizing

Page 247 of 251

AgendaItem#24b)

BY-LAW NO. 2014-0030 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC Being a by-law to declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way WHEREAS pursuant to County of Frontenac By-law No. 17-1995 which establishes procedures governing the sale of real property; AND WHEREAS Section 2(a) requires that prior to the sale of any real property Council shall pass a by-law or resolution at a meeting open to the public to declare the real property to be surplus; AND WHEREAS Section 3(a) requires that notice to the public of a proposed sale of real property shall be given prior to the date of sale by publication in a newspaper that is, in the Clerk’s opinion, of sufficiently general paid or unpaid circulation within the municipality to give the public reasonable notice of the sale; AND WHEREAS the Council for the Corporation of the County of Frontenac considers it desirable and expedient to declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way to Mr. Ron Moore subject to the following conditions: ¾ All No Trespassing signs placed on County property by the landowner be removed by the landowner; ¾ All surveying and legal fees be borne by the landowner NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac does hereby declares the following: 1.

THAT lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 be declared surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way to Mr. Ron Moore subject to the following conditions: ¾ All No Trespassing signs placed on County property by the landowner be removed by the landowner; ¾ All surveying and legal fees be borne by the landowner

By-law No. 2014-0030 – To declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way July 16, 2014

By-law No. 2013-0030 - To declare lands surplus for the purposing of

Page 248 of 251

AgendaItem#24b)

THAT pursuant to By-law No. 17-1995, third reading of this by-law be given at the July 16, 2014 County Council meeting to accommodate public notice requirements

THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect upon the date of final passing.

Read a first and second time this 18th day of June, 2014. Read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed this 16th day of July, 2014.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Bud Clayton, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

By-law No. 2014-0030 – To declare lands legally described as Part Lot 10 Concession 2 Geographic Township of Hinchinbrooke being Part 6 on RP 13R-18801 surplus for the purpose of granting a right-of-way over part of the former K&P right of way July 16, 2014

By-law No. 2013-0030 - To declare lands surplus for the purposing of

Page 249 of 251

AgendaItem#24c)

BY-LAW NO. 2014-0031 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on June 18, 2014 WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; and; WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2 subject to certain provisions, and; WHEREAS Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and; WHEREAS the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:

1. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on June 18th 2014 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.
2. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on June 18th 2014 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.
3. THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on June 18th 2014 except those taken by by-law and those required by by-law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law.

By-law No. 2014-0031 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council on June 18, 2014 Page 1 of 2

By-law No. 2014-0031 Confirmation of Proceedings

Page 250 of 251

AgendaItem#24c)

4. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the final passing thereof. Read a First and Second Time this 18th day of June 2014. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 18th day of June 2014.

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Bud Clayton, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

By-law No. 2014-0031 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council on June 18, 2014 Page 2 of 2

By-law No. 2014-0031 Confirmation of Proceedings

Page 251 of 251

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.