HomeMy WebLinkAbout FCS-17-021 - 2017 Ward Boundary Review - Link Test only
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
REPORT TO: Finance & Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 6, 2017
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk,
519-741-2200, 7809
PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Manager of Council/Committee Services &
Deputy City Clerk, 519-741-2200, 7278
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: January 20, 2017
REPORT NO.: FCS-17-021
SUBJECT: 2017 Ward Boundary Review
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That in accordance with Section 1.a) of Council Policy GOV-COU-050, no
adjustments be undertaken at this time to alter the City’s existing ward
boundaries based on the justifications outlined in Finance and Corporate
Services Department report FCS-17-021.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current configuration of the City’s ward
boundaries remains sound and continues
to adhere to the four guiding principles
outlined in Council Policy GOV-COU-050.
As such, no change to ward boundaries is
warranted at this time. Consideration
should again be given to possibly re-
designing the boundaries as part of the
next scheduled review following the 2022
Municipal Election in accordance with
Council policy.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal Act, 2001 allows a municipality to establish, re-divide or dissolve wards.
The decision of Council is to be enacted by a specific by-law which is then open to
appeal within legislated timelines.
Composition of Existing Ward Boundaries
Guiding Principles Meets
Criteria
i) Protecting Communities of Interest
ii) Reasonable Distribution of
Population
iii) Natural Boundaries
iv) Accommodate Growth for at Least
12 Years
The timing set out in Council Policy GOV-COU-050 requires a review to be conducted
of the City’s ward boundaries after every second Municipal Election. The last ward
boundary review was undertaken in 2008 in advance of the 2010 Municipal Election;
and therefore, one is required to take place prior to the 2018 Municipal Election. The
intent of this report is to satisfy that requirement.
Should a by-law be passed to adjust any or all ward boundaries, a notice is required to
be placed in a local newspaper. The notice serves to inform the public that within 45
days of the date the by-law was approved, anyone may submit an appeal to the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB). If an appeal is submitted and the OMB does not dismiss it, a
hearing will take place to review the merits of the appeal and a decision will be
rendered. If no appeal is submitted, the by-law stands and the new ward boundaries
are in effect for the next term of Council. Any boundary adjustments need to be
resolved prior to December 31, 2017.
Impetus for Change
Ward boundary reviews are typically conducted in response to some overarching
change that affects the composition of Council. Annexations, amalgamations, the
creation of or changes to Regional Council, Provincial restructuring of a municipality,
increases in the size of Council, and policy mandate usually drive the need for a ward
boundary review.
For instance in 2000, the Province restructured the City of Ottawa into a single tier
regional city with a wide diversity of communities and interests of both rural and urban,
suburban and inner city, and French, English and multi-ethnic. Ottawa’s first attempt at
adjusting its wards was unsuccessful and it took several years before the current 23
ward structure was implemented.
Similarly, the Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act, 2009, resulted in annexation of a
portion of the Town of Innisfil to the City of Barrie. This subsequently necessitated a
review of their existing ward boundaries.
In February 2013, the City of Vaughan received a petition to add a sixth ward and adjust
the boundaries of its current wards. Instead of changing the City’s ward structure so
close to the 2014 Municipal Election, Vaughan Council decided to conduct a broad-
based ward boundary review in advance of the 2018 Municipal Election. Their review
commenced in early 2016 and a final report is anticipated to go forward for
consideration in the first quarter of 2017.
In the mid-1990s, a review was done in response to a proposal that City of Kitchener
representatives on Waterloo Regional Council should be directly elected through at-
large voting. In 1999, this resulted in a reduction in the number of wards from ten to six.
In 2007, Council voted to increase its composition from six to ten councillors.
Accordingly, the boundaries were adjusted to accommodate the increase in the size of
Council. In October 2007, Council approved the terms of reference to be used for the
2008 Ward Boundary Review and, in January 2008, retained the services of Dr. Robert
Williams to lead the review process which included: undertaking public consultation;
developing options; and, making a final recommendation which was presented to
Council in September 2008. Dr. Williams’ final report containing his recommendation
for a new ten ward system was put into place for the 2010 Municipal Election.
Guiding Principles
While there are variations as to how wards can be drawn, in order to be successful over
time, they need to respect a set of established principles that are used nationally in
setting ward or riding boundaries.
Section 1.c) of Policy GOV-COU-050 sets out the following principles to be considered
when reviewing the City of Kitchener’s ward boundaries:
i) Communities of interest and neighbourhoods should be protected. It is desirable
to avoid fragmenting traditional neighbourhoods or communities of interest.
ii) Consideration of representation by population: to the extent possible, and
bearing in mind the requirements for effective representation, voters should be
equally represented and wards should have reasonable equal population totals.
Given the geography and varying population densities and characteristics in the
City, a degree of variation is acceptable.
iii) Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries. Wards should be
compact, contiguous shape, straight forward and easy to remember.
iv) Consideration of present and future population trends. The ward structure should
accommodate growth for at least 12 years.
In 2007, the previous policy governing ward boundary reviews was amended to
incorporate those principles, which align with the tenets of past OMB and Supreme
Court decisions. In the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference
Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) [1991] S.C.J. No. 46, commonly known as
the Carter decision, it found that variations between the boundaries in urban areas
could be justified on the basis of geography, community interests and population growth
patterns; while the rural boundaries were appropriate given the challenges associated
with transportation and communications. In its decision, the Court established that the
right to vote under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms instituted a right to
“effective representation”, rather than absolute voter parity reflected by the concept of
“one person, one vote” established by the United States Supreme Court.
When defining effective representation as a right protected by the Charter, the Court
noted the relative parity of voting power was a prime, but not an exclusive, condition of
effective representation. It found that deviations could be justified where the
consideration of other factors, such as geography, community history, community
interests and minority representation would result in a legislative body that was more
representative of Canada’s diversity.
Accordingly, the overarching principle for a ward boundary review shall be the principle
of effective representation; however, consistent with the Court’s decision, this principle
shall be subject to additional considerations as prescribed within the other guiding
principles reflected in Policy GOV-COU-050. Those principles have guided other ward
boundary reviews across Canada and were used by Dr. Williams’ in his 2008 review for
the City of Kitchener.
REPORT:
In the absence of any overarching impetus for change, this review in advance of the
2018 Municipal Election focused on the appropriateness of the City’s current ward
boundaries in the context of the guiding principles set out in Policy GOV-COU-050. It is
important to note no one principle is applied in isolation but rather the guiding principles
are applied in concert with one another in order to achieve an overall balance in the
number, size, composition, and configuration of wards.
i) Protecting Communities of Interest
As noted in the Carter decision, the recognition and protection of communities of
interest may justifiably override the principle of voter parity where the inclusion of a
community of interest will lead to a system that is more representative of the City’s
diversity. The Court did not define what constitutes a “community of interest”; however,
OMB appeals have recognized historical settlement patterns or existing communities,
as well as social, historical, economic, religious, linguistic or political groups. Applying
this principle, where possible, in drawing ward boundaries serves to help protect areas
where communities with common interests are grouped together and minimize the
division of those communities between wards.
The current ward configuration follows this principle of maintaining neighbourhoods, as
outlined in Dr. Williams’ report. The criteria therein outlines that a community of interest
is best served when ward boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. This is currently reflected in the fact that only three of the City’s 30
affiliated neighbourhood associations span the boundaries of two wards.
Taking the other guiding principles into account it would not be feasible to redesign the
wards to have those three associations fully incorporated within individual wards. For
example, redrawing the boundaries to fully encapsulate the Stanley Park Community
Association within Ward 2 would shift approximately 80% of the population of Ward 1
into Ward 2; thereby creating a significant disparity in population. This was recognized
during the public consultation undertaken as part of the 2008 Ward Boundary Review.
The current ward boundaries successfully contain 90% of the City’s neighbourhood
associations within individual wards and as such protect those communities of interest.
Any change to the current boundary configuration would undoubtedly result in
splintering more neighbourhood associations; and, is one reason why a change to any
ward boundary is not recommended at this time.
ii) Reasonable Distribution of Population
One of the basic premises of representative democracy in Canada is the principle that
the geographic areas used to elect a representative should be reasonably balanced with
one another in terms of population. In an ideal ward system, every Councillor would
represent generally the same number of constituents. This figure is typically referred to
as the “optimal size” for a ward; as the overall population changes, the optimal size of a
ward would also change.
The 2008 Ward Boundary Review acknowledged there would inevitably be variations in
the densities and character of communities and neighbourhoods across the City, and
some flexibility in terms of representation was deemed to be acceptable. In the
absence of guidance on this in the Municipal Act, 2001, population variations of up to
25% above or below the “optimal size” are considered generally acceptable. This range
is consistent with legislated federal redistribution provisions.
The chart in Appendix ‘A’ of this Report shows the population forecasts for each ward to
2031, as provided by the Region of Waterloo. The underlying forecast is based on the
municipal allocations in the Regional Official Plan, plus a preliminary allocation to the
City of Kitchener resulting from Amendment 2 of the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe. From this, Kitchener is forecasted to have a population of 322,000
in 2031. The Region’s Population and Land Use Model (PLUM) was used to distribute
this population across the City. The Region has stipulated several caveats associated
with these projections in the short-term. Since a straight-line projection was used for
the interim years (2018, 2022, 2026), nuances in the timing of development are not
incorporated into the forecasts, and it is suggested that one should refer to the City’s
growth management and staging of development plans to better understand local
nuances.
The Region further noted that the near-term growth rates for Ward 5 are likely
overstated as a portion of those lands are subject to a provision within the Regional
Official Plan. This provision states that comprehensive planning will be required for
such lands in 2019, and additional land will be considered through the 2019
comprehensive review of the Regional Official Plan.
Appendix ‘A’ shows the current variance from the optimal size for each of the City’s 10
Wards and projects that variance for the next four election years (2018, 2022, 2026 and
2031). The range of population per ward in Kitchener in 2016 is 19,000 (Ward 3) to
30,500 (Ward 2). When the wards were last re-configured the optimal size was
identified as being approximately 21,400, with a range of roughly 16,050 (Ward 5) to
26,750 (Ward 2). The current optimal size has been identified as being 24,300. This
figure will be used to evaluate how well individual wards provide parity in representation.
As noted in Appendix ‘A’, there are eight wards that are within 15% of the optimal size in
2016; with half of those wards being within 5%. It is acknowledged that the projection
for Ward 2 exceeds the 25% threshold by approximately 125 people, which could be
accounted for as a statistical anomaly. It should be noted that in subsequent years the
projections for this Ward fall back within the range of the optimal threshold; and, by
2031 are projected to be within 15% of the optimal size.
By 2022, the overall population numbers are projected to shift slightly, with only seven
wards being within 15%. It is important to note, even eight years into the future no
wards are estimated to exceed the optimal threshold of 25% of the optimal size.
For 2026, it is estimated that only five wards would be within 15% of the optimal size,
with four wards being within 16%-25%. Additionally, by that time Ward 5 is projected to
exceed the optimal range by approximately 3,163 residents. This number grows to
8,400 by 2031. By that time, Ward 9 will also exceed the optimal range by 1,250
residents and only four wards would remain within 15% of the optimal size. This
reinforces the need to undertake the next review of ward boundaries following the 2022
election in advance of the 2026 election.
Comparison
The adjacent chart provides a
comparison of the population per ward
of 15 municipalities all with populations
over 125,000. The population per ward
ranges from 13,642 (Barrie) to 69,636
(Mississauga), with an overall average,
or optimal size, of 36,946.
Kitchener has an average ward
population of approximately one-third
fewer people than the average of the
comparator municipalities.
Taken together, the review shows a
change in the current ward boundaries
in advance of the 2018 election is not
warranted based on population and
optimal ward sizes. In accordance with
Policy GOV-COU-050, the next Ward
Boundary Review is scheduled to take
place following the 2022 Municipal
Election. It is possible that given the projected growth in population, a possible
reconfiguration of the City’s ward boundaries might be needed at that time.
Municipality Pop. No. of
Wards
Pop. /
Ward
Barrie 136,417 10 13,642
Brampton 610,900 10 61,090
Burlington 175,780 6 29,297
Cambridge 126,748 8 15,844
Greater Sudbury 160,274 12 13,356
Hamilton 520,000 15 34,667
London 366,000 14 26,143
Markham 349,000 8 43,625
Mississauga 766,000 11 69,636
Ottawa 960,756 23 41,772
Richmond Hill 213,727 6 35,621
Toronto 3,080,000 47 65,532
Vaughan 319,893 5 63,979
Windsor 210,875 10 21,088
Waterloo 132,300 7 18,900
AVERAGE 36,946
Kitchener 243,000 10 24,300
iii) Natural Boundaries
This principle acknowledges that topographical features or natural boundaries are
undeniably one of the most visible attributes of a municipality and should be integrated
into ward boundary designs where appropriate. Dr. Williams’ 2008 Review interpreted
the term "natural boundaries” as applying mostly to "manmade" barriers here in
Kitchener, primarily the Conestoga Parkway but also included many arterial roadways.
It was indicated those features were suitable because their scale and traffic patterns
tend to isolate residents who happen to live on opposite sides of the thoroughfare from
one another. As well, topographical features tend to aid in supporting citizens’
perception of what constitutes their neighbourhood/community.
For instance, the population trends provided by the Region show a growing disparity
between the populations of Ward 2 and Ward 3. At first glance it may appear that the
simple answer would be to adjust the boundary between the two Wards to provide for
more equal distribution of population. The most likely portion of Ward 2 that would be
allocated to Ward 3 would be the area to the south and east of Chicopee Ski Hill given
its relative geographical connection to the Deer Ridge Community in the east end of
Ward 3. Doing this would shift approximately 7,500 people into Ward 3; thereby
providing greater parity in the population between each ward. Shifting that population,
however, would not be in keeping with the intent of the guiding principles to protect
communities of interest. The children in that area would primarily attend either Franklin
Public School or Saint John Paul II, both of which are located deep within Ward 2.
Those families are connected to those areas and disassociating them from those
communities to balance population numbers would seem arbitrary.
Additionally, Highway 8 and the Grand River currently bisect those two Wards and
provide for natural, straight-forward and easy to remember physical features by which
those two Wards are separated. While eventually there will be a disproportionate
number of people in Ward 2, in the near term, the degree of variation is such that the
use of this natural boundary to divide those Wards would seem to be appropriate.
A further area of possible adjustment could be the boundary between Wards 4 and 5.
While it may appear to have been established based on the previously projected future
alignment of Strasburg Road, the study conducted by Dr. Williams indicates this
boundary was based on the western limit of the Brigadoon and the Doon South
Community Plans. When providing the population statistics, the Region indicated that a
portion of lands in Ward 5 are subject to Section 2.D.33 of the Regional Official Plan,
which states that comprehensive planning will be required for all such lands, and the
City of Kitchener shall not initiate or adopt any background studies or local official plan
amendments to establish land use designations for such lands prior to June 30, 2019.
In addition, a separate portion of lands in Ward 5 are currently beyond the urban growth
boundary, and will be considered in the comprehensive review in 2019.
It has been identified that consideration cannot be given to initiating the process to re-
define the boundaries of those Community Plans until after the timeframe set out by the
Region. Additionally, community plans do not exist for the area between the western
limit of the Brigadoon and the Doon South Community Plans and the future alignment of
Strasburg Road. The current timing for construction of the southern alignment of
Strasburg Road is post 2019; and therefore, no natural boundary is currently in place
that could be used to bisect Ward 4 and Ward 5. In the absence of those planning
documents and/or defined physical boundary, it would be premature to undertake any
adjustments to that boundary prior to 2019.
iv) Accommodate Growth for at Least 12 Years
One of the goals of the 2008 Ward Boundary Review was to ensure the creation of
wards which would sustain the principle of an equitable distribution of population for at
least 12 years. Over the past nine years, the average number of people in each ward
has only grown by 2,900 residents and, as shown in Appendix ‘A’, population parity is
relatively maintained until 2026. This validates the 2008 ward design because under
the current system, the wards are generally in equilibrium to one another as growth
takes place over an approximate 18 year span.
In the 2008 Review it was acknowledged that no ward system design can successfully
meet all of the guiding principles set out in Policy GOV-COU-050. The challenge was to
minimize the divergence from the ideals in a recommended system and balance the
objectives of the guiding principles as much as possible.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this Report supports the achievement of the City’s strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation outlined in this
Report.
For reference, the budget for the 2008 Ward Boundary Review was set at $35,000. In
conducting ward boundary reviews, many municipalities choose to use the services of a
consultant to coordinate and conduct the project and some reviews are effected by
Municipal Clerk’s staff. The following provides an overview of what other municipalities
have expended and the amount of time that was needed to conduct their ward boundary
reviews.
Municipality Year Length Budget
Barrie 2010 5 months $40,000
Kingston 2010 13 months $88,000
Milton 2006 11 months $30,000
Oakville 2010 11 months $30,000
Vaughan 2016 18 months $105,000
Windsor 2009 11 months $50,000
The average cost of those reviews was $57,167. Future consideration will be given to
establishing a budget to allow for a consultant-led ward boundary review to possibly re-
configure the City’s ward boundaries following the 2022 Municipal Election.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM - This Report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in
advance of the March 6, 2017 Finance & Corporate Services Committee meeting.
CONSULT - In developing this report, Planning staff at the Region of Waterloo compiled
and provided the growth projections. City Planning staff were also consulted with
respect to the implications of the population projections in relation to the City’s growth
management strategies.
Extensive public consultation was undertaken as part of the 2008 Review. This included
several articles and advertisements in local newspapers, online and mail-in surveys,
and three public open houses. This culminated in approximately 157 submissions.
In keeping with the contention that the current configuration of the City’s ward
boundaries remains valid, so too are the public consultation results upon which those
boundaries were based. Given no changes are being proposed, no additional public
consultation is necessary.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
The following are the reports pertaining to the previous Ward Boundary Review
conducted in 2008 as well as the report relating to when the composition of Council was
increased from six to ten members.
CRPS-07-067 - Council Composition and Ward Review
CRPS-08-003 - Ward Boundary Review - Consultant Selection
CRPS-08-109 - Ward Boundary Review - Recommended Option
CRPS-08-159 - Ward Boundary Review - Final Recommendation
CONCLUSION:
Fundamentally, the current composition of the existing ward boundaries remain sound
and continues to adhere to the principles of Council Policy GOV-COU-050; therefore, no
adjustments are required at this time. The boundaries will again be reviewed following
the 2022 Municipal Election in accordance with Council policy.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, Deputy CAO - Finance and Corporate Services
APPENDIX 'A' - Report FCS-17-021Pop+/-Pop+/-Pop+/-Pop+/-Pop+/-122,800-6.2%23,300-8.1%24,400-11.1%25,500-13.7%26,900-16.5%230,50025.5%31,40023.9%33,10020.5%34,80017.8%37,00014.9%319,000-21.8%19,700-22.3%21,200-22.8%22,700-23.2%24,600-23.6%421,800-10.3%23,200-8.4%26,100-5.0%29,000-1.9%32,6001.2%523,000-5.3%26,4004.2%33,30021.3%40,10035.7%48,70051.2%624,8002.1%25,000-1.3%25,400-7.5%25,700-13.0%26,200-18.6%727,90014.8%28,00010.5%28,3003.1%28,600-3.2%28,900-10.2%824,100-0.8%24,300-4.1%24,700-10.1%25,000-15.4%25,500-20.8%924,7001.6%26,9006.2%31,40014.3%35,90021.5%41,50028.9%1024,4000.4%25,200-0.6%26,700-2.8%28,200-4.6%30,100-6.5%Avg24,30025,34027,46029,55032,200Total243,000253,400274,600295,500322,0002031WardCurrent201820222026