HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOR-2025-001 - 2026 Municipal and School Board Election Alternative Voting MethodsStaff Report
�J.
Ku Ivi Irm-IZ
Corporate Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 17, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: A. Fusco, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519-741-
2200
PREPARED BY: A. Fusco, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519-741-
2200
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: February 24, 2025
REPORT NO.: COR -2025-001
SUBJECT: 2026 Municipal and School Board Election Alternative Voting
Methods
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council reaffirms the use of vote tabulators for the 2026 Municipal Election, as
outlined in Corporate Services Department report COR -2025-001; and,
That Council hereby authorizes the alternative voting methods as outlined in this
report and directs the Clerk to bring forward the necessary by-law; and further,
That the election reserve contribution be increased as outlined in Corporate Services
Department report COR -2025-001.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• By-law 2006-135 is in place authorizing the use of paper ballots/tabulators for all
Kitchener municipal and school board elections.
• The next general election will be held on Monday, October 26, 2026.
• The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction on any alternative voting methods
for the 2026 municipal and school board election in addition to paper ballots/tabulators.
• Advance planning is essential for ensuring an inclusive, transparent, and well -organized
election, as well as maintaining public confidence in the election process.
• Ensuring an accessible election is crucial to enabling participation for people of all
abilities.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
• Technology has transformed how people engage with city services including
involvement in municipal elections.
• Voter demographics and attitudes are evolving, and today's diverse electorate
expects products and services tailored to them that are convenient and accessible.
• With technological advancements, security concerns continue to remain a top priority
to protect the integrity of the election process and trust in government.
• Through post-election community engagement, over 90% of voters indicated
satisfaction with their overall voting experience.
• In consultation with the Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee (GRAAC) in
February 2024 they expressed no support for one method over another, rather
indicating it's the number of methods (hybrid approach) that is the most accessible.
• While offering convenience, a hybrid approach presents risks associated with
multiple different voting procedures, resourcing implications and training materials.
• Staff recommend offering the current Council -approved voting methods, vote
tabulators be supplemented with alternative voting methods that include a home vote
program upon request and drive through voting, for the 2026 Kitchener municipal
council and school board election.
• The proposed home vote and drive thru voting options, to meet electors where they
are, were well received by GRAAC in February 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA) governs the administration of local elections in
Ontario. The Clerk holds independent legislative authority to administer all municipal and
school board elections as the Returning Officer. These elections are planned and conducted
in line with policies and procedures that reflect and uphold the principles of the Municipal
Elections Act, 1996 (MEA), generally recognized as follows:
• The secrecy and confidentiality of the voting process is paramount;
• The election shall be fair and non -biased;
• The election shall be accessible to the voters;
• The integrity of the voting process shall be maintained throughout the election;
• There is to be certainty that the results of the election reflect the votes cast; and
• Voters and candidates shall be treated fairly and consistently.
In keeping with the election principles, accessibility is vital to ensuring participation for
individuals of all abilities, supporting the city's commitment to inclusive elections. Section 12
of the Act requires the Clerk to ensure an accessible election and remove barriers for voters
and candidates with disabilities. Staff continually work to review and improve accessible
options for electors, candidates, and election staff including continuously monitor legislation
updates, and municipal trends and practices.
While periodic amendments have occurred, municipal election legislation is dated, and is
written such that the voting process involves a paper ballot and that those ballots be hand
or manually counted. Section 42 (1) of Act does provide that a municipality may pass by-
laws authorizing the use of alternative voting methods, including the use of vote counting
equipment, vote by mail, and telephone and internet/online voting. Many municipalities have
generally abandoned manual counting due to the time and effort involved in counting votes
on a composite ballot (all races the elector may vote for on one ballot) after the close of polls
on Voting Day. In 2022, the City had 50 ballot faces given its 10 wards and the 5 types of
ballots required per ward (owing to the 4 school boards and option to have no school support
for non-residents).
2022 Election Method Approval
In November 2021 Council considered two reports regarding alternative voting methods to
recommend internet voting for advance polls (through report COR -2021-26 including 2021
engagement survey results) and supplementary information regarding mail -in ballots
(through report COR -2021-33) in advance of the 2022 election. After considering such
information, Council opted to continue with a paper ballot/tabulator election.
For the 2022 election, electors had the opportunity to vote -anywhere during Advance Voting
due to the City deploying a Voters' List system that allowed for real time updates. Vote
Anywhere in your ward was piloted in 2022 which allowed the city to slightly reduce voting
locations and was found to spread the voters out amongst locations in their ward, reducing
wait times while still maintaining customer service in providing options.
Also in 2022, the City offered "curbside voting" to support voters who were unable to go
inside the voting place, to request to have a ballot brought to their vehicle, outside of the
building, or to another area within the voting place boundaries for marking. This option was
implemented to help those who are unable to enter the voting place due to barriers of
unreasonable difficulty, injury, disability or health and safety. Feedback was received that
electors were not aware of the curbside voting option in 2022 and greater communication of
this method is planned for 2026 for deployment.
Proxy voting is also available in accordance with the Act and established procedures. For
the 2022 election, respecting the pandemic restrictions and health and safety
considerations, city staff offered to attend upon the elector and proxy to certify the proxy
form at their residence, upon request, receiving a total of 10 requests. Electors who are
unable to vote in person on voting day or during the advance vote, may appoint a proxy (an
eligible voter) to vote on their behalf. The Proxy then attends a voting location with the
certified Proxy form, to receive a ballot on the elector's behalf. Because the marked ballots
are counted using vote count tabulators in the voting place (By-law 2006-135), curbside and
proxy voting does not require the passing of an alternative voting method by-law. Additional
information on the administration of the 2022 Municipal Election including the post-election
voter survey results can be found in Staff Report COR -2023-091.
REPORT:
The 2026 Municipal Election will take place on Monday, October 26, 2026. Since the 2022
election, there has been some positive progress in legislative amendment including areas
the voters' list data quality with the change to use the Elections Ontario list. This will give a
more accurate list based off drivers' license and health card information rather than home
ownership information used by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).
The List will also be updated with the Provincial election ahead of a municipal and school
board election.
By-law 2005-135 is already in place for the use of paper ballots/tabulators in all Kitchener
municipal elections. Staff fully comply with legislated accessibility requirements while
enhancing the voting experience for all, including:
• Ensuring physical voting locations are accessible, with features inside and outside
the location that accommodate voters with disabilities, including magnifying
sheets.
• Accessible voting equipment that plugs into the tabulator at in-person voting
locations. This includes the audio -tactile interface (ATI) with sip and puff and
paddle attachments, which allow individuals with various disabilities to
independently mark a ballot in person.
• Providing on-site voting at long-term care homes and designated retirement
homes to ensure equal access for residents.
• Providing voting locations at Ray of Hope, St. John's Kitchen and A Better Tent
City to afford vulnerable populations opportunities to vote.
• Implementing proxy voting.
• Facilitating curb -side voting.
• Training on accessible customer service.
• Access to interpreters and language services.
• Committing to continuous improvement through planning and reporting.
It is important at this point for Council to provide direction on the potential utilization of
alternative voting methods and vote counting equipment. Council may choose to;
• only offer paper ballots/tabulators;
• select another single method to replace paper ballots/tabulators; or
• pass a By-law in addition to By-law 2006-135 to permit a hybrid voting option.
Should Council wish to proceed with the use of alternative voting methods, beyond vote
count tabulators, a by-law must be passed by May 1, 2026. Upon passage of such a by-law
by Council, the Clerk is required to establish procedures and forms for the use of any such
alternative voting options, therefore the earlier the decision is made, the earlier planning can
commence should Council decide to move forward with a new method.
Other election methods were evaluated and a summary of reasons why each method is or
is not recommended by staff is provided below. The summary was informed by using the
city's risk policy to assess each method, including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats. The risk assessment is contained in Appendix A.
1.1 Paper Ballots and Vote Count Tabulators
For the past 5 general municipal elections, the City has used optical scan vote tabulators
with paper ballots (By-law 2006-135) at prescribed polling places (i.e. voting locations/place)
on prescribed Advance Voting days and on Voting Day.
While some municipalities have purchased tabulators outright, the City has chosen to lease
tabulators which has eliminated the need to securely store, maintain, and periodically
replace the devices. In 2018 and 2022 the City leveraged the Municipal Voting Technology
Sharing Program run by Elections Ontario to lease vote tabulators owned by Elections
Ontario. Elections Ontario undertook a rigorous process to procure the tabulators and
assess the functional (e.g. accessibility, system security, etc.) and non-functional (e.g.
privacy, proponent history, training, etc.) requirements of the tabulator system. It has been
a prudent and cost saving measure to leverage Election Ontario's expertise and ability as a
large elections administrator to secure tabulators for the City's recent elections. Due to the
complexity of municipal and school board election ballots with multiple contests and
selection requirements, vote tabulators reduce human error in tabulating. The City works
directly with the tabulator vendor to ensure that the tabulators are programmed to accept
composite ballots and identify votes based on marks the elector makes that meet a certain
threshold. The threshold is extensively reviewed and deemed appropriate through logic and
accuracy testing conducted by the Returning Officer prior to the election.
During Advance Voting and on Voting Day, electors at the polling location will provide their
marked ballot to a Tabulator Assistant who will insert the ballot into the vote tabulator. The
tabulator has functionality to determine if the ballot is marked so it can be tabulated.
Compared to a manual count, this added functionality ensures every opportunity for the
elector's vote to be counted. Vote tabulators support accessibility and barrier reduction.
Accessible voting equipment is connected to a vote tabulator at a voting location to enable
independent ballot marking and printing on request.
As vote tabulators and accessible voting equipment are not connected to the internet and
are securely stored, and rigorously tested prior to use during the election, the security risks
associated with the equipment is generally low. While the software responsible for the
aggregation or publishing of results generated by vote tabulators could be subject to cyber
threats, despite the safeguards in place to prevent such instances, retention of the original
tally results tapes and paper ballots always provides a guarantee that results could be
verified should an issue arise.
The Clerk is confident in the ability to administer future elections using vote tabulators and
this method upholds all principles of the Act. It is recommended that Council approve the
use of vote tabulators for the 2026 municipal and school board election.
11Vote-By-Mail
For rural municipalities, especially those with many seasonal residents, vote -by -mail is a
popular election method to address accessibility, particularly prior to the use of internet
voting. Vote -by -mail methods can occur exclusively as the only option or upon request as a
special ballot. If a municipality is exclusively using vote -by -mail, every elector on the Voters'
List would be mailed a voting kit with a return envelope, declaration form, ballot, and ballot
secrecy envelope. The elector signs the declaration form and then completes their ballot,
inserting the ballot into the secrecy envelope provided to ensure that a name cannot be
associated with a vote. Upon the municipality receiving the return envelope, the declaration
form is processed, the elector is struck from the Voters' List, and the ballot inside the ballot
secrecy envelope placed in a ballot box for counting after the close of vote on Election Day.
Counting votes can either be done manually or by centralized vote tabulators.
Vote -by -mail is an established remote voting method used at all levels of government, so it
is familiar method for many electors, and it can be debated that it enhances access to voting
by removing barrier of coming to an in-person poll and upholds the principles in the Act.
There are drawbacks to this method that should be highlighted, including the limited time
frame that it can be offered due to nomination and ballot printing timelines, concerns with
Canada Post delivery, prolonged time to receive and return kits by mail, high and increasing
postage costs related to the mailing and returning of ballots. In addition, errors by voters can
easily occur (i.e. neglecting to sign their voter declaration form or return both the voter
declaration and the ballot in the same envelope) affecting the ability to ensure that all votes
are cast as intended. It does not offer a fully independent voting experience as some voters
with disabilities may require assistance marking their ballot and voters with physical
disabilities that limit mobility may require assistance to drop off a marked ballot in the
mailbox for return.
This method is heavily dependent on matters outside of the city's control including potential
errors made by Canada Post in getting the ballots to the residents and the potential risk of
a Canada Post strike as was the case in the 2018 Municipal Election as well as marked
ballots that may be received after the deadline to be counted.
This alternative method is not being recommended as the cost to administer the program
and threats, while the risks are considered low, present by relying on other agencies make
the method unsustainable.
1.3Telephone and Internet/Online Voting
Telephone voting allows a voter to call into a digital platform using their unique identifier and
personal information number (PIN) to make selections using an automated voice system.
The ballot would be recorded and cast through the use of a digital platform similar to internet
voting, though it is far less common and not used by many municipalities. Internet voting
can be offered so that the elector completes the online ballot remotely using devices,
including laptops, mobile phones, and tablets or at a centralized voting location terminal.
While internet voting through a terminal in a voting location is a possibility, this option has
had low uptake as it eliminates the convenience of voting remotely. Remote internet voting,
being where electors do not need to travel to a polling location to cast their ballot online, can
be offered as either a one-step or two-step process.
• In a one-step process, electors receive a voter information package with Elector
ID and PIN numbers. Electors visit a webpage and use their ID and PIN, along
with their year of birth to access and cast their ballot.
• A two-step registration process requires voters to pre -register to obtain the
necessary credentials in order to access their ballot. There are various forms of a
two-step registration; however, the process typically involves mailing out
information packages to electors that include an elector identification number,
information about the voting process, and a secure website address where the
elector must go to register. Once the voter has registered, they are then sent a
personal identification number (PIN) by way of a secure email. Upon receipt of
the PIN, the voter can access the voting site and using both the information in the
information package and the PIN number, access their ballot. Once the elector is
ready to vote and has entered any required authentication, the appropriate ballot
with the applicable races would be presented to the voter based on their voters'
profile, which is their specific ward and school support.
This method supports independent ballot marking with the ability to customize and use
personal assistive technology and is convenient available online enabling 24/7 access to
voting so voters can cast a ballot from home, while on vacation, away on business or
studying at university or college outside of the city. Ballot waste is negated if offering a strictly
online election, as well as the potential for an elector to incorrectly mark a ballot, as a virtual
ballot has defined fields to mark the ballot, ensuring electors cannot place an incorrect mark
on the ballot or unintentionally overvote a ballot. While some municipalities did initially see
a slight increase in turnout the first time, they offered internet or telephone voting, the trends
suggest that this may be a novelty bump. Studies conducted by Nicole Goodman and
Zachary Spicer, referenced in their publication Voting Online, have shown that voter turnout
and trust in voting online occurs with each consecutive election the method is used.
Staff acknowledge that this is an accessible option and is the alternative voting method
preferred based on public engagement feedback from 2021. Unlike other countries or
jurisdictions, the use of digital technology in Ontario municipal elections remains largely
unregulated. There is no comprehensive legal framework governing its implementation,
oversight, or verification processes. All responsibility for managing, securing, and verifying
digital voting systems falls solely on election administrators and the private vendors
providing the technology. This creates significant challenges, as the existing legislation is
not up to date with the complexities of modern digital election systems, leaving gaps in areas
such as cybersecurity, transparency, and auditability. Without clear regulatory guidance,
municipalities must rely on their own discretion and vendor assurances, which can lead to
inconsistencies and potential risks to the integrity of the electoral process.
The Digital Governance Standards Institute is in the final stages of establishing and
approving voluntary online electoral voting standards for use in Canadian municipal
elections. These standards specify technical design requirements for online voting services
and outline best practices for election administrators. The goal is to address concerns
around the consistency of online voting implementation, the integrity of the vote, ballot
privacy, and system auditability. While the development of these standards is a positive step
in the right direction, and can address issues around uniformity and accountability, it's
important to remember that they remain voluntary, and there is still no legal framework for
the verification of online voting systems. Final approval of the standards is expected this
year.
Despite the above, this alternative voting method is not recommended for 2026 for several
reasons.
While no voting method is without risk, online voting presents a unique set of risks and
challenges.
It is important to acknowledge that all internet voting platforms may be subject to cyber
security threats. While there are no proven instances of an internet voting system being
hacked or tampered with, municipalities are increasingly targets for malicious actors looking
to hold information for ransom. Recent incidences include the Toronto Public Library, the
City of Hamilton and the City of Huntsville. Hacking of a voting system would have broader
societal consequences including the erosion of trust in government institutions to administer
fair and secure elections. Many municipalities that offer this method contract and conduct
technical security testing including penetration testing and threat risk assessments. The cost
of testing is estimated to range from $20,000 to $40,000.
Online voting platforms also operate outside of the city's network and rely on subcontracted
services and systems outside of the City's control. As such there is a higher risk of service
interruptions that could impact public trust in the electoral process and the integrity of the
election. During the last two (2) election cycles, issues related to technical dependencies
have impacted municipalities offering internet voting on Voting Day. In 2018, a vendor
experienced bandwidth throttling by a sub -contracted service provider and in 2022 a vendor
experienced a server failure that paused voting for a period of time. These issues are not
security related but highlight the increasing number of dependencies that technical options
rely upon. Despite security testing, these issues can and do impact election service levels
and can result in greater questions about the integrity of the election process overall.
Additionally, there is limited verifiability with digital count, audit and recount using the same
system. There is no external way to verify whether results reflect the proper majority of votes
cast, votes are counted accurately and only valid votes are counted and upheld. Should
trust in the system be called into question, there would be no paper ballot to verify results
and there could not be a recount in any other way, if ordered by the Courts. This challenges
principles of the Act and an inability to verify using any other means could raise larger
questions about election trustworthiness and the validity of the outcome. There are also
fewer Ontario -trusted internet voting vendors in the market, as it has been reported the
largest vendor in the municipal election space will no longer be offering internet or telephone
voting services.
Lastly, there is a variance in public technology literacy and access and while anecdotally it
is believed it will encourage younger voters to participate in the process, studies have not
supported this. This method heavily relies on voters' list data accuracy to ensure eligible
electors receive the correct voting information and ballot and prevent unauthorized access
to the system. This typically requires individualized voter notification cards as part of secure
login, not only increasing printing and postage costs, but enhanced reliance on Canada Post
in delivery of these cards.
2. Analysis
There are long-term considerations that should be understood when determining whether
to add additional voting methods. In particular, those related to the risk policies of the
municipality, rising costs of election equipment and services (particularly given the limited
and trusted vendors in the Ontario marketplace), cost to employ temporary election workers,
and increasing difficulty recruiting and retaining election workers through Voting Day.
The way voters cast their ballots is increasingly shifting toward technology-based and hybrid
methods. Following the 2022 Municipal Election, the Association of Municipalities Ontario
(AMO) conducted a survey on voting methods across the province reporting that over 200
municipalities utilized some form of online voting during the 2022 Municipal Election. In
2022, 66 municipalities chose to offer internet voting as a supplementary method to in-
person voting for the 2022 municipal elections. Doing so offers electors the choice to vote
in-person with a paper ballot or cast their ballot online, either remotely or at a polling location
depending on what option the municipality selects.
Ontario 2022 Municipal Elections
Voting Methods (AMC)
146
—
98
4237
29 24
Internet&
Paper Vote by Paper Paper Paper Internet
Paper
Telephone
Ballot Mail Ballot& Ballot& Ballot& Voting
Ballot&
Voting
ONLY ONLY Internet Internet & Vote by ONLY
Vote by
Vating Telephone Mail
Mail &
Voting Voting
Telephone
Voting
The desire to offer more choices is supported by the Grand River Accessibility Advisory
Committee (GRAAC). On February 22, 2024, city staff engaged with GRAAC to discuss
initiatives and considerations for future elections including:
• post-election accessibility initiatives regarding consultation, communication,
candidate information, outreach and education,
• voting methods and assistive technology,
• voting location enhance options for voters with mobility challenges, and
• barriers to the voting process.
During the discussion GRAAC members expressed no support for one method over another,
rather members indicated it's the number of methods (hybrid approach) that is the most
accessible.
While more choice for electors is generally a positive, the downside of offering both paper
ballot and internet voting is the additional resources and costs incurred to run two election
methods. As noted in the financial considerations section of this report, substantial additional
costs associated with vendor, security verification and resource requirements can result
from offering both paper ballot and internet voting. Implementing mail -in ballots would
require a large increase in resources, and presents challenges with postal strike abilities,
higher potential for spoiled ballots, voter confusion with multiple steps/forms in the process,
security and fraud prevalent with return envelopes and/or locations. While the case for
internet voting as a convenient voting method that improves accessibility is strong, there are
too many uncertainties and risks associated with the voting method for staff to recommend
its use for Kitchener's 2026 Municipal Election.
The following chart provides a detailed comparison of voting methods used by municipalities
with over 50,000 eligible electors in the 2022 municipal election, highlighting trends and
differences. Despite the growth in digital voting, trends suggest that the adoption of online
voting among larger municipalities is still somewhat limited.
Munlclpallty
Eligible
Electors
Paper
Adan
Phone
Internet
Home
Vote
Toronto
1,930,813
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Ottawa
722,227
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Mississauga
491,260
Yes
No
No
No
No
Hamilton
405,288
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Brampton
354,884
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Vaughan
225,983
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Markham
220,234
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Kitchener
171,025
Yes
No
No
No
No
Oakville
144,970
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Burlington
142,218
Yes
No
Na
Yes
No
Greater Sudbury
119,418
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Guelph
104,612
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Whithy
102,618
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Barrie
102,379
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Kingston
96,204
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Ajax
85,443
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Thunder Bay
83,010
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Milton
80,367
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Piclkeringl
76,021
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Brantford
75,305
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Niagara Falls
68,201
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Sarnia
54,148
I Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Many of Ontario's largest municipalities opted not to offer online voting in 2022, citing
security and accessibility concerns. For example, the City of Toronto refrained from adopting
online voting due to concerns about ensuring security and accessible voting options for all
residents. Similarly, the City of Greater Sudbury, which offered only online voting in 2018,
brought back paper ballots in 2022 after experiencing vendor -related bandwidth issues that
disrupted voting in the 2018 election. The City of Guelph offered online voting in 2014 and
2018, but City Council did not approve it for 2022 due to vendor -related bandwidth issues in
2018. For the 2026 election, staff recommended mail -in and vote -from -home methods;
however, Guelph Council approved internet voting as an alternative method, contingent on
all security requirements and testing meeting the City Clerk's satisfaction.
Summary
Given the analysis above, and, the popularity and familiarity of the vote -anywhere and vote -
anywhere in your ward options, the reliability of the optical scan vote tabulators for the past
5 municipal elections, and the high satisfaction rate (90%) from the 2022 voter exit survey,
staff recommend that Kitchener use the same election method for the 2026 Municipal
Election. Respecting the earlier comments regarding hybrid method risks, staff are
recommending enhancements that continue to leverage existing vote count tabulators and
increase accessibility, including, but not limited to the following pilot programs;
- a home vote program for home -bound electors, upon request; and,
- a drive-through voting experience.
Home Vote Program Upon Request
A home vote program was successfully implemented in 2022 in Cambridge, Brampton,
Vaughan, Markham, Guelph, and for the 2022 and 2018 election by Oakville, to support
eligible voters who are unable to come to an in-person voting location for mobility or health
reasons. The City of Kitchener in the 2022 election offered an at home Proxy voting program
run by Clerk staff. Citizens who utilized this option in 2022 provided very positive feedback
and gratitude about their ability to exercise their democratic right in a manner that met their
unique accessibility needs.
A home vote program is different than a Proxy voting program, it would allow eligible voters
who are unable to vote using other methods due to illness, injury or disability, to mark their
ballot from their residence, which is brought to them by election officials (registration and
appointment is required) and then tabulated through a vote count tabulator. Voters who meet
the criteria for this service would be able to request a home voting appointment by contacting
the Election Office. While dependent on the number of voters utilizing the program the cost
of implementing a home visit/vote program for home -bound electors is relatively low. The
cost depends on the number of voters who use this alternative voting method and the
number of days it is offered. The outcome of the pilot program would be reported as part of
the post-election report to Council.
In February 2025 staff presented to GRAAC members on the potential pilots being
considered and received positive support on the home vote pilot program including feedback
on appointment times, masking protocols, and health and safety considerations.
Given the dated election legislation, it is not clear whether a vote from home service is
considered an alternative voting method that requires Council approval. In the interest of
clarity, staff feel it is beneficial to have a by-law which specifically enables vote from home
approved by Council. Should Council support this option, a by-law will be brought forward
to Council to give effect to this method.
This alternative method is recommended as it is considered low risk, meets all principles of
the Act including enhanced accessibility, and can be easily offered with existing resources
and procedures in place.
Drive Thru Voting
Drive Thru voting was piloted in 2022 in Cambridge and Windsor, where eligible voters
attend a designated drive thru voting location listed on the voter cards. The voters remain in
their vehicles until prompted to drive up to the registration desk. The registration desk
election officials check the ID of all voters in the vehicle from the Voters' List. The driver then
parks at a designated spot and all voters receive a ballot inside a secrecy sleeve and vote
within the privacy of the vehicle. Voters then place their ballot in the ballot box presented to
them at their window.
In February 2025 staff presented to GRAAC members on the potential pilots being
considered and received positive support on the drive thru voting option including feedback
on potential locations where high volumes of electors may already be located (i.e. retail and
commercial locations) serving multiple electors per vehicle, ability to use specialized
accessibility equipment/supports, and limiting exposure to individuals that may have health
considerations. It was noted the drive thru options offers choice to electors between a home
visit and entering what could be a busy polling location.
In keeping with the principles of the Act, the following considerations would be
recommended as part of the pilot:
• This alternative method would be implemented during the advance voting period.
• Voters would be welcome to walk, bike, take transit or any other form of transportation
to the drive thru location.
• Curbside voting at voting locations would still be permitted, but due to the potential
for longer wait times while MDRO's assist in-person voters, a drive thru option would
increase convenience and reduce wait times.
• Designated spots would include signage to shut off vehicles to comply with the city's
anti -idling by-law.
This alternative method is recommended as it is considered low risk, meets all principles of
the Act, and can be offered with minimal additional resources relating to supplies, logistics
and communications.
Additionally, as a cost savings measure and in support of the recommendation, following
each successful election event, city staff are able to strategically staff and arrange voting
locations, disperse inventory, and build on past accomplishments through the delivery of the
same voting method. Data and feedback from voter exit survey from the 2022 election in
addition to voter turnout data per location will help further refine the placement and staffing
of voting locations in 2026.
Staff commitment to accessibility and removing barriers will continue as staff prepare for
2026 by developing new initiatives and enhancing existing ones. These efforts include
extending advance voting periods to reduce crowds and wait times and giving voters more
opportunities to cast their ballots. Staff will also implement communication, and outreach
plans to ease concerns and uncertainties around voting, focusing on engaging and informing
individuals.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Municipal Elections are funded through contributions from the operating budget to the
election reserve. Historically the city has budgeted $500,000 to administer the election with
annual reserve contributions of $125,000 over a four-year period between each election. In
the year of an election, the funds are drawn from the reserve in order to pay for election -
related costs.
Significant growth of eligible electors occurred between the 2018 and 2022 elections. This
number is expected to continue to increase.
It is anticipated that the 2026 Municipal Election using paper ballots aggregated by vote
tabulators along with an alternative upon request home vote and drive-thru program will cost
approximately $800,000 due to expected increases in election equipment and services costs
given discounted rates experienced in the 2018-2022 election vendor contract, increased
external election worker costs given rising minimum wage rates, enhanced voter
communications, and population growth impacts on voter notification cards and postage.
It is recommended that Council increase the annual election contribution reserve from
$125,000 to $200,000 to address the costs to administer the election using paper ballots
and vote count tabulations. Staff have conducted a municipal scan and other municipalities
with similar elector counts including the Town of Oakville, City of Windsor and City of
Vaughan budgets exceed $1 M.
Any deficits arising from election administration that are unable to be fully covered from
funding from the election reserve, would be off -set by the Tax Stabilization Reserve.
Alternative Voting Methods
Should Council decide to offer other alternative voting method options instead of, or in
addition to the staff recommended option, financial impacts are listed below.
The term of the City's contract with its' election equipment vendor for the 2018 and 2022
election has ended, so the costs below are estimates using quotations received from
vendors in the market and are subject to inflation increases and only reflect the voting
method, not other factors such as postage or staffing requirements. An eligible elector
utilization rate of 25% (37,500 electors) was used.
Method
Estimated Costs
Paper Ballots and Tabulators
$155,000
Mail -in Ballots (25% elector
utilization rate)
$131,000
Internet Voting as a Supplementary
Method
$167,500
*Does not include additional staffing resources, supplies, advertisements or taxes.
Should Council approve another alternative voting method option, additional resources will
be required to hire an additional contract staff to implement a new method in keeping with
best practices and additional supports required to implement the new method(s). Should
Council approve additional alternative methods without the required resourcing, the Clerk
will be required to evaluate and reduce in-person voting services, including fewer locations,
staffing and equipment, to stay within budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of
the council / committee meeting.
ENGAGE — To obtain as much feedback from the electorate as possible, several
engagement campaigns were undertaken immediately after the 2022 election including, fifty
(50) "Just -in -time" Customer Satisfaction Surveys; 293 Election Worker Surveys after the
election, and an Engage Kitchener Voter Experience Survey with 410 responses from
electors what they felt went well and what can be improved. Prior to the 2022 Municipal
Election, the City launched an online engagement survey regarding alternative voting
methods that was open from July 9, 2021 to August 31, 2021. With online and in-person
responses the survey received 1025 responses overall and 1014 ranked the four different
voting methods in the following order from most preferred to least preferred: internet, paper,
mail -in ballots, and telephone.
CONSULT — GRAAC members were consulted with, as it relates to election accessibility
measures including voting methods in February 2024 and again February 2025 on proposed
pilot programs. Correspondence was issued and received by each of the school boards
regarding any internal discussions regarding voting methods and positions taken. During
the research phase of this work comparator municipalities were benchmarked and consulted
including Oakville, Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, Waterloo, Mississauga, Greater Sudbury,
Cambridge, Barrie and Burlington. We also reached out to three cities that have a larger
population than Kitchener; Vaughan, Brampton and Toronto.
COLLABORATE — Collaboration on implementation and risk assessment for the alternative
methods occurred with city divisions including Technology Innovation and Services (TIS),
By-law Enforcement and Equity and Anti -Racism. External agencies including GRAAC, and
KW AccessAbility, were engaged to provide their input on the alternative methods being
recommended.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• COR -2023-091 2022 Election Overview
• Municipal Elections Act, 1996
APPROVED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Election Alternative Voting Methods Risk Assessment
F+
U
R
Q
E
N
O
0 0 0 0
CD CD C) CD
co � � -4
M N N N
N
Y
= T T T
C C C
O
N N N N
w w w w
(6 (6 (6 (6
2 2 2 2
� O
N E
C —
O 67
L
N T
N �
E Y
O U) U
� U �
(6
O O
C �
RS (6 O) N
aI
c a-+ E
'c N O
C
N O Q
U) a
E .Q w
T
w N N
(n —
O Q
Y � U
`O
� c m
C C
O N 63
U +�
N W �
N �
O
Y N
L 4%
N
N CO
E E E E
2 2 2 2
0 0 o O
w w w w
O O O O
> > > >
0
0
0
0
0
0
C)
C)
O
O
CD
1
CD
M
06
M
(C;
N
N
N
M
N
N
M
M
M
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
T
4Ral
RS
RS
(3
E
N
E
O
O
M
N
N
N
U_
E
E
E
E
L
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
2
T
N
N
N
N
(6
O
O
O
m
L
L
2
2
U
N
N
N
CL
O
a
O
c
a
O
m
m
m
m
N
N
O
O
63
0
63
63
O
O
O
(6
�
O
(6
(6
2
2
2
U
p
N
N
M
O
> O
E
co
M
X
— N
v
>>
0)O
(6
> .>
6s
>
U 63
a
�
> v
c
0O
� o
cu
O
_
>
>+
co
L
CU
N
w
0
C
N c
'O p
0
O
(
N O
w
T p
—il
Op
CO
Q-
(6
p
p N
'p
O
E
O
O
t
O
cu
��
N
C
N
O
CL
a
N cu
O
p
N
N
p
O�
O
p p
U
c
d
00
O
(6
N
OU
m
U
O N
0U
O
-p -p
N
cu
w
N. E
N
ZM
`� -6
O N
N
N
w
E
L
(n
N
(6
�N
O
U
N
(6CL
l
2
N
N
—
Cl)
0
c
0)
CU
N
O
C
N
Q
N N
(06
N U
'O -6
c c
O
N
.N
p
—
CL
C
Q
7
-p
cu
O a
(q
X
U_
(0 M
0
O
O
Y
RS
C
U
U
U p
C
(6 O
a m
o
O
U
T
p
_
NN
O
>
E
W
p
U
O�
c
(6
N O
U
C
N
CO
"t
Ln
(O
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
2
2
2
2
0)
J
N
co
co
co
co
00
co
4,fN
Z Z
M M
H
d
co
O
t
-2O
0 0 0 0
CD CD C) CD
co � � -4
M N N N
N
Y
= T T T
C C C
O
N N N N
w w w w
(6 (6 (6 (6
2 2 2 2
� O
N E
C —
O 67
L
N T
N �
E Y
O U) U
� U �
(6
O O
C �
RS (6 O) N
aI
c a-+ E
'c N O
C
N O Q
U) a
E .Q w
T
w N N
(n —
O Q
Y � U
`O
� c m
C C
O N 63
U +�
N W �
N �
O
Y N
L 4%
N
N CO
E E E E
2 2 2 2
0 0 o O
w w w w
O O O O
> > > >
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
CD
C)
CD
06
(6
(C;
M
M
N
M
M
M
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
T
4Ral
RS
RS
(3
RS
N
E
E
E
E
E
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
L
L
t
L
N
N
N
N
CL
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
63
0
63
63
O
O
O
(6
(6
O
(6
(6
2
2
2
U
U
U
U
M
O
(6`p
M
N
0)O
> .>
>
U 63
U
> v
N
(�O
T
Q >
O
_
>
>+
co
co
v
0
63
N c
'O p
0
O
(
N O
w
O O
—il
U
0
W p
N
C _T
U
U
w
O
O
t
O
��
N
C
O
C
O
U�
O
p
N 2
p
O�
�,
p p
U
v�
O O
p
a.�
O
(6
N
N
-O N
N
O N
0U
O
-p -p
c p
N >
(�
N
7CL
C
U—
O
-C-
Cl)
N
N
(�6
.��
0
(6
w
N U
Z3
'O -6
>
(n
-p
>
c 0
(q
U_
(0 M
0
U U
Y
RS
C
C: 0
=
U p
C
-0L)
0
T
C
N
NN
7 E
N
p
U
O�
c
(6
N O
U
C
0)
(D
aa) w
(n
a >
(6
.�
W
N
0)
J
N
Q
�
co
Q
O
M(D
4,fN
Z Z
M M
H
d
co
O
t
-2O
U
U
N
W
N
W
W
�
N
M
"t
LO
(.p
r-_
60
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
N
N
N
N
>
m
N
N
N
c
O
c
O
c
O
c
O
N
c
O
cc
O
O
N
N
N
N
>
N
N
N
N
- N
N
�
�
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
0 0 0 0
CD CD C) CD
co � � -4
M N N N
N
Y
= T T T
C C C
O
N N N N
w w w w
(6 (6 (6 (6
2 2 2 2
� O
N E
C —
O 67
L
N T
N �
E Y
O U) U
� U �
(6
O O
C �
RS (6 O) N
aI
c a-+ E
'c N O
C
N O Q
U) a
E .Q w
T
w N N
(n —
O Q
Y � U
`O
� c m
C C
O N 63
U +�
N W �
N �
O
Y N
L 4%
N
N CO
E E E E
2 2 2 2
0 0 o O
w w w w
O O O O
> > > >
J
x1x
POLICY
Policy No: GOV-COR-016
Policy Title:
CORPORATE RISK
Approval Date: April 28, 2009
MANAGEMENT
Reviewed Date: May 2022
Policy Type:
COUNCIL
Next Review Date: May 2027
Category:
Governance
Reviewed Date:
Sub -Category:
Corporate
Last Amended:
Author:
Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor
Replaces: 1- 016- Corporate Risk
Management
Dept/Div:
CAO/Strategy and Corporate
Performance
Repealed:
Replaced by:
Related Policies, Procedures and/or Guidelines:
1. POLICY PURPOSE:
To outline the Corporation's position with regard to risk management including
roles and responsibilities related to risk management, risk register standards and
risk tolerance level.
2. DEFINITIONS:
"Risk" - refers to the uncertainty that surrounds future events and outcomes. It is
the expression of the likelihood and impact of an event with the potential to
influence the achievement of the Corporation's objectives.
"Risk Management" - is a systematic approach to setting the best course of
action by identifying, assessing and managing risk issues.
"Enterprise Risk Management" - is a continuous, proactive and systematic
process to understand, manage and communicate risk from an organization -wide
perspective. It is about making strategic decisions that limit risk and contribute to
the achievement of the Corporation's overall objectives.
"Risk Tolerance" - is defined as level of risk the City is willing to accept in pursuit
of its objectives. This can be measured qualitatively, with categories such as major,
1 of 8
Policy No: GOV-COR-016
Policy Title: CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT
moderate, or minor. The level of risk acceptable is directly related to the nature
and scope of the project or work.
"Risk Register" - is a document listing all of the risks associated with a project or
activity where the impact and likelihood of the risk is assessed, resulting in a
numerical risk rating. It also includes actions and the names of individuals
assigned to manage that specific risk.
3. SCOPE:
4. POLICY CONTENT:
The City of Kitchener is committed to identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks to
ensure that corporate objectives are achieved. The following corporate risk
framework was developed to assist City staff in consistently assessing and treating
risks through the use of common language and definitions of risk.
4.2 Roles and Responsibilities:
Risk management is an integral part of management across the Corporation. It
forms part of strategic planning, business planning and project approval
procedures. In addition, the policy assists in decision-making processes that will
allocate resources to areas of highest risk. Identifying and managing risk is
everyone's responsibility and is one component of good corporate governance.
The Director or Manager undertaking the work or project will be responsible for
developing a risk register for all projects or on-going work where risks have been
identified. The Internal Auditor is available to assist in the creation of the risk
register and provide guidance in assessing the likelihood, impact and mitigation of
risks.
2of8
POLICY APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING:
❑x All Employees
❑
All Full -Time Employees
❑
All Union
❑
Management
❑
C.U.P.E. 68 Civic
❑
Non Union
❑
C.U.P.E. 68 Mechanics
❑
Temporary
❑
C.U.P.E. 791
❑
Student
❑
I.B.E.W.636
❑
Part -Time Employees
❑
K.P.F.F.A.
❑
Specified Positions only:
❑
Other:
❑
Council
❑
Local Boards & Advisory Committees
4. POLICY CONTENT:
The City of Kitchener is committed to identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks to
ensure that corporate objectives are achieved. The following corporate risk
framework was developed to assist City staff in consistently assessing and treating
risks through the use of common language and definitions of risk.
4.2 Roles and Responsibilities:
Risk management is an integral part of management across the Corporation. It
forms part of strategic planning, business planning and project approval
procedures. In addition, the policy assists in decision-making processes that will
allocate resources to areas of highest risk. Identifying and managing risk is
everyone's responsibility and is one component of good corporate governance.
The Director or Manager undertaking the work or project will be responsible for
developing a risk register for all projects or on-going work where risks have been
identified. The Internal Auditor is available to assist in the creation of the risk
register and provide guidance in assessing the likelihood, impact and mitigation of
risks.
2of8
Policy No: GOV-COR-016
Policy Title: CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk management shall be considered in the early phases of all project approvals
in a manner appropriate to the nature and scope of the project.
4.3 Risk Register Standards:
The City of Kitchener has adopted a risk rating matrix that quantifies the impact
and likelihood criteria and assigns a numerical value to the resulting score. All risk
registers should use this terminology to ensure consistency in understanding
across the corporation.
The categories of risk are:
• Service Delivery— Risk of not meeting customer expectations
• Employees — Risk that employees, contractors or other people at the City
will be negatively impacted by a policy, program, process or project
including physical harm
• Public — Risk that the policy, program or action will have a negative impact
on the citizens of Kitchener
• Physical Environment— Risk that natural capital will be damaged
• Reputation — Risk associated with anything that can damage the reputation
of the City or undermine confidence in the City of Kitchener
• Financial — Risk related to decisions about assets, liabilities, income and
expenses including asset management, capital and operational funding,
economic development, theft or fraud
• Regulatory — Risk related to the consequences of non-compliance with
laws, regulations, policies or other rules
Impact is quantified as: Likelihood is quantified as:
Scale 4:
Catastrophic
Scale 5:
Almost Certain
Scale 3:
Major
Scale 4:
Likely
Scale 2:
Moderate
Scale 3:
Somewhat likely
Scale 1:
Minor
Scale 2:
Unlikely
Scale 1:
Rare
Definitions and examples of these rating scales can be found in Appendix A
When impact and likelihood are assessed, a risk rating is calculated by multiplying
the impact scale times the likelihood scale.
3 of 8
Policy No: GOV-COR-016
Policy Title: CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT
The current City of Kitchener risk matrix assigns colours to the resulting score
based on the City's risk tolerance as set out below.
Impact Scale
4 Catastrophic
4
8
3 Major
3
6
9
12
i5
2 Moderate
2
4
6
8
0
1 Minor
1
2
3
4
5
Likelihood Scale
1
2
3
4
5
1
Somewhat
Almost
Rare
Unlikely
Likely
Likely
Certain
4.4 Risk Tolerance:
The Corporation's risk tolerance will be considered by management for resource
allocation purposes as it aligns its people, processes and structure to effectively
respond to identified risks. The Corporation's risk tolerance levels will change over
time, subject to economic, social or political conditions.
As a general guideline any identified risk rated as a ten (10) or higher and in
the red grid of the matrix must have a mitigation plan and the ongoing status
will be monitored in the risk register.
A risk rating falling within the yellow grid of the matrix will require an action
but resolution may be deferred until more urgent risks have been dealt with.
A risk rating falling within the green grid of the matrix should be noted but
no action plan is required.
5. HISTORY OF POLICY CHANGES
Administrative Updates
2016-06 - Policy 1-016 template re -formatted to new numbering system and
given number MUN-COR-816.
Formal Amendments
No amendment history to date.
4of8
Z
CW
G
W
Q
z
C/)
)
ry
W
O Q
O
U D-
> ry
O O
O
Z
2 U
0- �
J
CL
Q�
X
W
Z
a
r
LL
W
D
a
LL
R
cl
Z
W
IL
CL
a
J
—
o
0
0
o00
cao
rnLo0
0
a)
C)
I
I
N
Orn
I
CL
n
oO
oN
LO
I
cn
_0
C)
)
(
a�
LO
N
o�CD
O
L
—
a)
N
70
cu
C)
O
CL
CL
0
o�
O
cu
E
CO
—
fnO
CU
o
O
fn
L
_�e_
O
V
T
cu
�[
a)
O•--0
(�
p
.r
U)
c
cu
to a)
L
c
O cu
a)
.O
i
a)
O V
a)EEIf
Y
E
c
co:�
O
O
C:O
O
'>
L
>
_0
a)
>
a)
C
a)
U
a)
a)
a)
N
a)
O
U.V
O
U
cuo
•V
C
CU
*r
W
c
U
E
c
.�
O
N
U
O
C:>+
CD
N
CUO
C
O
7FD_
c
v
(D
a)
�
0CT
�Y
O
L
o
"
c
.(B
F
CL
CO
o
_
O-0
cU
E
.,_.
CU
O
E
W
U
«
L
O
OWOOOZ
C
OU
a)
�
a)
U
cu
O
T
I
O
°a)E—
a)
O
E
�
O
C:
E
o
Q
J
Cn
Z)
0�
i
E
a) w
O
�
V
LOM
N
�—
M
O
a)
>
O
C:
Ln
vi
0
a)
Q
O
L
cu
0
a)
a)
U �
cQ
0-
.E L
a)
a) CU
Q
�: E
()
cu a)
a)
a) cn
L
0-0
a)
O
L a)
cu
L
to O
K O C
•L a)
cacE
E-0
O
CD >'
a) C
O
Uma)
Y 2 .>
N E
O 75
70 XC:a () . T
M"cu
CU
�L 0) CU
U o o
M o c
CL a) ami
H E
co
O
LO
0
0
a)
I
cn
LO
N
O
O
L
—
V
o�
co
a)
o
(
N
>
U
a)
w
U
p
E
to a)
a)
c
O cu
Z—p
.O
i
a)
O V
�0
I
I
O
O
a)
CU
E
W
c
E0)—
>
N
O
N
U
CD
N
0—
C
C
N
CO
c^`
O-0
cU
E
O
cu
W
U
«
L
O
OU
a)
�
O
I
O
O
c
o
cu
E
o
c
E-0
i
E
a) w
O
�
U
O
N
M
O
a)
>
�
a)
�
O
0
a)
CL N
O
L
U
Q
Ocn
-(n
'F
C
O
U L-
0
(D
U) cB
+�
cv
cv
.O
�.
v) cn
�����0
O 0
0cu
C
O
L
E
V 0)
cu
-0 �
a)
D
OU
a)
U
a)
4--
0
+
V
O
E
to
L
V
—
U
'�5
O
E
OL
c--3
C
`r
X
a)
a)
y
0-
w c
w
N
B
m
cu
Rf
O
a)
a)
. O
a)
a)
N
�
O
EO
U
EUL0E0
i)
L
O
oC:
C
to
O
Z)
O w
m
Z)
w
Z)
0
>.
O
�
0
ca
�
v
U
��Na)
�C/)
co
O
LO
Z
LU
2i
LU
C�
z
Y
LU
NO Q
LL N
\OO
/ Of
N
O 0
CD U
o
(3)
z
U U
0- 0-
co
O
N
•U
O
N
O X
L
_ >'4– .
O L O
O o
to
r
O
%
cII. -+
C co
cu LO
N
QCU
a) E : %
�v
U U
j, N 0
0
-
_0 E
O
•
c6
o L +'
Q U
cu
O 0
O
() c!) N N
(n
CL
X_
a)
. .
0
-0-0
0 a)'- E
u)
O
�'o(
a)N
U
0
� T) ^ �
O
_0
c/n) 4-
O
U
cu
`.
A,
}
Y J
> a) C
C
�♦
W W ^'
/l
a)
Un
Q L
-0 L
� 'cu �
aa))
ax)
(D
E
O
�`
V,
O N
CU
N
U
a)
.�
a) 0
0
to
E U
(U6
0 70
O
N
U
A
0 0 Co CU N 0
0..
CU
V
a)
a) O Q
Q•
O
cu
Q
_
_ � cQ
.
O
O
O a)
E
O
O
,,
cn
a'.- O
cu
U
E
O
W (!)
O A
(n
a)
C
Z . O_
U
cu
O
—1
a)
0 C
0
to
L O\
�
a) O
cu
o
U -0 O�
.-
O
E
U
O
\
O
0 c.,- E`^,c�
U U
cII
a) M �
`�
v
ca C W
O O
«� L
E cQ O
Ua) .J
C
-4,r
o
O
�o
a) 0
E
�-0 cQ
(n0
M-0
cu
U
LO>
LavU
�`v
>
oa)Ecn•
OL
L
0
�
U
_
+� c
a) a) a) L
>> Q >, u) 0)(D
a)
c)
ca
•
v
0
-o
E
0 i
L
o E O cu �
Q.- a)
�
to
cu 0 cu
i
O
cB
O
Q O
O O
•T �_ >,
L `0 '`J
Q
O
LC
0- O
W Z a) �
(n �-
U o U
�
i
-L
,—
(n
0 o ,� a)
0) a) c
a)
(n'
a)
o cu
0
U to
O O N
Q >'
*-�
i 0�
>
O cn
�
O
0 a) u)
cn
-0 a)
a)
O N Q
X
0 a)
O
cQ
CL
cn �
o
cu
Cr
�+
.-
=`
o
U te♦ U)
O O c
O
cn
0 0 cu
C
_
c6
U� ��♦
^-`
�Q♦
(n
E '—
O
-r-
cu W
a)
0•
O : ^
a)
cu
cu W
Ute^
-1� W W
°
CU
�0�
o�0M
a)a-cua)
0—
UE
C:
U T
U U
� U O��
E a)
E�
�
a)
cv
a) U
(B c Q a) C
O Y
O
(^B♦ O
c
0
•cQ
X L
0 0 fn
`� L to
O O a)
L L >
a) �) E X O
`� ,
O
C
L cu
a) � U
/co
O
-
:' C
>
W U.
a)
O
D (n a) W U.
(n
Z
0 0
0 D- cu
U�
a) . cu
cu
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
•
•
a)
O
U
E
E
U
(n
_
W
co
O
�
2
LU
2i
LU
�
Q
2
Q
�
�
C/)_
S Q�
o LU
O 0
U 0-
O O
CD U
0
k
2
C) g
0- 0-
� @ �
@
E 7 E o .§
@ @ -0
CL
0 � cu cu E
0 Da 90 2u
_§\ E p \ 2 E 0
¢ o
2 2 E % (D .$ �
. D Q @ > E \ /
0 (n (D E � 0 3 0 0
. m E o o
. .
CU @
2 3
@
(a >,
E
cu cu
¢ E cu a) – �� 70
CU =4"�¢ E > }.q 2 E �� E
2 0 -0 % ¢ – _ E
o @ @® .> 0 =5Fu
_ @ @(D E o � E o
o a 0- E c S ¢¢_ 7 E D o
c@ 0 0 o C � (n �/
¢ §.a 0 2 ¢ E ¢ / @
°¢ C E §.% 0> E C E E–
_ U D S S q@ CL k
. . ,
_ a
o CD E 3� 0 9 u
� E ± $ E ¢ -0
= 2 k – P > \ p .9 ¢a
§ a) k o k@¢ 2® o - cu
.- @ o
0 u 2 0 a) 7 E E 0� ) 7
o.@ FU % E @ U o% §§ f E E 0-
7 E r � o% o % 2 CU@» c
E E cu o–.L 0 E c o> D o
U �. 0) @ - o � cu ,
§ f A ~ – 2'-.q 0 @ ® \ E 0)cu
E O' E-0) w_ c E
J %.\ U U 0- o(Z E�� k c k 2 0 o
0) 0 o -0
2 0
- – c 2 $ –
$ 2' 0 % 2 �� R 2 c : 0 ¢
_ @ � � E _ 0 > � _ ¢ @
S E E cn$ a cn e– ° E § c_ 0 D o%°= 3 7 0 7
0 o E 0 c p.- 9 - % E 0 g 2 �'o E¢ a
3.@� % » @ 2 ¢ E� @E \ � �.g: k 2 > % E
u/¢ 2 ¢� \+ E¢ R o\ n 7 7 ./ E a 2
■2¢7¢@�Q�:0CD DCaQaCD-.E:t.g'— nEc
± § E c � 5 > ? ± s E % E \ Z .d @ 7 ) E o �.g
3 2 0 0 .§ % 0 b-% 2 0 2 U� �� §/ J E k
. . . . . . .
� c
E
g
CU E
2 .@ o
■ aL >> 0-
n2a_3 ry
c
0
¥
c
0
¥
H
z
W
2i
W
C�
Cz
G
Ldp
W
O �—
O O
U 0-
> Of
O O
CD U
ai
o
z
U U
0- 0-
00
O
co
L (n
o
(D
O
— O
CU
V
O Q
C2
O
/�
O N
r
=
CO
o-
CO
N
N
O
C
O
U
i
L
N
cu
= -0
CL
N
O
(n
>
O
O
J
cu
O
U i
+,
C
L
O
N
E
O
O
U)
C
O
O
E
N C C
L
U
CII
4
Y
C
N
U
W
A
N>
N
n
O70
4
U
0�•—
C)
NC
MN
�
%
c;)
4-
-0 E
-0
to
.
(n
70
U
O
U
OU
,
C
O
>
N
C
OU
O>
O
O
(n
(n
:3L
W.-
L
O
O
(n
O
U)
N
O
U
NC N
L L
C
O
70
"''
C
0
o
C
OL
O
`~
N
O
O
(n
N
L
.0
N
L
t—
to
O
U:3
U
Q
O
V—
V
E
U
fn C C
O
to
L
O
69
N
W
7
O70
(Q (U
C
M
•�
O
p
N Y
O>
iZ
N
N
C
T
N
70
a'
�`F
E a)
C
to
"'' O
U
+-•
C
70=;
to
C
U
O
70
>' O70
L U
(B
U
ai
C
6e,
(D
(D
-aU
CB
E
U
�. C
L
Cu
O
(6 C
N
C
C
O
L
cn
C
0)
4-
(D
(Q O
C
a)
C
cu
C
O)
O
L
O (V
70
C O
O a) C2
=3
*-
C2
(n
L L
E
(n
N
0- O
CNC
E
70
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
O
C
CV
L
G_
A"
(h rU.
(B
U-
O
(n O
CQ
O
C
Qto
n
L
Y
CN
cu
N
O
O
W e
cu
L
C (B
O
-0 n
O
U D
C
�
CZ
O
�t
N
cn
(n C
CU
E
cu
L
U cu
U=
(n
E
�UU�
a)>
Ca
v
>,
0
O
V0
Cto
(B
7070
U
(n
UO
O
L
ON
n U
m
O
U
cn
�C_
U•L
W♦♦
O
CL
M
C
cu
Q
QO
C m
OL-
,0
L 0O L
(n L
O
L
0
LL
LL
c
�o
DNO
U
N (n >
caO
O
J O
_O
.O
O
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
r
U
cu
Q
O
U
cn
E �
C
LL
N
00
O
co