Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-05-142 - Composition of Municipal Council Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Cc: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: ~ Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, and Members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee September 26, 2005 G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk G. Sosnoski C. Ladd, R. Gosse All September 23, 2005 CRPS-05-142 EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Information report requested by Council for discussion. BACKGROUND: Council previously requested information on the changes in the Municipal Act affecting the composition of a municipal council and a report (attached) was considered by the Finance and Corporate Services Committee on April 19, 2004. A motion that consideration of increasing the number of Wards andlor Councillors become one of the City's strategic initiatives was voted on and defeated on a recorded vote. Councillors Weylie and Gazzola were in favour, and Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors Lorentz, Galloway, Vrbanovic and Smola were opposed. At the September 19, 2005 Council meeting, Councillor M. Galloway requested additional information regarding Council composition, outlined in this report, and Councillor J. Gazzola gave Notice of Motion that he planned to introduce a motion at the September 26,2005 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting asking for consideration of an expansion in the size of Council in time for the 2006 Municipal Election. REPORT: Council requested information with regard to current trends involving Council size as well as per capita comparisons with other municipalities. Staff contacted the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and were advised that they are only aware of one municipality in Ontario (Waterloo) which is currently in the process of expanding its Council. Cambridge was investigating the possibility of increasing the size of its Council last Spring, but since voted to retain the status quo which is 7 members of Council, including the Mayor. Brampton was given an extra seat on Regional Council, but is so far not interested in increasing the size of its local Council to fill this new position. London, Thunder Bay, Brant, Hanover and Rainy River are all taking measures to decrease the size of their Councils. It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive survey but only a collection of available information which could be obtained within the short time frame afforded for writing this report. The chart below shows Kitchener in comparison to a number of other municipalities in terms of their per capita representation. At present Kitchener has 1 member of Council for every 27,000 citizens based on 2001 Census information. The per capita figures are approximations. Representatives by Population Municipality Population Size of Council Guelph 106,170 (2001) 13 [1 per 8K] London 330,000 (2004) 19 [1 per 16K] Cambridge 120,000 (2005) 7 [1 per 17K] Markham 220,000 (2005) 13 [1 per 17K] Vaughan 188,800 (2001) 9 [1 per 21K] Burlington 150,836 (2001) 7 [1 per 21.5K] Brampton 325,428 (2001) 11 [1 per 29.5K] Hamilton 490,268 (2001) 16 [1 per 31K] Ottawa 774,072 (2001) 22 [1 per 35K] Toronto 2,481,494 (2001) 45 [1 per 55K] Mississauga 613,000 (2001) 10 [1 per 61K] Outside Ontario Winnipeg, MB 619,000 (2004) 16 [1 per 39K] Edmonton, AB 666,000 (2004) 14 [1 per 48K] Vancouver, BC 546,000 (2004) 11 [1 per 50K] As the attached report indicates the Municipal Act envisions expanding of the Council's size in one of two ways: through increase in the number of Wards or; through the addition of members of Council by other than Ward expansion, for example doubling up the number of Councillors in an existing Ward or adding at-large Councillors. In both cases a by-law affecting the change must be enacted and an appeal period of 45 days expired prior to January 1, 2006 in order for the change to take effect with the 2006 Municipal Election. In addition, legislation requires publication of a Notice of Intention to pass a by-law expanding the Councilor Wards as well as a minimum of 1 public meeting where the change would be discussed. Working backward from the legislated deadline, and based on the current CouncillCommittee meeting schedule, the time frame for an increase in the size of council through the addition of Wards would be as follows. This assumes no appeals are filed, or are filed and withdrawn prior to the January 1, 2006 deadline. The dates suggest to staff that it is impractical to attempt a change in Council's size via an increase in Wards at this late date, especially since a very aggressive approach would be required with a minimum of public consultation on an issue that traditionally attracts significant public interest. - 2- Study team struck and options developed for July - September 2005 consideration by Council Range of options presented to Council for consideration September 26 (Committee) I and selection of the preferred option October 3 (Council) Publication of Notice of Intention to pass a by-law Week of October 3,2005 Public meeting to discuss and obtain input October 1 7, 2005 By-law enacted by Council November 7,2005 45-day appeal period required under the Municipal Act November 8 - December 22, 2005 In comparison, the City of Waterloo initially began discussing the possibility of expanding its Council in response to a Voter's Support Committee recommendation received on February 28, 2005. Public input was then obtained on May 19, 2005, which included a discussion paper outlining the various issues which was distributed to the general public at that meeting for input and comment. On June 20, 2005 Waterloo gave direction to staff to implement specific Ward changes and the required by-law was enacted in September 2005. Council's current policy I-50 (Ward Boundary - Criteria) requires that Ward boundaries be reviewed after every 3rd election. The last Ward boundary change was imposed by the Province legislatively in 1999 for the 2000 election so that the 2006 election would be the 3rd election with respect to the policy. CONCLUSION: It is staff's opinion that it is impractical to attempt an expansion in the size of Council in time for the 2006 Municipal Elections, nominations for which must be accepted beginning January 1, 2006. It is not uncommon for these types of processes to take between 8 and 12 months to properly complete and allow sufficient time for debate and public input due to the nature and sensitivity of the issue, Notwithstanding this, any appeal lodged within the 45-day period leading up to January 1, 2006, would prohibit any implementation of a change for the 2006 election as the appeal would have to heard and decided after January 1, 2006, thereby requiring a legislated exemption for the City of Kitchener with respect to the 2006 election process. G. Sosnoski - 3-