Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-07-067 - Council Composittion and Ward ReviewReport To: Chair Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate Services Commitee Date of Meeting: May 28, 2007 Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk Prepared By: R. Gosse Ward(s~ Involved: n/a Date of Report: May 18, 2007 Report No.: CRPS-07-067 Subject: COUNCIL COMPOSITION AND WARD REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: That staff undertake a process to solicit public comments/feedback on whether or not to change the number of Councillors from the current six and report back to Council at a public meeting to be held in October, 2007; and, That Policy I-50 Ward Boundary -Criteria} be replaced with the draft policy I-50, dated May 28, 2007, attached to Corporate Services Department report CRPS-07-067; and, That staff report in October 2007 on the ward review process to be based on Policy I-50 and the report to include the terms of reference for a Request For Proposal to retain the services of a consultant to lead a public process, develop options and make final recommendations for Council's consideration; and further, That staff report in January, 2008, with a recommendation of a consultant, a budget, terms of reference and a timetable for the ward review process. BACKGROUND: Council Policy I-50 provides the criteria to be used when reviewing ward boundaries and requires a review to take place after every third election. The 2006 municipal elections was the third since the last review (1999), therefore the ward boundary review is to take place during this term of Council .The policy provides basic guiding principles for any municipality to use when establishing or amending ward boundaries. Since the time the policy was first established, a Supreme Court decision and various Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decisions, have clarified and expanded on these principles. In 2004 and 2005, the Finance and Corporate Services Committee (FCSC) entered into discussions on the current size of Council and twice voted on motions relating to increasing the number of Councillors. Although in both cases the motions were defeated, members of the Committee did express the notion that the idea of expanding the size of Council may have merit provided there is sufficient time to solicit comments and feedback from the public. REPORT: In order to comply with Policy I-50, during this term of Council a review of the existing wards is to be completed. If there are any changes to be made, a by-law must be adopted in sufficient time to allow for a possible appeal to the OMB and have final disposition of the matter in place by December 2009. Before commencing this process it is suggested that if Council wishes to open up discussion on the size of Council, this issue be completed prior to the ward review. Should there be a change in the size of Council this will have a direct impact on the focus for the ward review. Size of Council At the April 5 and 19, 2004 FCSC meetings, the committee discussed Corporate Services Department report CRPS-04-053 regarding the composition of Council. At the September 26, 2005 FCSC meeting, the committee was in receipt of report CRPS-05-142 and once again discussed the idea of changing the size of Council. (minutes are attached) On both occasions motions to consider increasing Council were put forward and lost but, the minutes indicate that the members of the committee did not object to the idea outright. Generally it was agreed that there may be merit in the idea but a full public process should be initiated in order to receive comments and feedback from the public. There was also concern regarding the timing of such an initiative; either too soon following the forced change in Council composition prior to 2000 or insufficient time in order to be in place for the 2006 elections. Should Council wish to pursue further discussion on the matter of Council size, then the timing is appropriate to undertake this initiative now and in conjunction with the ward review. Staff is recommending that a public consultation process be developed and implemented late August and through September, 2007 that would include but not limited to the following: Staff team consisting of representation from various areas of interest such as, Office of the City Clerk, Communications, IT, etc., to lead the public consultation Prepare and provide information such as; population change over past 10 years and projected changes for the next 12 years; Councillor's work load statistics i.e. number of committees and meeting, time spent in meetings, number of tracked phone calls by ward; capital and operational costs of adding a Councillor; and, information on other municipalities with respect to size of Council Develop a web page on this issue that would contain all the relevant information as well as anon-line survey which can be completed by the public Run an extensive article in Your Kitchener with the information and a survey which can be mailed or dropped off Hold at least one public open house in the rotunda where information can be provided and the public can bring forward their comments and/or suggestions Staff report to Council in October, 2007 on the results of the public consultation and Council renders a decision, if any. If Council decides to increase its size then a by-law would be adopted and the decision is not open to appeal. Whatever the decision is in this regard, it will have an effect on the focus of the ward review. If it is decided to increase the number of Councillors, the focus will be to add the appropriate number of wards whereas if there is to be no change in the size, the focus will be more or less restricted to the appropriateness of the current boundaries. Council Policy I-50 -Ward Boundary -Criteria The current policy I-50, dated July 4, 1995 (attached), contains the criteria to be considered when a ward boundary review is undertaken. Since the time the policy was first developed, there has been several key decisions from the Supreme Court and the OMB relative to criteria or guidelines for establishing or amending ward boundaries. In particular, for purposes of this report the OMB decisions on appeals of ward boundary changes in Ottawa and London have been reviewed in detailed. In 2001 following the amalgamation of Ottawa-Carleton from a 2 tier structure to single tier City; the City of Ottawa began the process of reviewing its ward boundaries. A citizens task force to undertake a public process was struck, given direction from Council and in 2002, Council adopted a by-law for the new ward boundaries. Immediately following thereafter, several appeals were submitted to the OMB based on 6 issues which included: disregarding the terms of reference for the review; too much reliance on representation by population over other criteria; failure to consider and preserve communities of interest; insufficient public consultation; failure to recognize uniqueness of rural communities; and, the elimination of rural representation. The OMB granted the appeals based partly on the fact that the Terms of Reference established by Council were flawed in that they precluded the opportunity to increase the number of wards. Additionally, the decision referenced the Supreme Court of Canada case know as Carter wherein it was established that "effective representation" not representation by population, is the common law standard for electoral boundaries in Canada. Subsequent to the Board's decision, the City re-commenced its ward review this time with a consultant that led the public process and making a final recommendations to Council. This second approach not only achieved a successful ward re-alignment but the criteria used in the review has been referenced in and has formed part of other OMB decisions. I n 2005, the City of London also had to deal with a successful appeal of its ward review. I n that decision the OMB partly based its decision on the fact that the communities of interest were not being protected nor served under the then current ward boundaries. As well, the decision included that the City will shift from 14 Councillors, 2 representing each of the 7 wards to, 14 Councillors representing 14 smaller wards. During the hearing there was some discussion regarding the appropriateness of 1 or 2 Councillors) per ward and in the end, the OMB sided with the argument that the citizens would be best served with one Councillor per ward. In light of these and other decisions it is being recommended that the ward review policy be amended in order to provide clear principles for consideration when undertaking a review. It should be explained that although `effective representation' is the overriding principle when it comes to dividing wards, population is another factor and must also be considered. The population of the wards should be as equitable as possible in this regard and at the same time, ensure that each voter is being fairly and equitably represented. As well, the principle of protecting `communities of interest' does not mean that each community should have its own representative on Council. It does mean that where possible and appropriate, these communities should not be fragmented or divided. The other major policy change being proposed is one Councillor for each ward. By specifying that this will be a principle to be followed, it will assist in determining the number of wards. It will eliminate the idea that a large ward could be justified because there will be 2 Councillors; rather, the focus would be to create two smaller wards ensuring better representation. Ward Boundary Review Process The Municipal Act allows a municipality to establish, re-divide or dissolve wards. The decision of Council is to be enacted by specific By-law which is then open to appeal within certain timelines. Undertaking a ward review, whether to add wards or just review the appropriateness of the existing wards, should not be taken lightly. Since Councillors are elected by ward, it is important that the ward be effectively represented and that communities of interested are protected and not divided. An improper process, or disregard for the criteria or evidence of `gerrymandering' could cause an appeal of the review and a costly hearing before the OMB. In the case of the aforementioned OMB decisions, the City of London had its wards decided in part by the OMB whereas in the City of Ottawa case, the by-law was quashed and the City was forced to start the process again. It would be prudent to enter into this review on the right foot, allowing for a public process to take place and ensuring the criteria/guidelines have been taken into consideration. To this end it is being recommended that Kitchener closely follow the successful process undertaken by the City of Ottawa. Although in this report it is being recommended that staff submit a detailed report in the Fall 2007 regarding the ward review, it is suggested that the process abide by the following parameters and guiding principles: That a consultant be retained to: o lead a 2-part public consultation process o receive and review comments/submissions (Part 1 of public consultation} o develop options for further public consultation o Part 2 present options to public for comments/submissions o prepare and present a final report with recommendations for Council's consideration That a staff team provide resources and technical support to the consultant The Terms of Reference to be followed during the review to include: o protection of communities of interest and neighbourhoods o effective representation balanced with representation by population o consideration of present and future population trends for at least the next 12 years ~3 terms of Council}, ensuring a ward structure that will accommodate growth. o consideration of physical features as boundaries where appropriate to do so o ward boundaries should be of a compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy to remember o the process to begin in February 2008 and the final report for Council's consideration sometime in early Fall 2008 The intent of what is being proposed is to undertake a completely public process under the principles and guidelines of the policy and approved terms of reference. The process is to be led by an independent, experienced third party and supported by staff. Council's role will be as a consulted stakeholder and, as decision-maker when the final recommendations are presented. The report to be submitted in October 2007 will propose the terms of reference for the RFP for a consultant. Once a consultant is selected and prior to approval from Council, staff will determine, based on discussions with the consultant, a budget, the terms of reference for the review and project timelines. This will be reported to Council in January 2008 for consideration and approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Any expenditures for the public process regarding the size of Council will come from the appropriate current operating budgets. Staff will report in January, 2008 on the ward review budget for Council's consideration and approval. R. Gosse - Director of Legislated Services/ City Clerk POLICY NUMBER: I-50 POLICY TYPE: COUNCIL SUBJECT: WARD BOUNDARY -CRITERIA D_: JULY 4,1995 May 28, 2007 Purpose and Scope Provides the criteria and guiding principles to be considered when reviewing ward boundaries. 1. Ward boundaries will be reviewed after every third regular election. 2. Each ward will be represented by one Councillor. 3. In reviewing ward boundaries, the following principles shall be considered: a. Communities of interest and neighbourhoods should be protected. It is desirable to avoid fragmenting traditional neighbourhoods or communities of interest. b. 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 populations densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of variation is acceptable. c. Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries. Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy to remember. d. Consideration of present and future population trends. The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years.