HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-08-109 - Ward Boundary Review - Recommended OptionReport To: Chair Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate
Services Commitee
Date of Meeting: June 16, 2008
Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
Prepared By: R. Gosse
Wards}Involved: n/a
Date of Report: June 11, 2008
Report No.: CRPS-08-109
Subject: WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW -RECOMMENDED OPTION
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Ward Boundary configuration recommended by Dr. R. Williams in his report
titled, `2008 Ward Boundary Review Final Report', dated June 2008, be adopted as the
ward boundaries to come into effect in 2010; and further,
That a By-law be prepared for the June 23, 2008 regular Council meeting to enact the
adopted ward boundaries in accordance with the Municipal Act.
BACKGROUND:
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.
In October 2007, Council approved the terms of reference to be used for the 2008 Ward
Boundary Review and, for the Request for Proposal to retain the services of a consultant to lead
the review process. In January 2008, Council selected Dr. Robert Williams to lead the review
process, develop options and make a final recommendation to be presented to the Finance and
Corporate Services Committee.
REPORT:
The intent of the ward review was to undertake a completely public process under the principles
and guidelines of Policy I-50 and approved terms of reference and the process to be led by an
independent, experienced third party. Dr. Williams who is considered to be a leading expert in
the field of municipal government and in particular ward boundaries, was selected to lead this
review. The review consisted of 3 pans:
1. Fact and information gathering which included reviewing ward reviews conducted in
other municipalities, reviewing Ontario Municipal Board hearings on ward boundary
matters and meeting with various stakeholders such as Council, neighbourhood
associations and other interested organizations.
2. Development of options for discussion based on his findings and then presentation of
those options to the public through 7 open houses held throughout the City. Additionally,
the options and discussion paper were posted on the City's web site allowing anyone to
submit comments.
3. Reviewing the public comments received and based on the public and Council input and
having regard with the criteria in Policy I-50 as well as generally accepted practices,
present a final recommendation for the new ward boundaries to Council.
Dr. Williams has now completed the ward review as per the aforementioned process and
criteria.. Attached to this report is Dr. Williams' final report containing his recommendation for a
new 10 ward system to be in place for the 2010 municipal elections.
Undertaking a ward review, whether to add wards or just review the appropriateness of the
existing wards, is a significant municipal undertaking. Since Councillors are elected by ward it is
important that the ward be effectively designated and that communities of interest are protected
and not divided. An improper process, disregard for the criteria or evidence of `gerrymandering'
could cause an appeal of the by-law and a costly hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board
BOMB).
In considering the recommendation from Dr. Williams Council has the following options:
• Accept the recommendation as presented or with minor changes;
o Minor changes would be ones that still maintain the integrity of the new ward
boundaries in context with the approved criteria and, are in keeping with the key
principles identified by Dr. Williams. If an appeal of the by-law is submitted to the
OMB, Dr. Williams could be retained to defend the by-law without compromising
his position. It is staff's opinion that this decision would mitigate the chances of a
successful appeal based on the facts that the process was open, public and the
final decision was made with regard to generally acceptable criteria.
• Accept the recommendations with major changes;
o Major changes would be ones that change significantly the recommended
boundary configuration and, are not in keeping with the key principles identified
by Dr. Williams. If an appeal is submitted to the OMB, Dr. Williams could not
defend the decision requiring that another expert be retained; adding significant
costs.
• Not accept the recommendation and undertake a second review;
o In this case no by-law would be passed therefore no appeal submitted, however;
the City would have to undertake the entire process for a second time, incurring
additional costs. Although there should be sufficient time to conduct a second
review, it will cause logistical problems for staff in preparing the new wards for
the 2010 elections. It should be noted that the deadline for everything related to
the new ward boundaries including a possible OMB hearing, would have to be
completed by December 31, 2009.
If a by-law is passed, within 15 days a notice will be placed in the local newspaper
advising the public that anyone can submit an appeal to the OMB but must do so within
45 days of the by-law being passed . 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 during the appeal period, the by-law stands and
the new ward system will come into effect, the first meeting of the newly elected council
in 2010. Although the wards will not come into effect until that day, the 2010 elections
will be held as if the new wards were in place.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The ward review has a budget of $35,000 and although there are outstanding invoices yet to be
processed, it is anticipated that if no appeal is submitted, the project will come in under budget
and unused funds will be returned to capital surplus. Should there be an appeal and Dr.
Williams is retained to defend the by-law, staff believe there will be sufficient funds in the budget
to cover the costs of a hearing. If there is an appeal and Dr. Williams is not or cannot be
retained to defend the by-law, the City will incur costs over and above the projected budget.
This would also apply should Council decide to conduct a second review.
R. Gosse - Director of Legislated Services/
City Clerk
City of Kitchener
ZooB Ward Boabdary Review
Final Report
Prepared by
Dr. Robert J. Williams
June 2008
Introduction
A new Ward System for Kitchener (set out at page 28} was
developed with reference to Council Policy I-50, previous electoral
systems in place in the City, electoral systems implemented in other
Ontario municipalities and legal and quasi-legal precedents pertaining
to electoral systems at all levels of government in Canada.
A Discussion Paper was tabled in April 2008 that addressed the
process, some of the constraints and other issues that emerged in the
first phase of the review such as the size of Council},
Information was gathered in discussions with elected officials,
stakeholders, staff, community organizations and the general public.
Many people made comments on the options provided in the
Discussion Paper in person and on paper at public meetings and a
number of responses were submitted through the survey document
posted on the Ward Boundary Review component of the City of
Kitchener's website.
Several City of Kitchener staff members assisted in a variety of
ways related to providing data, preparing maps, organizing meetings
and general logistical support. I appreciate their assistance.
All of this input was reviewed and weighed in the light of the
criteria that Council Policy obliges the Ward Boundary Review to
respect. Needless to say, a variety of preferences and suggestions
were articulated. Nevertheless, the recommended Option will not
please all of those who took the time and energy to contribute to the
Review. I a m sincerely g ratefu I for the involvement of all of these
members of the community and I hope that my recommendation is not
seen as a repudiation of their opinions and legitimate concerns that
were expressed during the consultations.
By definition, a single recommendation requires a choice among
a number of workable and valid alternatives. I believe that this
recommendation will serve Kitchener well in its future municipal
elections.
,~a~ent ~. ZUillia.~d
2
Background
The 2008 Ward Boundary Review Discussion Paper released in
April sets out the context for this review. Three key points need to be
re-stated; the full background can be found in the Discussion Paper
itself.
1. Kitchener will elect ten councillors in the 2010 municipal election,
an increase of four from the present ward configuration.
2. The guiding principles set by Council in Policy I-50 Ward
Boundary -Criteria, as amended June 2007) will be applied in the
design of a new system.
3. No ward system design can successfully meet all of the guiding
principles set out in Policy I-50. The challenge is to minimize the
divergence from the ideals in a recommended system.
Criteria (or Guiding Principles)
The recommended ward system is based upon Council Policy I-
50, as amended i n June 2007
POLICY NUMBER: I - 50 DATE: JULY 4, 1995
JUNE 11, 2007
POLICY TYPE: COUNCIL
SUBJECT: WARD BOUNDARY -CRITERIA
Purpose and Scope
Provides the criteria and guiding principles to be considered when
reviewing ward boundaries.
1. Ward boundaries will be reviewed after every second 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given
3
the geography and varying population 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.
4
Evaluating the Phase Two Options
Four Options were presented to the public for consideration
during Phase Two see the April 2008 Discussion Paper for some of the
considerations that went into developing those Options}. Each
configuration provided for ten wards; two wards are identical in all
Options (and in the recommended option},
Basically, there were two pairs of Options: one pair called for
five wards "inside" the Conestoga Parkway and five wards "outside"
the Conestoga Parkway and the other pair provided for four wards
"inside" the Conestoga Parkway and six wards "outside" the Conestoga
Parkway. The former pair of Options in effect over-represented the
downtown; the latter pair of Options was designed to accommodate
the areas where major growth is anticipated over the next several
years.
Based on further assessment of these Options by the consultant,
and comments made by members of the public at the meetings and
through the evaluation forms available on-line and at the meetings,
each Option will be considered in the following section in terms of the
guiding principles set out in Policy I-50.
To repeat, the four criteria for guiding principles} are the
following:
Criterion a: "Communities of interest and neighbourhoods should be
protected. It is desirable to avoid fragmenting traditional
neighbourhoods or communities of interest."
For this review, "community of interest" is largely understood in
terms of the network of 34 Neighbourhood Associations that operate
across Kitchener see the Discussion Paper for more details and a map
of the Associations}. These entities are largely predicated on
"grassroots" engagement and contribute to the development of
neighbourhoods in the City of Kitchener.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable."
Based on data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation, population estimates for each of the 53 Planning
Community were calculated by City staff based on the number and type
of dwellings in the Planning Communities and these figures were used to
design the Wards proposed in each Option. The individual ward figures
5
align well with the total estimated population of around 214,000 at the
end of 2007.
For the purpose of this Review, the optimal size for a single ward
will be considered to be 21,400. Although the 2008 criteria do not
specify a range of variation, a span of 25% above or below the optimal
size (that is, from roughly 16,050 to 26,750} will be used to provide
some sense of the success of the Option in meeting the "representation
by population" criterion. A simple descriptive way to assess the degree
of variation from the optimal size will be to categorize the proposed
wards according to whether they are "optimal" ~5% on either side of
the optimal size}, "below/above optimal" between 6 and 15% on
either side of the optimal size), "well below/above optimal" between
16 and 25% on either side of the optimal size} and "outside the range"
(greater than 25% on either side of the optimal size}.
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
The term "natural boundaries" in this Review is actually used to
describe what could be termed "man made" barriers, primarily the
Conestoga Parkway but also many arterial roadways. These features
are considered suitable because their scale and traffic patterns tend to
isolate residents who happen to live on opposite sides of the
thoroughfare from one another. A roadway or other "natural
boundary" where, for instance, a resident standing in front of his or
her dwelling can have a conversation with a neighbour standing in
front of his or her dwelling on the other side of the street is not a
suitable place to draw a ward boundary.
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years."
Some growth in Kitchener's overall population can be anticipated
between 2008 and 2020. The rate of development will depend to some
extent on larger economic factors such as mortgage rates and fuel
prices, as well as the policies developed by more senior governments
on a variety of matters, not the least important of which is growth
management.
The challenge in this Review is to anticipate those areas where
growth will be most significant. Intensification and redevelopment of
some neighbourhoods is currently underway in many parts of the City,
but early indications suggest that what might be considered "above
average" growth is most likely to occur in the Bridgeport North, Grand
River North, Country H it Is East, Doon South, Huron Park, Brigadoon
6
and Laurentian West Planning Communities. More modest growth is
anticipated in Highland West, Pioneer Park and Grand River South.
Accommodating the major growth communities is best achieved
where wards with such growth areas are now below the optimal
population size identified under criterion b.
Supplementary Information
Information compiled from mapping poll boundaries for the 2006
municipal election were transposed to the Ward Options and were
included at the last minute in the April Discussion Paper as an
approximation of the number of electors in each ward. Not
surprisingly, the ratio of electors to total population varied from ward
to ward; the highest figures tended to be in well-established
communities populated largely by older adults, the lowest in newly-
established neighbourhoods where many young children were included
in the population count. Most of the figures provided in the Discussion
paper were consistent with the expectations set out in criterion b.
The figures used in the Discussion Paper, however, were actually
derived from the first list of electors received from the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation early in 2006. Unfortunately, MPAC's
lists of electors are notoriously inaccurate and, furthermore,
Kitchener's list of electors would have been modified and corrected
significantly by the time of the election in November 2006. As well,
information on electors added to the list in the municipal election
period in 2006 was not retained by the Clerk's Office in a fashion that
could be easily adapted to establish more accurate figures for the
number of electors in the proposed ward Options has presented both in
April and in June}.
Reluctantly, then, it has been determined that any reference to
the number of electors in the Recommendation must be omitted from
this Final Report because of the highly speculative nature of the
available figures. "Representation by population" rather than the "equal
representation of voters" will be the criterion used.
As noted in the Discussion Paper, this emphasis is actually
consistent with the 1991 majority judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries
(Saskatchewan -commonly known as the Carter decision -where it
was asserted that the "purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of
the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to
`effective representation'." In the context of this review, this distinction
can be interpreted to mean that the population of the wards is as
significant as hand possibly more important than} "voter equality."
In effect, as suggested in the Discussion paper, the Carter
decision emphasizes the process of representation that happens
7
between elections rather than the act of voting itself that takes place
on one day, now every four years in Ontario. The process of
representation also takes account of all residents of the ward but the
act of voting only involves eligible electors. Issues and problems dealt
with by Councillors on a routine basis do not only arise from electors
but from non-citizens, children and youth or newcomers to the City,
none of whom would have had a vote in the previous election hand
many of whom pay taxes in the municipality. The ward boundaries
should therefore take account of the potential responsibilities to these
residents by those who serve on Council.
Of course, as was pointed out at one of the public meetings, the
number of electors will matter when the 2010 municipal election rolls
around -primarily to candidates who will engage in campaigning
among those electors. It will also be important for the administration
of that election to have an early and plausible estimate of the number
of electors in the proposed new wards. However, it is simply not
possible to have such information available for the present report.
8
Option A
• two parallel "western" wards running from the Wilmot boundary
towards downtown
• three downtown wards: one on the west, another on the east and a
central ward across King Street and including Victoria Park
• two wards east of the Conestoga Parkway -Highway 8
• three wards in the south and southwest: one including Vanier,
Alpine and Country Hills, another incorporating Pioneer Tower,
Doon and Pioneer Park and the third ward everything west of
Strasburg Road.
9
Evaluation
Criterion a: "Community of interest" is best served when ward
boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. The following exceptions are noted in Option A: Forest
Hill, Victoria Hills, Victoria Park, Stanley Park, Mill-Courtland, Cherry
Park and Country Hills N.A.s plus Rockway N.A. inactive} are placed in
more than one proposed ward.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable."
The optimal size for a single ward will be considered 21,400.
Proposed wards will be assessed according to whether they are
"optimal" ~5% on either side of the optimal size}, "below/above
optimal" between 6 and 15% on either side of the optimal size), "well
below/above optimal" between 16 and 25% on either side of the
optimal size} and "outside range" greater than 25% on either side of
the optimal size). For Option A, the assessment shows
Ward 1 19,561 below optimal
Ward 2 23,844 above optimal
Ward 3 17,030 well below optimal
Ward 4 14,548 outside range
Ward 5 19,666 below optimal
Ward 6 22,442 optimal
Ward 7 26,364 well above optimal
Ward 8 20,442 optimal
Ward 9 19,179 below optimal
Ward 10 30,713 outside range
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
10
In Option A, Ward Five and Ward Six cross Victoria Street and
the CNR mainline. This configuration tends act as a barrier between
one part of each ward and the other. The proposed boundary between
Wards Four and Five (using Weber Street} does not reflect an inherent
demarcation of interests or communities.
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years."
This would be most likely where wards with anticipated "above
average" growth areas are now at or below the optimal population size
identified under criterion b. In Option A, this test brings the following
results:
Large Growth Present Population
Planning Communities Size
Ward 6 Bridgeport North, optimal
Grand River North
Ward 7 Country Hills East well above optimal
Ward 8 Doon South, optimal
Brigadoon
Ward 10 Huron Park, outside range (above)
Laurentian West
11
Overall Assessment: Option A
Meets Comment
Criterion
criterion a no divides seven N.A.s
criterion b no two wards outside range, two others at
extreme of range
criterion c yes but Victoria Street and CNR mainline
bisect two wards, north side boundary of
Ward Four not an inherent line of
demarcation
criterion d no two wards where growth anticipated
already well above optimal size or outside
range
Conclusion: unsuitable
Option A was designed conceptually to allow for up to three
wards in the downtown area. In practical terms, the proposed
boundaries divided too many Neighbourhood Associations. More
importantly, four of the wards "inside the Parkway" were below the
optimal population figure and were not likely to experience significant
growth over the next twelve years. Conversely, one of the proposed
wards in the high growth area was already above an acceptable range
of population (indeed it was the most populous of the ten wards in this
scheme} and would only get much} larger over the next few years.
12
Option B
• two parallel "western" wards running from the Wilmot boundary
towards downtown
• three downtown wards largely based on the Community
Improvement Plan area: one on the north above Victoria Street, a
central ward and a southern ward divided at Stirling Avenue
• two wards east of the Conestoga Parkway -Highway 8
• three wards in the south and southwest: one including Vanier,
Alpine and Country Hills, another incorporating Country Hills West,
Laurentian Hills and Laurentian West and the third ward everything
south of Bleams Road and Fairway Road.
13
Evaluation
Criterion a: "Community of interest" is best served when ward
boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. The following exceptions are noted in Option B: Victoria
Hills (by excluding a very small area}, Mill-Courtland, Highland-
Stirling, Auditorium, Stanley Park and Country Hills N.A.s plus King
East N.A. inactive} are placed in more than one proposed ward.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable." see explanation under Option A}
For Option 6, the assessment shows
Ward 1 23,308 above optimal
Ward 2 23,844 above optimal
Ward 3 14,076 outside range
Ward 4 21,571 optimal
Ward 5 11,850 outside range
Ward 6 22,442 optimal
Ward 7 26,364 well above optimal
Ward 8 24,519 above optimal
Ward 9 19,179 below optimal
Ward 10 26,636 wel I above optima I
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
In Option B, Ward Six cross Victoria Street and the CNR
mainline. This configuration tends act as a barrier between one section
of the ward and the other. The proposed boundary between Wards
Four and Five fusing Stirling Avenue} is neither natural nor obvious. It
is an artificial line rather than a reflection of a genuine differentiation
between one community and another.
14
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years."
(see explanation under Option A~. In Option B, this test brings the
following results:
Large Growth
Plannin Communities Present Population
Size
Ward 6 Bridgeport North,
Grand River North optimal
Ward 8 Doon South, Huron
Park Brigadoon, above optimal
Ward 9 Country Hills East below optimal
Ward 10 Laurentian West well above o timal
15
Overall Assessment: Option B
Meets Comment
Criterion
criterion a no divides six N.A.s
criterion b no two wards outside range, two others at
extreme of range
criterion c yes but Victoria Street and CNR mainline
bisect one ward; Stirling Avenue as a
boundary between Wards Four and Five
questionable
criterion d no although two wards where growth
anticipated are at or below optimal
size, two others already above or well
above optimal size
Conclusion: unsuitable
Option B was designed to allow for up to three wards in the downtown
area, this time turning the three central wards roughly at right angles
to those proposed in Option A. However, the proposed boundaries
divided too many Neighbourhood Associations and Option B sets out a
questionable boundary between two downtown wards. More
importantly, two of the downtown wards were well outside the
acceptable population range and were not likely to increase
significantly enough over the next twelve years to justify a place in a
new ward system. Conversely, one of the proposed wards in the high
growth area on the southern fringe of the city already contained a
population well above the optimal population and would only get
(much} larger over the next few years. Finally, that same ward Eight}
stretched across the entire City from the Gateway area to the Wilmot
boundary - hardly a compact or coherent community of interest or
"neighbourhood"!
16
Option C
• two parallel "western" wards running from the Waterloo boundary
towards the Conestoga Parkway
• two downtown wards largely based on the Community
Improvement Plan area using King Street as the dividing line
• two wards east of the Conestoga Parkway -Highway 8
• four wards in the south and southwest: one including Vanier,
Alpine, Country Hills, Country Hills East and Hidden Valley, another
incorporating Pioneer Tower, Doon and Pioneer Park, a third based
on Laurentian Hills and Laurentian West and the fourth ward
Country Hills West and everything south of Bleams Road and west
of Homer Watson, Doon Village Road and Biehn Drive, including
Huron Park and Brigadoon.
17
Evaluation
Criterion a: "Community of interest" is best served when ward
boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. The following exceptions are noted in Option C: Victoria
Hills (by excluding a very small area), Stanley Park and Country Hills
N.A.s are placed in more than one proposed ward.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable." see explanation under Option A~
For Option C, the assessment shows
Ward 1 23,521 above optimal
Ward 2 24,162 above optimal
Ward 3 21,885 optimal
Ward 4 25,081 well above optimal
Ward 5 22,442 optimal
Ward 6 26,364 well above optimal
Ward 7 19,573 below optimal
Ward 8 17,970 well below optimal
Ward 9 21,320 optimal
Ward 10 11,471 outside range
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
In Option C, Wards Four and Five cross Victoria Street and the
CNR mainline. This configuration tends act as a barrier within the
ward. The boundary between Wards Two and Three is possibly
confusing in places and Biehn Drive is an inappropriate boundary
between Wards Eight and Ten since it artificially divides an existing
residential neigbourhood. Country Hills West in Ward Ten is non-
contiguous with the remainder of the residential areas in the Ward.
18
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years"
(see explanation under Option A). In Option C, this test brings the
following results:
Large Growth
Plannin Communities Present Population
Size
Ward 5 Bridgeport North,
Grand River North optimal
Ward 7 Country Hills East below optimal
Ward 8 Doon South well below o timal
Ward 9 Laurentian West o timal
Ward 10 Huron Park,
Bri adoon outside range (below)
19
Overall Assessment: Option C
Meets Comment
Criterion
criterion a yes divides two N.A.s in significant manner,
one to a minor degree
criterion b no one ward outside range, three others
at extreme of range
criterion c no Victoria Street and CNR mainline bisect
two wards, two boundaries possibly
confusing in places, the major
population cluster in Ward Ten is non-
conti uous with the rest of the ward
criterion d yes three wards where growth anticipated
are at or below optimal size, two others
well below or outside range below
optimal size
Conclusion: unsuitable
Option C was designed to allow for anticipated growth in the
south and west of the city ("outside the Parkway"}. The proposed
boundaries divided two active Neighbourhood Associations and
detached a small component of another. The distribution of population
among the ten wards is skewed since there are four relatively large
wards and two relatively under-populated wards.
The proposed boundary between Wards Two and Three fusing
Belmont Avenue} is unsatisfactory near the boundary with Waterloo
where it divides a major business community and indeed the use of
Belmont Avenue for much of the rest of the boundary may be
problematic since it becomes more a residential street than an arterial
roadway between Highland Road and Glen Road. Biehn Drive -
proposed as a boundary between Wards Eight and Ten - is a
residential street rather than arterial roadway and is therefore
inappropriate. The major population cluster in the proposed Ward Ten
(Country Hills West) is non-contiguous with the remainder of the
residential areas in the Ward because of the Huron Business Park. In
addition, the two downtown wards are divided at King Street, a feature
of the present system that was deemed by some to be detrimental.
Population figures for three of the proposed wards in the south
and west of the city - where a large part of the residential growth is
anticipated -were acceptable. One proposed Ward (Ten) is presently
outside the acceptable population range for the new ward system but
20
contained two significant growth communities Huron Park and
Brigadoon~.
However, it is not a given that its population will actually even
reach the bottom end of the acceptable population range before the
municipal election scheduled for 2010.
21
Option D
• one "western" ward running from the Waterloo boundary towards
the Conestoga Parkway
• three wards in the area between Fischer-Hallman on the west and
the Conestoga Parkway on the east: one north of Victoria Street,
one bounded by Victoria Street and the Canadian National spur line
and a downtown ward composed of the remainder of the area
• two wards east of the Conestoga Parkway -Highway 8
• four wards in the south and southwest: one including Vanier,
Country Hills, Country Hills East and Hidden Valley, another Pioneer
Tower, Doon and Pioneer Park, a third consisting of the Alpine,
Laurentian Hills and Laurentian West communities and the fourth
Laurentian West and the south west corner of the City including
Huron Park and Brigadoon.
22
Evaluation
Criterion a: "Community of interest" is best served when ward
boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. The following exceptions are noted in Option D: Victoria
Park, Stanley Park, Mill-Courtland, Cherry Park, Doon-Pioneer Park Eby
excluding Doon Heritage Crossroads and the Grand Valley Institution
for Women} and Country Hills N.A.s plus Rockway N.A. (inactive} are
placed in more than one proposed ward.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable." see explanation under Option A}
For Option D, the assessment shows
Ward 1 23,521 above optimal
Ward 2 23,851 above optimal
Ward 3 24,803 well above optimal
Ward 4 22,474 optimal
Ward 5 22,442 optimal
Ward 6 26,364 well above optimal
Ward 7 16,773 well below optimal
Ward 8 17,970 well below optimal
Ward 9 16,887 well below optimal
Ward 10 18,704 below optimal
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
In Option D, Wards Four and Five cross Victoria Street and the
CNR mainline. This configuration tends act as a barrier between one
part of the ward and the other. The boundary between Wards Two and
Four is "clean" on paper but may not be as straightforward as others
since it uses a railway line instead of a roadway. Biehn Drive is an
23
inappropriate boundary between Wards Eight and Ten since it
artificially divides an existing residential neigbourhood.
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years"
(see explanation under Option A~. In Option D, this test brings the
following results:
Large Growth
Planning Communities Present Population
Size
Ward 5 Bridgeport North,
Grand River North optimal
Ward 7 Country Hills East well below optimal
Ward 8 Doon South well below optimal
Ward 10 Brigadoon, Huron
Park, Laurentian West below optimal
24
Overall Assessment: Option D
Meets Comment
Criterion
criterion a no divides six active N.A.s
criterion b no four wards above or well above
optimal, four wards below or well below
optimal
criterion c yes but Victoria Street and CNR mainline
bisect one ward, another boundary
uses a minor railway line, Biehn Drive
boundary unsuitable
criterion d yes one ward where growth anticipated at
optimal size, three others below or well
below optimal size
Conclusion: unsuitable
In part, Option D was designed to address representation for the
downtown area without using King Street as a boundary. While many
praised this concept of a single ward embracing communities on both
sides of King Street, others believed that the proposed Ward Four
would impose an excessively onerous workload on the Councillor
elected there. Others suggested that there is no inherent homogeneity
in the downtown area and that attempting to put most of it in a single
ward obscures many important differences that lie on either side of
King Street. The proposed boundaries also divided six active
Neighbourhood Associations, including three in the downtown area
itself. The population distribution is not as skewed as in Option C but
still reflects a wide degree of variation.
The proposed boundary between Wards Two and Four (using the
CNR spur lined may be undesirable because it is less evident to many
people than an arterial roadway; the use of Biehn Drive as a boundary
between Wards Eight and Ten is inappropriate since it splits an
established residential neighbourhood.
Population figures for all of the proposed wards in the south and
west of the city - where a large part of the residential growth is
anticipated -were acceptable. All were below or well below the optimal
size at the present time but three of the four wards contain significant
growth communities that will be built and occupied before the 2010
election.
25
Overall Evaluation of Phase Two Options
After all of this assessment, the four options developed in Phase
Two appear to be inadequate: none meets more than two of the
measures of success for the Ward Review extrapolated from Policy I-
50. As noted at the beginning of this Report, no ward system design is
likely to be successful meeting all of the guiding principles set out in
Policy I-50. The challenge is to minimize the divergence from the
ideals in a recommended system. Clearly, however, meeting only two
of the four criteria at best is not grounds for moving ahead with awn rr of
the four Phase Two options.
At the same time, these Options generated a good deal of
discussion -even dispute - at the public meetings and in the
responses collected on-line and elsewhere as Kitchener residents
articulated their assessments of the various features of the four
Options. The opportunity for the consultant to discuss and explain the
four Options also generated more insights into what the whole system
might look like and how the ten component parts might be delineated.
In a sense, parts of the four Phase Two options seem to embody
the adage "No design is completely useless; it can always serve as a
bad example." Several of the ideas that seemed - at the conceptual
and even political level - to be worthwhile testing in Phase Two proved
to be unworkable.
Most importantly, two related features have been removed from
consideration in the recommendation in the next section: a single
downtown ward and a system that included five wards "inside" the
Conestoga Parkway and five wards "outside" the Conestoga Parkway.
The simple facts are that a coherent stand-alone downtown ward could
not be designed in the light of population figures and credible "natural
boundaries." Nor could five wards "inside" the Parkway be justified in
terms of present and future population figures.
As well, the Phase Two process made plain - or confirmed -the
constraints implicit in attempting to use the four criteria concurrently.
Trade-offs are inevitable -but the trade-offs will take different forms
i n different contexts.
For example, in the northeast corner of the City, two "natural
boundaries" Victoria Street/CNR mainline and the Conestoga
Parkway} could not both be incorporated in the ward system design for
the simple reason that the resulting configuration could not possibly be
justified in population terms. Choosing to work with the Conestoga
Parkway as the priority marker of the ward perimeter in the northeast
provided more workable alternatives across the entire system than
would have been possible using a Victoria Street/CNR mainline
boundary.
26
In other words, choosing to place a premium on one "natural
boundary" while downplaying another offered a greater possibility of
meeting the other criteria. A ward in the northeast that crossed the
Conestoga Parkway and used the Victoria Street/CNR mainline as a
boundary would have been the first step to a quite different hand, in
my view, less successful) ward system for Kitchener
Having made the choice to use the Conestoga Parkway as a
boundary, Ottawa Street becomes the only logical place to "draw a
line" on that side of the City: it is a straightforward boundary fan
arterial road} and establishes two relatively coherent wards. No other
"natural boundary" exists in that part of the City that would help
sustain wards that were reasonably balanced in population or
constituted feasible communities of interest.
In other instances, however, proposed boundaries (such as
those using Stirling Avenue in Option B or Biehn Drive in Options C
and D) that were proposed in Phase Two in the context of meeting
other criteria especially related to population figures} could be set
aside since other alternatives existed that could be integrated into
viable alternative configurations.
The point here is that an Ottawa Street boundary was not the
"top criterion" in the ward designs on that side of the City, whereas
the "natural boundary" criterion could not be disregarded in the
northeast. Not only can a single criterion be dealt with in different
ways, the priority attached to the four criteria themselves may have to
be "shuffled" in the light of evidence and experience.
27
The Recommended Option
• one ~~western" ward running from the Waterloo
boundary towards the Conestoga Parkway (that is,
roughly north-south)
• a second ward essentially consisting of the
Meinzinger Park-Lakeside, Forest Hill, Victoria Hills
and Westmount Planning Communities (that is,
roughly north-south)
• two downtown wards largely based on the
Community Improvement Plan area using King
Street as the dividing line
• two wards east of the Conestoga Parkway -Highway
8
• four wards in the south and southwest:
• one consisting of the Vanier, Country Hills,
Country Hills East and Hidden Valley Planning
Communities
• one including Pioneer Tower, Doon, Pioneer
Park, Doon South and Brigadoon Planning
Communities
• a third consisting of the Alpine, Laurentian Hills
and Laurentian West Planning Communities
• the fourth Laurentian West Planning Community
and the south west corner of the City including
Huron Park
* NOTE: the Wards are numbered quite differently in the
Recommended Option than in the four options presented
in Phase Two. Please refer to the appropriate map to
clarify the ward numbers when making comparisons
between the Phase Two options and the Recommended
Option.
28
29
Evaluation
Criterion a: "Community of interest" is best served when ward
boundaries respect the boundaries of active neighbourhood
associations. The following exceptions are noted in the recommended
Option: Victoria Hills (by excluding a small area, Stanley Park and
Country Hills N.A.s are placed in more than one proposed ward.
Criterion 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 reasonably equal population totals. Given the geography and
varying population densities and characteristics in the City, a degree of
variation is acceptable." see explanation under Option A~
For the recommended Option, the assessment shows
Ward 1* 22,442 optimal
Ward 2 26,364 well above optimal
Ward 3 16,773 well below optimal
Ward 4 20,258 optimal
Ward 5 16,416 well below optimal
Ward 6 16,887 well below optimal
Ward 7 23,521 above optimal
Ward 8 23,662 above optimal
Ward 9 22,385 optimal
Ward 10 25,081 well above optimal
Criterion c: "Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries.
Wards should be compact, contiguous shape, straightforward and easy
to remember."
In the recommended Option, Wards One and Ten cross Victoria
Street and the CNR mainline. This configuration tends act as a barrier
between one part of the ward and the other.
The boundary between Wards Eight and Nine appears contrived
and complicated. In fact, it uses a form of "natural boundary" other
than roadways for most of its length, namely parkland and greenbelts
from the Homer Watson-Stirling intersection to Highland Road and
30
then along the back of the property line on the north side of Adelaide
Street (east of Belmont) to the Iron Horse Trail. It then follows the
Iron Horse Trail to the Waterloo boundary. Only for a short distance
does it use arterial roads (Highland and Belmont. On the map, the
boundary looks confusing; on the ground it primarily follows spaces
that have some meaning.
Criterion d: "Consideration of present and future population trends.
The ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years"
(see explanation under Option A}. In the recommended Option, this
test brings the following results:
Large Growth Present Population
Planning Communities Size
Ward 1 Bridgeport North, optimal
Grand River North
Ward 3 Country Hills East well below optimal
Ward 4 Doon South, optimal
Brigadoon
Ward 5 Huron Park, well below optimal
Laurentian West
31
Overall Assessment: Recommended Option
Meets Comment
Criterion
criterion a yes divides three active N.A.s
criterion b no three wards optimal, five wards
approaching extreme of range (two at
top, three at bottom }
criterion c yes but Victoria Street and CNR mainline
bisect two wards, another boundary
uses parkland and greenbelts rather
than arterial roadways
criterion d yes two wards where growth anticipated
now at optimal size, two others well
below optimal size
Conclusion: suitable
In terms of criterion a, this Option is much more compatible
with existing Neighbourhood Association boundaries than any of the
Phase Two Options. In fact, the "fit" is even better than the summary
chart above suggests.
First of all, none of the existing Downtown Neighbourhood
Associations are divided in this arrangement. Moreover, the proposed
Ward Nine/Ten arrangement maintains the present relationship
between City Council and Kitchener's downtown BIA the Kitchener
Downtown Business Association}.
Secondly, while the proposed boundaries divide three active
Neighbourhood Associations, in one case Victoria Hills) the area
placed in a neighbouring ward abounded by Victoria-Patricia-Highland-
Belmont} is actually a small portion of the Association's territory.
Thirdly, the Stanley Park Neighbourhood Association is divided in
this ward configuration. The reality, of course, is that all four of the
Phase Two options also split this Association. Given the constraints and
choices inherent in the ward arrangements for the northern and
eastern section of the City (as discussed on pages 26 and 27}, creating
a ward that would not split the Stanley Park Neighbourhood
Association is virtually impossible. For one thing, it encompasses more
than half of the entire area between Victoria Street, the Grand River
and Highway 8 and straddles Ottawa Street in the process. The main
reason that the SPNA would find itself divided in any Ward system
developed in 2008, however, is based on information provided by the
Association's representative at the public meeting at the Grand River
32
Recreation Complex in April. In a phrase, this particular
Neighbourhood Association is too large to be incorporated in its
entirety in a~ ward proposed in the 2008 Ward Boundary Review. The
meeting was informed that the SPNA represents approximately 40,000
residents. If the optimal population of a ward has been assumed to be
21,400, it would be blatantly inappropriate to, in effect, draw a line
around the SPNA (that is, to keep it intact} and call it a ward!
This means that recognizing "community of interest" as
embodied the boundaries of active neighbourhood associations is only
seriously compromised in this Recommendation in the single case of
the Country Hills Recreation Association.
On these grounds, the Recommendation successfully meets the
conditions associated with criterion a.
In terms of criterion b, an ideal arrangement would see all
wards very close to the optimal figure, varying by only a small
percentage above or below that figure. In many jurisdictions for
example the United States} this criterion predominates all others.
Indeed, several versions of possible ward systems were submitted to
the consultant proposing wards that contain population figures that
successfully cluster fairly closely around the optimal. Unfortunately,
few of the proposed wards captured recognized communities of
interest in Kitchener or used "natural boundaries." In this
Recommendation, however, criterion b will not systematically trump
criterion a or criterion c.
The distribution of population among the ten recommended
wards foresees more variation than would be desirable in an ideal
system. However, criterion b does recognize that "a degree of
variation is acceptable" given "the geography and varying population
densities and characteristics in the City." In the Recommended system,
population levels above optimal are noted in wards where population
densities are, for the most part, high and/or future residential
development is not likely to be large. Wards with population levels below
optimal are areas where population densities are inherently lower and
where rapid residential development will occur. No ward population is
outside the acceptable range of variance.
On the summary chart (page 32}, the Recommendation was
assessed as not meeting the conditions associated with criterion b. In
fact, while this judgment is accurate in the narrow sense alluded to
above, it may be harsher than it should be. A "qualified yes" might be
a more realistic verdict.
In terms of criterion c, the Recommendation addressed some
concerns raised in public comments about the Phase Two options.
33
First, the problematic Biehn Drive boundary between Wards Four and
Five was eliminated in favour of including the entire Brigadoon
Planning Community in Ward Four. This adjustment is another case of
trading off criteria; in this case an unacceptable "natural boundary"
was set aside at the cost of adding population to a ward already slated
to grow. The adjustment is addressed again below.
The proposed boundary between Wards Eight and Nine (using a
sequence of parkland areas, trails and greenbelts} is unconventional in
the context of other boundaries used in this Review. However, it allows
for more coherent communities of interest to be captured in those two
wards. The boundary now does not split the Belmont Village shopping
area, for example, and recognizes that Belmont Avenue is a residential
street between Highland and Glen Roads.
Finally, the Recommendation reluctantly uses King Street as a
boundary between the two downtown wards. Many times in the public
meetings, this dilemma was raised: should King Street not serve as
the spine of a downtown ward rather than as a `frontier'? Gradually,
the question changed : "can wards be successfully designed to permit
the use of King Street as `a whole street'?" The larger answer to that
question has been addressed elsewhere in this report: the short
answer is "no". A King Street boundary is easy to comprehend, does
not fragment Neighbourhood Associations and does not preclude co-
operation among citizens living in that area.
Despite what might be perceived by some as an imperfection,
the Recommendation successfully meets the conditions associated with
criterion c.
In terms of criterion d, population figures for three of the
proposed wards in the south and west of the city - where a large part
of the residential growth is anticipated -were at a level where that
growth can be absorbed without distorting the intent of criterion b.
The rate of growth in the proposed Ward Four may undermine this
assessment over the course of the next eight to twelve years, so it will
need to be closely monitored. It is important to note also that the
boundaries for Ward Four were expanded in the Recommendation to
take in a major growth area ~Brigadoon} in its entirety; however,
earlier wards proposed in this area were critically flawed where they
used Biehn Drive as a boundary.
The Recommendation successfully meets the conditions
associated with criterion d.
In summary, the three key features of the Recommended Option
are
34
a} it accommodates anticipated growth in the south and west of the
city ~"outside the Parkway"}. This aspect has already been
discussed at some length.
b) it provides for two downtown wards divided at King Street. This
aspect has also already been discussed.
c} it includes two wards in the City's northwest corner that are
turned at right angles from the "traditional" ward configuration.
This final idea emerged in discussions at the public meetings in
April. It is an appealing innovation for Kitchener because it provides a
more effective representation of "community of interest" than the
long-standing arrangement of two wards running parallel to one
another from the Wilmot boundary towards the centre of the City. In a
number of respects, the two present wards contain an unwarranted
mix of housing stock, residential density, institutional and commercial
facilities, traffic patterns and more. "Community of interest" is difficult
to identify in such a Ward.
The traditional configuration in this part of the City - as found in
Option C in Phase Two -would perpetuate a system with not one but
two such amalgams. By turning the boundary at right angles, a more
coherent community of interest can be identified within each ward and
the differences presently submerged in each ward can be reflected in
the political process.
Concluding Observations
A cursory glance at the map of this Report's Recommendation
might provoke bewilderment, unease or dismay. As electoral maps go,
Kitchener's new ward map would appear to be much more
unconventional or improbable than most others. There are virtually no
neat straight lines setting out the boundaries. Many wards have
improbable, and in places bulging, shapes.
The complexity of the settlement and land-use patterns in
Kitchener, combined with issues related to "natural boundaries" as
already discussed, underpin this untidy map. The reality is that
Kitchener is not built around a conventional central core with concentric
rings of industrial, commercial and residential development. In
particular, the curious boundaries where Wards Three, Four and Five
converge are not shaped by trying to juggle various residential
neighbourhoods to meet the guidelines of Policy I-50. Essentially, those
boundaries were developed to work around extensive areas of industrial,
institutional and commercial activity that lie at the heart of this part of
the City. Significant stretches of south Kitchener, in reality, have helped
to shape the new ward system -and the odd ward boundaries -because
no one actually lives there!
35
A final observation is necessary. One of the criteria applied in the
design of this ward system relates to consideration of present and
future population trends. In particular, criterion d stipulated that the
ward structure "should accommodate growth for at least 12 years."
Given the fact that the population of existing and future
communities in the City of Kitchener used in this Report represent
what was described in the April Discussion Paper as a "reasonable best
guess" and given the fact that residential development is subject to a
number of factors beyond the control of the municipality, it would be
appropriate for Council to monitor population levels at the time of the
2010 election, in particular in Wards Three, Four and Five.
Policy I-50 stipulates that ward boundaries will be reviewed after
every second regular election but it does not preclude an early review -
or partial review - of the boundaries recommended in this Report to
ensure that the guiding principles for Kitchener's ward system are still
being realized.
36