Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-08-159 - Ward Boundary Review - Final RecommendationReport To: Chair Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate Services Commitee Date of Meeting: September 29, 2008 Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk Prepared By: R. Gosse Ward(s) Involved: n/a Date of Report: September 23, 2008 Report No.: CRPS-08-159 Subject: WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW — FINAL RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION: That the Ward Boundary configuration recommended by Dr. R. Williams in his report titled, '2008 Ward Boundary Review Final Report Addendum', dated September 2008, be adopted as the ward boundaries to come into effect in 2010; and further, That a By-law be prepared for the October 6, 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 (FCSC). In June, 2008, after undertaking a public consultation process, Dr. Williams presented his recommendation on a new 10 ward configuration to the FCSC. The committee recommended, and it was adopted by Council, that the ward boundary configuration presented by Dr. Williams be approved in principle and, that a further report be submitted to the FCSC in September taking into account additional public consultation and issues raised by the committee. I ti N Following the June 23, 2008 Council meeting, it was decided to hold another public open house in City Hall on September 10, 2008. In preparation of the open house the June, 2008 report from Dr. Williams was posted on the City's web site along with the previous discussion paper and optional ward configurations used during the initial round of public open houses. Also included on the web page was a link to allow anyone to submit their comments on the recommended ward boundaries. In addition, 2 advertisements were placed in The Record and an article on the recommendation and promoting the September open house, ran in the August/September edition of Your Kitchener. A press release was given to the local media and articles ran in The Record and the Community Newspapers. At the public open house, approximately 20 members of the public and 2 councillors were in attendance. Dr. Williams reviewed the process to date, explained the recommended ward boundaries along with the issues that were raised on the proposal and, he took questions and entered into discussion with those present. The issues raised at the open house and the comments submitted on-line are addressed in Dr. Williams' report. Dr. Williams has now completed the further public consultation as directed by Council and is submitting an addendum report dated September, 2008. 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. His recommendation is an amendment to the ward boundaries presented in June as noted in his report and on the recommended ward boundary map. 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 2008 Ward Bo ndary Review Final Report KA I 1 ' eoriooiq Dr. Robert J. Williams The City of Kitchener 2008 Ward Boundary Review Final Report was submitted to City Council in June and was discussed at a meeting of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee on June 16. At that meeting,, a number of questions were asked about the Report and the Recommended Option. The Committee approved a two-part motion that has generated some additional research,, consultation and consideration of the Recommended Option. Specifically,, the resolution stated: "That the Ward Boundary configuration recommended by Dr. R. Williams in his report titled,, "2008 Ward Boundary Review Final Report",, dated June 2008, be approved in principle,, as the ward boundaries to come into effect in 2010 and be presented to the public for comment over the summer/early fall; and,, That Dr. R. Williams report to the September 29,, 2008 Finance & Corporate Services Committee meeting with his final recommendation, taking into account results of the additional public consultation, as well as review of the issues raised by the Committee concerning population variances and impact to communities of interest among the proposed Wards." In the period since that meeting,, the consultant has met with two members of Council who requested an opportunity to review the Recommended Option. Members of the public provided further comments on the Recommended Option through the City's website and by telephone and at the public meeting referred to in the motion (which was held on September 10) . The opportunities presented by these consultations has led to this additional report - and to an amendment to the ward plan recommended in June. The following pages set out five "issues" raised in the consultations; each is appraised against the criteria set out by Council Policy 1-50. As the Final report noted: "By definition,, a single recommendation requires a choice among a number of workable and valid alternatives." This further review has confirmed that there is, in fact, another "workable and valid alternative" for electing future municipal councils in Kitchener and it is provided in this report. Issues 1. Wards 7 and 8 The Recommended Option (June 2008) proposed one "western" ward running from the Waterloo boundary towards the Conestoga Parkway (that is, roughly north-south) and a second ward essentially consisting of the Meinzinger Park-Lakeside, Forest Hill, Victoria Hills and Westmount Planning Communities (also running roughly north-south). These were labeled respectively Wards 7 and 8; the estimated population of the two wards is almost identical, although both are above the designated optimal population size of 211400. Ward 7 23,521 above optimal Ward 8 23,662 above optimal The Final Report (June 2008) took the view that,, in terms of the nature of the housing stock,, the age of neighbourhoods and various demographic and economic patterns,, grouping together the communities west of Fischer-Hallman Road and those communities roughly between Fischer-Hallman Road and Belmont Avenue established viable political entities for the purposes of municipal elections. In this configuration,, some growth can be anticipated in ward 7 but - other than a couple of pockets potentially open to intensification - very little in Ward 8. However, this area of Kitchener has "traditionally" (that is,, since the inception of a ward system in 1978) been organized into two parallel west side wards running from the Wilmot boundary towards downtown. For many people, there is an inherent (and longstanding) community of interest between the Forest Hill and the Forest Heights communities that should be preserved in the new ward system. It is widely believed that the "east-west" linkage is further reflected in normal patterns of travel and retail shopping. The northern ward (embracing the Belmont retail district and the Old Westmount,, Glasgow Street,, Victoria Hills and Highland West neighbourhoods) is not as coherent a collection of communities as is said to be so in the case of Forest Hill and Forest Heights. However,, after being grouped together for electoral purposes for thirty years,, some semblance of community can be recognized as applying to the area. Reverting to the traditional "east-west" configuration (while respecting the "inner" boundary of ward 8 proposed in the Recommended Option) would not alter the population distribution significantly. This would be, in terms of criterion b, a neutral change. If the ward running between the Conestoga Parkway and Highland Road is labeled Ward 7 and the other Ward 8, the following populations can be anticipated: Ward 7 23,139 above optimal Ward 8 24,044 above optimal In this alternative arrangement,, however, both Wards will experience some new residential growth in the vicinity of Ira Needles Boulevard. The 2008 Ward Boundary Review is ultimately about designing reasonably distinctive electoral configurations for the purpose of electing City Councillors. The traditional east-west wards were each diverse and "untidy" collections of communities; moreover, there were two of them! Almost by definition., the Recommended Option (built around ten wards) cannot avoid grouping some dissimilar neighbourhoods together but the Recommended Option appears to come closer to meeting the guiding principles set out for the review than the alternative discussed above. Recommendation: There is no compelling case for altering this aspect of the Recommended Option. 2. King Street One of the questions raised at Council in June pertained to the use of King Street as the boundary between Wards 9 and 10. In essence, the question was "how common is it for a community's Amain street" to be used as a ward boundary?" It is important to note that this feature of the Recommended Option was addressed in the Final Report (page 34) : "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 . . . 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." The term "main street" (in the singular) is ambiguous in the context of many larger centres in Ontario such as Cambridge,, Hamilton, Ottawa or London. Nevertheless, in response to the question posed at Council, evidence was collected; not surprisingly., the results are mixed. In several larger Ontario municipalities where ward systems are in place, the whole (or bulk) of the Central Business District is included in a single ward (such as Waterloo, Kingston, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Burlington and Oakville). In other larger municipalities in Ontario, however, a major central street (the community's "main street") served as a ward boundary; the most significant of these cases is Windsor where Ouellette Avenue divides wards 2 and 3 (in a five ward system). In Orillia, Peterborough and Brampton significant (if not "main") downtown streets are used as ward boundaries, while limited sections of major downtown streets serve as ward boundaries in London, Toronto and Hamilton. In short, while (as noted) the Recommended Option used King Street as a boundary "reluctantly", there are several positive benefits to this arrangement - and similar practices can be found in other communities in Ontario. Recommendation: There is no compelling case for altering this aspect of the Recommended Option. 3. Ward 6 In the Recommended Option, the population figure for Ward 6 was 16,,887,, placing it well below the optimal level of 21,400. Moreover, the communities grouped together in this ward are not likely to see any significant growth over the next decade or more (as opposed to many adjacent areas) . The soundness of this recommendation needs to be addressed. As was noted in several places in the Final Report,, the decision about where to place individual ward boundaries must be fitted into a web of inter-related boundary assignments. The placement of the Country Hills community in Ward 3, for example, was intended (a) to provide a contiguous community to the otherwise isolated Country Hills East community; and (b) to assist in providing enough population to make Ward 3 viable. At the same time, the Country Hills community is linked in a number of significant ways to the proposed Ward 6 and including it in that ward would compensate for the low (and likely stable) population figure noted above. One simple alternative - in essence having the Alpine and Country Hills communities trade places so that the former is part of Ward 3 and the latter is part of Ward 6 - might satisfy the "community of interest criterion" by including the Country Hills and Country Hills West Planning communities in one ward (and thereby also placing the bulk of the Country Hills Recreation Association in one ward). However, instead of having two wards "well below optimal" (see below)., the result would be one ward "well below optimal" and another "outside range". The projected growth in the Country Hills East Community - when completed - would edge the ward 3 population into an acceptable range - but would still mean it is "well below optimal Recommended Option Ward 3 16,773 well below optimal Ward 6 16,887 well below optimal "Trading" Alpine and Country Hills Wa rd 3 15,880 outside range Ward 6 17,780 well below optimal To address the population imbalance associated with the recommended Ward 6, more drastic changes need to be considered. It should be noted, however, that whatever alternative configuration for Ward 6 is proposed,, there will be a ripple-effect that may have an impact on several ward boundaries proposed in the south-west portion of the City. The direct response to both the perceived population and "community of interest" weaknesses would be to add the Country Hills community to Ward 6,, essentially "squaring off" the ward boundaries in one of two ways: • use the Conestoga Parkway,, Fischer-Hallman Road,, Bleams Road and Homer Watson Boulevard; or • use the Conestoga Parkway,, Westmount Road,, Bleams Road and Homer Watson Boulevard. The former keeps the Laurentian Hills community intact while the latter would see some population shifted over to the more lightly populated (but growing) Ward 5. However, the projected Ward 6 population figures for the two variants would be 20,,580 ("optimal") and 17,680 ("well below optimal"), tipping the balance in favour of the former configuration - in spite of the population the latter modification would assign to Ward 5. The transfer of 2800 people from Ward 3 to Ward 6, however, makes the former untenable. Other communities would have to be added in to Ward 3 to compensate for the change. The most "eligible" residential area is Pioneer Tower West, presently home to approximately 2600 people. The Pioneer Tower East Planning Community should also be part of this shift but its population level is negligible. This nets out at a slight loss of population (placing the ward very close to the lower limit of the range); however, the Pioneer Tower West community is projected to grow by over 500 residents in the near future and the Country Hills East community by over 2100. The "short-term" population figure (16,,607),, while lower than the recommended Ward 3 population, is therefore not as worrisome as the earlier low population figure for Ward 6. There is no doubt that the Pioneer Tower West neighbourhood is isolated from other residential communities (see the April Discussion Paper page 11) but this alternative proposal actually preserves the political association between Pioneer Tower West and the Vanier planning communities that has existed over the last three elections in Ward 3 (Fairview- Gateway). Moving the Pioneer Tower communities to Ward 3 transforms an "optimal" population to a "well below optimal" figure of 17,,624 in Ward 4. However, over the next few years Ward 4 is also looking at several major areas of growth in particular in Doon South and Brigadoon (as many as 6000 people). The loss of the Pioneer Tower communities is therefore acceptable in the long run and even precludes the need to adjust the western boundary of Ward 4 at this time. For the sake of completeness,, it can be noted that the recommended Ward 5 is very much like Ward 4: the available figures show a population "well below optimal" (16,,416) but also that growth in the range of 5000 people is anticipated in Huron Park and Laurentian West. Various observations made during consultations about the gaps between Huron Park and Laurentian West communities are forceful: the Huron Industrial Park and Williamsburg Cemetery certainly disrupt the coherence of this ward. At some point in the future,, Huron Road may well develop into the major retail and service corridor for that part of the City; indeed the new fire station has begun that process. Nevertheless, in 2008 the developing Laurentian West neighbourhood (already home to more than 12,,000 people) must serve as the nucleus of this ward; when Huron Park hits the projected figure of approximately 8000 residents,, a new configuration (and perhaps an increase in the overall number of wards) will probably be warranted. Recommendation: There is a case for altering this part of the Recommended Option. The boundary for the proposed Ward 6 will be revised to follow the Conestoga Parkway, Fischer-Hallman Road., Bleams Road and Homer Watson Boulevard. The two Pioneer Tower planning communities will be reassigned to Ward 3. All other boundaries will remain in tact. 4. Wards 1 and 2 The placement of the Bridgeport neighbourhoods in a ward that includes communities south of the Victoria Street/CNR corridor has prompted some concern. The former Village of Bridgeport was incorporated into Kitchener as part of the formation of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. For as long as Kitchener Council has been elected by wards, the Bridgeport area has been included in a ward that crossed the Conestoga Parkway and extended westward across the northern part of the City, at times as far west as Belmont Avenue (1996 - 2000) and/or as far south as Ottawa Street and the Eastwood community (2000 - 2008) . As explained in the Discussion Paper in April (page 11),, this area does not at the moment have a population large enough to constitute a separate ward. It is also contained within some formidable "natural" barriers: the Conestoga Parkway and the Victoria Street/CNR corridor. The challenge is to try to accommodate this isolated small population into the larger ward system configuration. At two points in the 2008 Ward Boundary Review - both before settling on the four Options provided in the Discussion Paper in April and after the Recommended Option was presented to Council in June - a number of alternative designs were considered for the north eastern part of the City. Essentially, these designs were developed using one or the other of the two "formidable" barriers just noted. One group of models used the Victoria Street/CNR corridor as a boundary marker for grouping communities and the other models used the Conestoga Parkway. The assorted designs using the Victoria Street/CNR corridor meant joining the Bridgeport communities with various "inner city" neighbourhoods, by definition across the Conestoga Parkway., as has happened since Kitchener's ward system was implemented. Each arrangement was ultimately rejected as unworkable in the present review because of the difficulty of establishing a ward that both contained Bridgeport yet contained something approximating the optimal population target and a meaningful natural boundary. More importantly, if one of these arrangements meant that the Victoria Street/CNR corridor was "entrenched" as a fulcrum for the whole system, the determination of effective boundaries for much of the rest of the city (with appropriate population levels, suitable boundaries, etc) became less probable and the resulting wards less plausible. By inference., the Recommended Option (as well as all of the Options in the Discussion Paper) rests on the belief that wards designed around the Conestoga Parkway are more successful, on the whole, in meeting the criteria for Kitchener's ward system as set out in Policy 1-50 than would a system using the Victoria Street/CNR corridor in the same way. Since the overall constraints in designing the 2008 ward system have been understood to necessitate using one or the other of these "formidable" barriers., the Recommended Option has chosen to use the Conestoga Parkway Recommendation: There is no compelling case for altering this aspect of the Recommended Option. S. Belmont Village The Recommended Option used a new boundary to set apart the downtown communities from suburban neighbourhoods; essentially it followed a line approximately along Homer Watson Boulevard, a linked area of parkland and greenbelts, Belmont Avenue and the Iron Horse Trail. During the last phase of consultation - and at the September 10 public meeting - representation was made from the Cherry Hills Neighbourhood Association to include (at least) the "downtown" side of Belmont Avenue in the recommended Ward 9. In passing,, a suggestion was made at the public meeting that the whole of the Belmont Village business corridor could be included in Ward 9 if the boundary was moved to an alleyway behind the shops on the opposite side of the street. Many residents from the Cherry Park neighbourhood signed a petition that was submitted at the public meeting in support of placing the ward boundary in alignment with the Neighbourhood Association boundary (that is,, along Belmont Avenue). The case for moving the boundary from the Iron Horse Trail appears to rest on four claims: • the petition asserts that the Recommended Option does not follow the criteria and guiding principles for the ward review since it does not protect the Cherry Hills Neighbourhood Association's community of interest; • since virtually no one lived in the area between Belmont Avenue and the Iron Horse Trail, moving the boundary away from the Iron Horse Trail would not change population figures appreciably; • if the Iron Horse Trail is the ward boundary, the CHNA would eventually be asked to bring its own boundary in line with the proposed ward boundary; and • the CHNA garnered financial support for some of its programming from Belmont Village merchants but would be hampered in this regard if the recommended boundary is implemented. In response to these points, several comments are pertinent: • the use of the Iron Horse Trail conforms to the boundary of the Belmont Improvement Area., a legal entity created under the Ontario Municipal Act. Using Belmont Avenue would split the Belmont Improvement Area into two wards. The Iron Horse Trail is also the boundary used for the Belmont Avenue Mixed Use Corridor in Kitchener's Official Plan. The Cherry Hills Neighbourhood Association does not, therefore, represent the only community of interest in this part of the City; • keeping the entire BIA in Ward 8 means that Ward 9"s Councillor would not need to sit on two Business Improvement Area boards of management, one at the "heart" of Ward 9 (the Kitchener Downtown Business Association) and the other on the outer edge. The Recommended Option better serves the community of interest embodied in the Belmont Improvement Area in this way; • if Neighbourhood Associations in Kitchener are entities "largely predicated on "grassroots" engagement" and contribute to the development of neighbourhoods in the City of Kitchener (see the Discussion Paper pages 13 -14),, the presence or absence of a number of commercial and retail establishments is not germane to the tasks the NA may wish to undertake for its residents. Moreover,, a boundary that excludes of a number of commercial and retail establishments - but very few residents - from the CHNA hardly constitutes a "fragmentation" of the existing neighbourhood association (as claimed on the Association's petition); • the Recommended Option used the Iron Horse Trail rather than Belmont Avenue (as had been the case in some of the Options presented in the Discussion paper) precisely because it allowed for the inclusion of the entire Belmont Improvement Area in Ward 8 without affecting population numbers in either Ward 8 or 9; • there is no record of the City of Kitchener requiring Neighbourhood Associations to adjust their boundaries to comply with ward boundaries; and • nothing in these arrangements prevents the CHNA from working with the businesses on Belmont Avenue in any way whatsoever. For many of the reasons just noted, moving the boundary from the Iron Horse Trail to the alleyway behind the shops on the opposite side of the street would not satisfactorily address the issues raised by the CHNA. In fact it would probably add confusion to the boundary arrangements. Recommendation: There is no compelling case for altering this aspect of the Recommended Option. Concluding Observation Kitchener Council took an important step is 1995 when it first set out a Policy that established criteria that might be used in future to evaluate the City's ward system. These four criteria have been paramount in shaping the various options set out in the Discussion Paper in April,, the Final Report in June and this Addendum in September. Note that "demonstrated popular support" or "the partiality of sitting Councillors" are not on the list. The implication is that expressions of public opinion - through petitions,, public meetings or private submissions - may be helpful in understanding the nature of community perspectives, but they do not independently override the application of the codified criteria for effective representation across the larger community. Similarly, members of Council themselves must be prepared to set aside their own political interests in evaluating a ward boundary recommendation. As an elected official in another Ontario municipality remarked to the consultant,, "How would we decide if none of us were going to run again?" The answer to that question is that its own Policy - and its codified criteria - should be the measure against which Council assesses this ward boundary recommendation. The Recommended Option (as Amended September 2008) • 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 East, Hidden Valley and Pioneer Tower Planning Communities • a second including, Doon, Pioneer Park, Doon South and Brigadoon Planning Communities • a third consisting of the Alpine, Country Hills, Laurentian Hills and Laurentian West Planning Communities • a fourth comprised of the Laurentian West Planning Community and the remaining south west corner of the City including the Huron Park Planning Community r