October 26, 1998
To:Community Councils and the Urban Environment and Development Committee
From:City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
Subject:Options for Ward Boundary Changes
Purpose:
This report provides options for: (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and
(2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no immediate financial implications from this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act,
1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to
commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990,
Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law
changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of
Toronto Act, 1997;
(2)Community Councils recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban
Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community
Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit
single member ward representation;
(3)the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its November 30, 1998,
meeting, consider this staff report, and the public input provided to and the
recommendations submitted by each Community Council, and forward overall
recommendations on ward boundary changes to City Council;
(4)City Council adopt a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward
divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in 2000;
(5)subject to City Council's decision to divide the wards to permit single member
representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the
Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect
the communities which make-up the new single member wards; and,
(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to
give effect thereto.
Background:
City Council, at its April 28 and May 1, 1998, meeting, had before it Clause No. 1 of
Report No. 4a of the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding ward
boundary review and adopted the following motions:
(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member ward
representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the
overall size of City Council;
(2)the four commonly accepted principles on which ward boundaries options are to be
evaluated be approved and that variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25
percent be accepted as the norm;
(3)a Staff Working Group with representation from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Economic
Development, Social Development and Corporate Policy and Planning be created to
co-ordinate the process, liaise with Members of Council, and undertake the necessary
research;
(4)existing ward boundaries within the new City of Toronto be used as the basis for the
new ward boundaries, with minor refinements where needed;
(5)Council indicate its support for the principle that each of the existing City wards be
divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal
election in the year 2000;
(6) the appropriate staff develop plans which give effect to City Council's decision that
there will be three Councillors from East York;
(7)the process and time line outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards
be approved for implementation;
(8)Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public's input on the
matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the
Urban Environment and Development Committee; and
(9)the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.
Subsequent to City Council's direction, a number of Community Councils considered the
matter of ward boundary changes. North York Community Council, at its May 27, 1998,
meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to: (i) take into account the population of the
respective wards and attempt to keep the equalization of population while taking into
consideration natural boundaries, and (ii) have Highway 401 be considered in areas for
modifications of boundary lines, where appropriate. York Community Council, at its May
27, 1998, meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to consider using major arterial
roads as natural dividing boundaries, as part of "minor refinements". East York Community
Council also considered this matter at its May 27, 1998, meeting, and requested scenarios
which would allow the appropriate division of the Ward 1, East York, into three equal
wards.
This report responds to the direction of City Council, and requests of various Community
Councils, by identifying options for minor refinements to current ward boundaries and
options for dividing the wards to achieve a single member ward system.
Comments:
This covering report:
(a)discusses the legal issues impacting the boundary review exercise;
(b)outlines the process through which staff developed the ward options,
(c)explains how the options are presented, and
(d)describes the remaining process for City Council to approve a revised ward system prior
to the next municipal election in 2000.
Attached to this report are six (6) option papers presenting ward boundary options for each
Community Council area.
Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:
The City's statutory authority to change ward boundaries is obtained from both the City of
Toronto Act, 1997 (the "Act") and the Municipal Act. The City Solicitor is of the opinion,
expressed in the previous staff report, that amendments to the Act are required to permit
Council to change its overall size or move to single member ward representation.
Subsequent to City Council's authorization, the City Solicitor requested the Province to
amend the Act, to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto
and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council.
As of the date of this report, there remains a difference of opinion between the City and the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as to whether amendments to the Act are
necessary to permit City Council to change its ward boundaries and Council composition.
The City Solicitor remains of the opinion that an amendment to the Act is necessary to
clear up any ambiguity regarding the statutory authority of the City to permit single
member ward representation and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of
City Council. Without such enabling legislation in place, it is doubtful that City Council
has the statutory authority to create single member wards or to change the number of its
overall membership. As a result, any such by-law enacted by City Council may be subject
to legal challenge.
In the absence of the Minister taking action to ensure the City has the proper enabling
legislation in place, the City will need to seek legislative amendment through a Private
Member's Bill. Staff are currently pursuing this avenue. The challenge for the City is time.
The current session of the Provincial Legislature is expected to conclude in December and
is expected to recess until the Spring of 1999, at which time there is the possibility that a
provincial election may be announced. City Council must have its ward boundary changes
adopted and approved before January 1, 2000, for implementation in the next municipal
election. Therefore, the practical window of opportunity for seeking the statutory authority
is within the current legislative session, ending this December.
If the option of statutory amendments through a Private Member's Bill is unsuccessful, the
City's only recourse is to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's
right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal
Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 . It is recommended that the City Solicitor be
authorized to pursue such an application, if the Legislature fails to enact the necessary
amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative
session.
Work Process:
City Clerk's staff lead this project with assistance from a cross-corporate team representing
the City Planning Division, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Social
Development Division, the City Solicitor's Division, and the Economic Development
Division. City Clerk's staff also consulted with Members of Council on the need for minor
boundary refinements to existing wards and possible options for ward divisions.
The Municipal Act requires City Council to consider criteria, established through
regulation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when examining ward
boundary changes. To date, no such criteria have been prescribed. City Council's direction
for the ward boundary review cited four principles for identifying options:
(a)representation by population;
(b)representation of communities;
(c)recognition of distinct geographical features; and,
(d)present and future populations.
With respect to principle (a) above, Council directed that variations in ward populations of
plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm for developing new ward options. These
principles were followed by staff in developing options for a revised 28-ward system
incorporating minor refinements and for identifying ways to divide the wards to allow for
single member representation. However, in some instances, the application of these
principles led to conflicts between two or more principles. In cases of such conflict, the
principle of representation by population, within the plus or minus 25 percent variation
from the average, was used as the overriding principle in this exercise.
Applying the 25 percent criterion provides enough flexibility to develop ward options that
will prevent communities from being further divided, consider significant population
trends, incorporate densely populated areas that cannot be easily divided, and include a
population that would otherwise become physically isolated. Given that the existing 28
wards were used as the starting point for dividing the wards, the 25 percent criterion allows
for options to be developed which meet this criterion. A figure smaller than 25 percent
would not allow for practical options to be developed.
1996 Statistics Canada census data was used to estimate populations for the ward options.
In particular, census enumeration areas (i.e., block-level geographic units through which
census data is collected) were used as the basis for determining representative populations
for each option. Census data is the commonly used reference data for population-based
analysis and is used by the provincial and federal governments in determining their
electoral boundaries. All population data used in this exercise has been rounded to the
nearest hundred.
Some important assumptions were needed to guide this exercise. First, the options
presented through this report respond to the direction of City Council only. Other principles
were not considered in developing these ward boundary options (e.g., using a 10%
population variation principle instead of the 25% criteria established by Council). Second,
staff investigated options for boundary changes within the context of "minor refinements"
to the 28 existing wards, precluding any notion of completely redesigning the ward system
or deleting any one ward to accommodate another new ward elsewhere. Third, the minor
ward boundary changes contemplated through this report will mean that the geographical
responsibilities of each Community Council will be modified slightly after the next election
as minor refinements are made to their boundaries through this exercise.
Minor Refinements to Existing Ward Boundaries:
The first step in developing ward options was to identify minor refinements to the existing
wards. The term "minor refinements" was not defined in the previous staff report or
through the direction of City Council. Staff have interpreted minor refinements to deal with
current ward boundary anomalies and inconsistencies which should be resolved. This
included addressing current ward boundaries that crossed and/or followed private property
lines. Most cases involved the boundary interfaces of the former municipalities. In general,
minor refinements were identified to eliminate boundaries with no "on-the-ground"
definition (i.e., no street identifiers) and minimize the use of property lines as a boundary
definition. Also, distinct geographical features were used wherever possible to delineate
ward boundaries and maximize community inclusions (based on social, economic, natural,
and major infrastructure).
Minor refinements were identified for every existing ward except the following wards:
Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North York Centre, and
Downtown. Options put forward for minor refinements followed the closest distinguishable
geographic feature, such as a local street, or a more recognizable feature such as an arterial
road, rail line or watercourse. The Highway 401 corridor was used as a natural divide for
refining the existing ward boundaries, unless the new ward population contravened the
preeminent population principle. Minor refinements to existing ward boundaries in the
Scarborough Community Council area were necessary to resolve minor boundary issues
and ensure the wards could be divided into single member wards and still satisfy the
population criteria.
The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25%) applied to the existing 28 wards
translates into an average ward population of 85,200, with a range of 63,900 (minus 25 %)
to 106,500 (plus 25%). Table 1 attached to this report shows the variations from average for
the current wards and the options for minor refinements. With the minor refinements
suggested through this report, each of the 28 wards will meet the population variance
criteria of plus or minus 25 per cent, except for Ward 1 - East York. East York Ward's new
population is 28% greater than the average ward population size (as is the current
population of Ward 1). However, given the fact East York Ward is currently represented by
three Members, and options are included in this report to divide the ward into three single
member wards, it was concluded that the variance in population above the acceptable range
was not an issue. The attached option papers outline the specific options for ward minor
refinements.
Options for Ward Divisions to Permit Single Member Representation:
The second step was to identify potential ward divisions within the new ward boundaries,
as amended above through the minor refinements. Options were developed having regard
for the four principles endorsed by Council.
(a)representation by population (with variations of +/- 25% from average ward
populations):
The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25%) applied to the proposed 57 wards
translates into an average ward population of 41,800, with a range of 31,400 (minus 25 %)
to 52,300 (plus 25%). Table 2 attached to this report shows the variations from average for
the options for ward divisions. Relative population parity within a ward was the desired
goal when examining options for dividing the wards. Representative population within the
plus or minus 25 per cent range was taken as the overriding criteria for devising the ward
division options. Every option presented through this report has a population that falls
within the criterion range established by City Council.
(b)representation of communities:
In developing the options for dividing each ward, every effort was made to maintain
identifiable communities. Defined communities referenced in the City official plans and
mapped by the City Planning Division were used in considering ward division options. In
certain cases, dividing a ward to maintain a community intact resulted in boundaries whose
population contravened the basic population principle, and were therefore considered
unacceptable options. Where possible, and consistent with the other principles, ward
division options recognized the validity of former local municipal ward boundaries.
(c)recognition of distinct geographical features:
Where possible, ward division options followed highly visible infrastructure features (e.g.,
arterial roads, highways, rail lines) and geographic features (e.g., watercourses). In some
cases, however, to achieve the population principle, following such features was not
possible and other features such as local streets and changes in land use were used for
boundaries. The boundaries for the ward division options presented with this report all
follow some recognizable features and no boundary lines split or cross properties.
(d)present and future population trends:
Present populations and the potential for future population growth were also considered in
developing ward division options. However, this principle presented a challenge for dealing
with the Scarborough Community Council area, where significant population growth is
occurring and the existing wards with minor refinements were to be the basis for ward
divisions. The large populations within the existing wards, coupled with the population
growth from development, made it extremely difficult to identify ward division options that
had sufficiently low populations to accommodate anticipated future growth. The division
options suggested for the current Scarborough Community Council wards have populations
generally larger than the other options across the City and closer to the upset population
limit without contravening the population principle.
Ward Boundary Options:
Attached to this report are six (6) options papers presenting ward boundary options for each
Community Council area. All options presented in the papers satisfy the principles and all
fit within the population range established by City Council. No options were included
which did not satisfy at least the population principle of plus or minus 25 percent of the
ward average. The options fulfil the mandate set by Council to investigate minor
refinements and ward divisions for the existing 28 wards, and not to redesign the entire
ward system.
The ward options create a system of wards that are more easily defined, recognized and
understood. The options eliminate all former boundary lines which split private properties
and minimize the use of property lines for boundary definition. The revised boundaries
generally follow "on-the-ground" recognizable features such as arterial roads, rail lines, and
watercourses. Overall, the options represent minimal change to the existing ward system,
accommodating the desire to divide wards, and yet minimize disruption of neighbourhoods
and communities.
An overview of the options for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions is
shown in the maps attached to this report. Map 1 depicts option 1 for ward boundary minor
refinements and generally proposes the least amount of change to the existing boundaries.
Map 2 depicts option 2 for ward boundary minor refinements and generally follows more
arterial roads. Map 3 shows option 3 for ward boundary minor refinements and applies only
to five wards (North York Humber, North York Spadina, North York Centre South, North
Toronto, and York Humber) where more opportunity for minor refinements exist. Maps 1a,
1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3b show the options for ward divisions based on the revised
boundary options depicted in Maps 1,2 and 3, respectively.
Not all wards have more than one option. For some wards, no minor refinements were
necessary (e.g., Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North
York Centre, Downtown) or only one or few practical options existed (e.g., Lakeshore
Queensway, Black Creek, Seneca Heights, Scarborough Bluffs, Trinity-Niagara). For a few
wards, a number of practical options were available (e.g., North York Centre South, North
Toronto, York Humber).
Each option paper profiles each affected ward by briefly describing the options for ward
boundary minor refinements and options for ward boundary divisions and illustrating the
ward boundary options on ward-specific maps. The rationale for and implications of each
option are also outlined.
Approving a Revised Ward System:
This report and the option papers are being presented to each Community Council
throughout November 1998. In accordance with the Municipal Act, at least one public
meeting must be convened before City Council can pass a by-law changing ward
boundaries or changing the composition of City Council. Public meetings have been
scheduled for each Community Council to allow for public comment on the ward boundary
options. The public meetings, to be hosted by each Community Council, are scheduled for
the following dates:
East York Community CouncilNovember 3
York Community CouncilNovember 4
Toronto Community Council November 5
Scarborough Community CouncilNovember 12
North York Community CouncilNovember 16
Etobicoke Community CouncilNovember 18
All public comments and Community Council recommendations on the options will be
forwarded to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development
Committee for consideration and final recommendation to City Council.
The challenge in approving a revised ward boundary system for the City is in gaining
consensus on a set of recommended boundary changes that are co-terminus. If one
Community Council recommendation on a preferred set of boundary changes does not
coincide with the adjoining Community Councils preferred option, the Urban Environment
and Development Committee will have to make a recommendation, and City Council will
need to make a decision, which selects one option over another.
If the preferred options of the Community Council are not compatible, the Urban
Environment and Development Committee and City Council should consider in their
respective debates the four principles established by Council, including communities of
interest, distinct geographic features, representative populations and future population
trends. Only if Council, after such deliberations, still cannot decide between two or more
options considered equally appealing, then Council should consider applying an objective
decision-making framework to help determine its decision on ward boundary changes. The
following two decision-making principles, based on the notion of representative population,
should be used to resolve conflicts between ward boundary recommendations:
(a)revised ward boundaries, incorporating minor refinements, should be as close to the
existing ward average (85,200) as possible; and,
(b)the population estimates for the new ward divisions should be as close to parity as
possible.
The new ward system adopted by City Council will not come into effect until the 2000
municipal election. However, the Municipal Act dictates that boundary changes must be
approved by City Council prior to January 1, 2000, if they are to be implemented by the
next municipal election that same year. Therefore, Council has just over one year in which
to have an approved ward system in place. Council must first pass a by-law setting out the
boundary changes. The Bill will set out the "metes and bounds" of the revised ward system
and will be brought forward by Legal Division staff, but cannot be prepared until Council
has adopted a set of changes. Subject to Council adopting the by-law, the Act allows for an
appeal of the by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. Notices of appeal must be filed with
the City Clerk within 35 days of the ward boundary by-law being approved by City
Council. If Council's by-law is appealed to the Board, control of the process is transferred
to the Board. Depending on the demands placed on the Board, it could be well into 1999
before a hearing is scheduled. If the ward changes are not approved by the end of 1999, the
status quo boundaries will remain for the next election, including two member ward
representation. Therefore, a Council decision on ward boundary changes is needed as soon
as possible to have a revised ward system in place for the 2000 municipal election.
With a revised ward system with single member wards in place, it will be necessary to
individually identify each new ward. It is recommended that the staff work team be
requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public
input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the
new single member wards. Until such time as ward names are approved, and for
consistency, each existing ward should retain its existing ward name and number and each
ward division be referenced with an "a", "b", or "c" ("c" for Ward 1 only), with "a"
assigned to the most northern and/or western ward division and "b" assigned to the most
southern and/or eastern ward division.
Conclusions:
Staff have used the principles approved by Council to develop a number of options to make
minor refinements to the existing 28 wards and divide the wards to permit single member
representation. The resulting options provide an overall ward system that is easier to define,
recognize and understand. Six option papers attached to this report outline the ward
options.
The City Solicitor is of the opinion that all uncertainty as to City Council's statutory
authority to change its representation basis must be resolved as soon as possible. The
implementing by-law must be adopted and in effect prior to the statutory deadline of
January 1, 2000. The revised ward system Council adopted will be used as the basis for the
next municipal election.
The City Solicitor concurs with the recommendations included in this report. The City
Planning Division has provided support in the preparation of this report.
Contact Name:
John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division
Telephone: (416) 392-8019 E-mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca
Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division
Telephone: (416) 392-8668E-mail: pfay@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
__________________________________________________
Novina WongVirginia M. West
City ClerkCommissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
Attachments:
Tables:
Table 1 Population Distribution for Existing Wards and Ward Options (with Minor Refinements)
Table 2 Population Distribution for Ward Options (with Minor Refinements) and Ward Division Options
Maps:
Map 1 Minor Ward Refinements - Option 1
Map 1aWard Division Option "a" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 1)
Map 1bWard Division Option "b" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 1)
Map 1cWard Division Option "c" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 1)
Map 2 Minor Ward Refinements - Option 2
Map 2aWard Division Option "a" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 2)
Map 2bWard Division Option "b" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 2)
Map 2cWard Division Option "c" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 2)
Map 3 Minor Ward Refinements - Option 3
Map 3aWard Division Option "a" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 3)
Map 3bWard Division Option "b" (Minor Ward Refinements - Option 3)
Option Papers (under separate cover):
City of Toronto Ward 1, Options for Ward Changes
City of Toronto Ward 2-5, Options for Ward Changes
City of Toronto Ward 6-12, Options for Ward Changes
City of Toronto Ward 13-18, Options for Ward Changes
City of Toronto Ward 19-26, Options for Ward Changes
City of Toronto Ward 27-28, Options for Ward Changes
Table 1
Population Distribution for
Existing Wards and Ward Options (with Minor Refinements)