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)
