November 17, 1998

To:Urban Environment and Development Committee

From:City Clerk

Subject:Ward Boundary Changes

Recommendation:

The North York Community Council on November 16, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, that if a decision is made by City Council to revert back to the single ward system, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it the following:

(1)report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (a) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (b) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation; and

(2)report (November 5, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the York Community Council on November 4, 1998, recommended to the North York Community Council that consideration be given to allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on the map attached to its report, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

A staff presentation was made by John Hollins, Director of Elections, Clerk's Division, and Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Clerk's Division.

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Dominic Di Luca, President of the Stanley Community Centre Seniors' Club, who was in favour of splitting the wards into two;

-Mr. Hank Mulder, President of 325 Bogert Avenue Tenants' Association, who spoke in opposition to the wards being split;

-Mr. Jim Loftus, President of the 7 Roanoke Road Tenants' Association, who had concerns over the splitting of neighbourhoods;

-Mr. Morry Smith, who was in favour of retaining two Councillors per ward; and

-Mr. John Maletich, who spoke in favour of splitting the existing wards.

City Clerk

North York Community Council

Barbara Liddiard/ay

Item No. 1

Attachment

c.Mr. John Hollins, Director of Elections, Clerk's Division

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Clerk's Division

(Report dated October 26, 1998 from the

City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services addressed to the

Community Councils and the Urban Environment and Development Committee)

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

(Report dated November 5, 1998 addressed to the

North York Community Council from the

City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The York Community Council on November 4, 1998, recommended to the North York Community Council that consideration be given to allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on Map27-1a, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

Background:

The York Community Council at its Special Meeting held on November 4, 1998 to hear public comments on the proposed ward boundary changes, had before it a joint report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

The Community Council reports, for the information of the North York Community Council, having recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 27-1a, Ward 27, York Humber, be approved;

(2)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 28-1a, Ward 28, York Eglinton, be approved; and

(3)after its consideration of the staff report on November 30, 1998, that the Committee's recommendations be forwarded to the York Community Council for further consultation with the public at its December 9, 1998 meeting, prior to Council's adoption on December16, 1998.

At this Special Meeting of the Community Council, approximately 25 persons were in attendance. Most of the deputants were from the west section of Ward 27, York Humber, who emphasized the importance of maintaining the existing cohesiveness of the Weston, Mt. Dennis and Black Creek communities, in view of their historical and economic significance. Since these communities remained undivided as reflected in Map 27-1a, the deputants expressed preference for this option.

It was also suggested that by extending the proposed northerly boundary (WoodwardAvenue/CNRail) on Map 27-1a to Highway401, not only would the Weston Business Improvement Area be able to establish a closer commercial link with the Cross Roads Shopping Centre, but this area would also form part of a continuing community to be included in Ward 27.

The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Elaine Heaton, Weston Residents and Ratepayers' Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Albert Pietersma, Weston Community Improvement Plan, Ward 27;

-Mr. Lorne Berg, Executive Director, Black Creek Business Area Association,

Ward 27;

-Ms. Marjorie Sutton, President, Mount Dennis Association; and Chair, Mount Dennis Community Improvement, Ward 27;

-Mr. John Kiru, Coordinator, Weston Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Ms. Sandra Melville, President, Warren Park Ratepayers' Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Steve Tasses, Chair, Keele-Eglinton Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Mr. Karl Stankov, West Fairbank Ratepayers Association, Ward 28

-Mr. Bob Churchill, North York; and

-Mr. Tim Lambrinos, Executive Assistant to Councillor George Mammoliti,

Ward 6, North York Humber.