Ward Boundary Review Process.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a joint report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on:

(a) the issue of allowing variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent; and

(b) the pros and cons of utilizing a single voters' list.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To outline principles, a process and timeline for defining ward boundaries within the City of Toronto, with a view to creating single Councillor wards by the next municipal election.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Some costs are anticipated as a result of the public consultation component of the boundary review process recommended in this report. It is assumed that the required resources will be found from within the existing budgets of City departments.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(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) should Council, in the future, elect to divide the former East York into three as opposed to two wards, this division be achieved as part of the boundary review process outlined in this report;

(7) the process and timeline outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards be approved for implementation;

(8) this report be forwarded to the Community Councils for information and input through the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(9) the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, approved, on an interim basis, recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, with amendments. Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report suggests that Council move to single-member wards by the next municipal election and that consideration be given to refining Community Council boundaries to reflect the historic associations of neighbourhoods. That portion of Recommendation No. (21) pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation was "referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council". The remaining component of the recommendation, dealing with Community Councils, was forwarded to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Council's action on Recommendation No. (21) was forwarded to the Chair of each Community Council in a communication from the City Clerk dated January 15, 1998. The Community Councils of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York have each considered the item and their recommendations are outlined below. The East York Community Council received the communication but took no action (Clause No. 10(l), Council March 4, 1998). The Toronto Community Council has not yet considered the matter.

The Etobicoke Community Council asked that the City Clerk submit a report that identifies issues to be considered and a process for refining boundaries. The Community Council also requested that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team not deal with the issue of one Councillor per ward until communities have been consulted on the matter. (Clause No. 14(k), Council March 4, 1998).

The North York Community Council referred the communication from the City Clerk to the City Solicitor for a report on a mechanism to move to one Councillor per ward during the present term, or at the end of the term, should Council so desire. The Community Council also requested a mechanism for changing Community Council boundaries. (Clause No. 32(c), Council March 4, 1998).

The York Community Council deferred consideration of the issue of reducing the number of Councillors from 56 to 28 to later in the year to allow the new Council to gain experience, to provide staff with time to prepare reports and to permit community consultation on the proposal. (Clause No. 7(ff), Council March 4, 1998).

The Scarborough Community Council endorsed the principle of splitting wards, directed that its position be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and requested that the City Solicitor report to that Committee on the process necessary to implement these changes. (Clause No. 18(aa), Council March 4, 1998).

All of the above recommendations pertaining to Community Council boundaries have been referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

This report responds to those recommendations and referrals pertaining to the review of ward boundaries. It includes a summary of legal issues impacting the boundary review process and an overview of existing models for redefining political boundaries. It also recommends principles to guide the development of ward boundary options and a process through which boundaries within the City of Toronto can be refined and divided by the next municipal election.

The City Solicitor has been consulted on the legal considerations, legislated requirements and process outlined in this report.

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

City Council's authority to change ward boundaries is obtained from both the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997. Section 5(2) of the latter permits Council to change or dissolve ward boundaries in accordance with guidelines, processes and criteria outlined in the Municipal Act.

Subsection 13(4) of the Municipal Act permits Council to pass by-laws dividing or re-dividing the municipality into wards or dissolving existing wards. The Act outlines a process with which Council must comply when adjusting ward boundaries. This process requires that Council give notice of its intent to pass a by-law impacting boundaries and hold at least one public meeting prior to such a by-law being approved.

Subsection 13(6) of the Municipal Act requires Council to consider any criteria governing boundary changes established through regulation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. To date, no such criteria have been prescribed. Nevertheless, the Ontario Municipal Board, while considering applications under an earlier version of the Act, identified factors to be considered when redrawing ward boundaries. These were equal representation by population, communities of interest, and similarities in socio-economic factors.

The Municipal Act also includes a process through which Council-approved boundary changes can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (Sub-section 13(1)). Notices of appeal must be filed with the Municipal Clerk within 35 days of the ward boundary by-law being approved by Council.

Finally, the Act dictates that boundary changes be approved by Council prior to January 1, 2000, if they are to be implemented by the next municipal election that same year.

The principles, process and timeline recommended in this report are consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Act.

While the Municipal Act provides general authority for municipal councils to change their total number of elected members and the number of members elected per ward, the City of Toronto Act, 1997 does not provide specific authority for the Council of the City of Toronto to do so. Rather, Subsection 3(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 specifies that City Council contain 57 members, including the Mayor, and that there be two elected officials representing each City ward. Accordingly, amendments to this Act are required should Council elect to change its overall size or move to single member ward representation. It is recommended that Council authorize the City Solicitor to request these amendments immediately.

Models for Redefining Ward Boundaries:

Processes for creating and refining municipal ward boundaries are governed, in general terms, by Provincial legislation. Provincial requirements often permit significant flexibility in designing and implementing these processes to reflect community needs. In preparing this report, models employed over the past ten years by a number of municipal governments, including the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, its Area Municipalities, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and the City of Calgary were reviewed. In addition, the process undertaken by the Government of Canada in its 1992 redefinition of Federal Electoral Districts was considered.

While each of these processes was intentionally tailored to meet the need of a specific government and constituency, they possess a number of critical similarities. All include a research component intended to identify significant population, geographic, social, infrastructure and economic trends and issues. They also include developing options as to where boundaries can be located and public consultation. Research activities traditionally required a significant commitment of time from government staff. Boundary options, on the other hand, were generally developed with input from staff, political representatives and, in some cases, members of the public.

Two primary differences exist in these models. The first concerns the ultimate decision-making authority and the second relates to the body assigned responsibility for managing the boundary review process. Again, in the case of municipalities, the decision authority is defined in Provincial legislation. In addressing boundary issues for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its Area Municipalities, the authority rested with Provincial Cabinet. In other models, including that outlined for the new City of Toronto, boundary decisions are given to Councils, with appeal processes to Provincial authorities.

There appear to be two common approaches to managing the boundary review process at the municipal level. The first involves the Provincial appointment of an independent Commission, which may or may not be the final decision-making body. The second assigns responsibility to municipal Councils. A commission may be preferred when boundaries are being invented for the first time or significantly redrawn as it enables an impartial review of communities and issues. The latter approach, which is prescribed for the new City of Toronto, is more feasible when existing boundaries are being refined and where overall change is minimal. In these circumstances, the involvement of individuals familiar with local geography and community interests and issues could result in a streamlined and cost-effective boundary review process.

The last time boundaries were reviewed within the geographic area now covered by the new City of Toronto was in preparation for the 1988 municipal election in which the Metropolitan Council was directly elected for the first time. During this process, Provincial direction was given through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1988. This Act defined the number of Metro Councillors per Area Municipality and invited each municipality to propose new regional ward boundaries and revisions to local ward boundaries. Proposals were submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and final decisions made by Provincial Cabinet. Cabinet ultimately amended seven of the eight Metro wards proposed by the former City of Toronto and two local wards in Etobicoke.

This Act also established certain parameters with which the Metro ward structure had to comply. Specifically, the number of Metro wards had to equal the number of Councillors. In Area Municipalities where the number of Metro and local wards were equal, the boundaries were to be identical and each local ward was to be located entirely within one Metro ward. The intent of these parameters was to maximize the accountability of individual Members of Council to their constituency and to facilitate understanding by residents of political boundaries, structures and community issues.

Discussion:

A number of assumptions underlie the principles and process proposed to guide the City's review of its boundaries. They are:

- that the City will be divided into single member wards by the next municipal election so as to increase the accountability of Members of Council and reduce confusion on the part of residents;

- that boundaries will be established for the long term and, as a result, will consider population, social and economic trends;

- that the least number of changes possible will be made to existing ward boundaries, again to reduce confusion on the part of residents and to protect existing neighbourhoods; and

- that the ward structure resulting from the boundary review process enable the continued cost efficiency of local government within the City of Toronto.

Principles Governing Boundary Decisions:

In reviewing existing models and past practices, it becomes apparent that there exists a set of commonly accepted principles or criteria that are traditionally considered when refining or defining political boundaries. These principles have been consistently applied in each of the municipal and federal models discussed in this report. In summary, they are:

(1) representation by population;

(2) representation of communities;

(3) recognition of distinct geographic and infrastructure features; and

(4) present and future population trends.

Each of these principles is discussed below.

Principle 1: Representation by Population:

Representation by population implies that, to the extent possible, each ward within a municipality will have a similar population. The principle is intended to ensure that residents have equal access to their elected representative and that the workload of these representatives is relatively balanced.

It is common for municipalities to permit variations from average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent. Such variations ensure the long-term relevance of boundaries by accommodating changing population patterns. Variations of greater than 25 percent are traditionally accepted when they prevent communities from being divided, consider significant population trends, incorporate densely populated areas that cannot be easily divided, or include a population that would otherwise become physically isolated. The 25 percent norm was applied to boundaries developed for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its Area Municipalities. It was also used in Ottawa-Carleton, the City of Calgary and the Federal Government in its review of electoral districts.

Principle 2: Representation of Communities:

This principle is intended to preserve the integrity of communities. It respects homogenous areas within a diverse urban setting. Such areas can be defined by their geographic location, history, socio-economic status, housing types, travel patterns, or proximity to shopping or recreation facilities. This principle is applied to avoid fragmenting neighbourhoods or diluting the political power of a specific group. The latter would occur if that group was divided between two or more wards.

Principle 3: Recognition of Distinct Geographical Features:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that highly visible, natural and man-made boundaries such as major roads and highways, breaks in land use, river valleys, and escarpments are recognized where possible. These features tend to naturally define communities and are often logical choices for easily identifiable ward boundaries.

Principle 4: Present and Future Population Trends:

If one assumes that ward boundaries are defined for the longer term, this final principle is of critical importance. The definition of wards must consider projected population trends within various communities. Thus, it may be appropriate for some wards to have populations below the average, if those wards are anticipating rapid growth in a relatively short period of time.

It is recommended that these four principles be adopted by the City of Toronto as guidelines for the development of ward boundary options and that a variation in average ward population of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm. Variations exceeding 25 percent are to be based on a sound analysis of population patterns and other issues.

The Basis for Ward Boundaries in the City of Toronto:

There are five possible approaches to refining ward boundaries within the City of Toronto. They are:

(1) dissolving the existing boundaries and creating new ones;

(2) adopting the 22 Federal Electoral Districts as ward boundaries;

(3) dividing each Federal Electoral District in two, thus creating 44 wards;

(4) accepting current City boundaries and reducing elected representation to one Councillor per ward; or

(5) accepting existing boundaries and identifying options for dividing each ward in two to create single member representation.

There are pros and cons attached to each of these options.

Dissolving existing boundaries and creating new ones, as is proposed in option one, requires a significant investment of time and resources. While this process could be completed by the January 1, 2000 deadline for including new ward structures in the next municipal election, it would require a significant investment of time and resources over a 20-month period. Appropriate timing is of concern in this option. With amalgamation still fresh in the minds of many residents, reinventing boundaries may be viewed as a further threat to communities and neighbourhoods. Compounding this, the City of Toronto Act, 1997, requires that the boundaries of Community Councils be coterminous with ward boundaries. It is, therefore, anticipated that implementation of this option would require revision to Community Council boundaries.

Options two and three adopt Federal Electoral Districts as the basis on which City wards are built. There are currently 22 Federal Districts in the new City of Toronto. If these boundaries were adopted as is, representation by population ratios would climb to more than 100,000 residents for each Member of Council. This would significantly increase the workload of Councillors and limit the access of residents to their elected official. Dividing each of these Districts in two, thus creating forty-four City wards, addresses these concerns by reducing population per Member of Council to approximately 50,000.

Adopting and dividing Federal Districts offers a number of benefits. First, boundaries for federal, provincial and municipal purposes would be consistent. Public understanding of political structures and processes would, therefore, be facilitated. In addition, cost efficiencies could be realized in the managing of election rolls and processes and the City's operating costs would be reduced slightly as a result of a smaller Council.

On the down side, while population is fairly evenly spread across Federal Districts, the extent to which these districts accurately reflects communities of interest and neighbourhoods is unclear and requires further study. As was the case with option one, this approach to ward definition could be viewed as a threat to communities and neighbourhoods by a public that, at this time, is particularly sensitive to these issues. In addition, Community Council boundaries would require revision.

Options four and five use the existing City boundary structure as the basis on which wards for the new City are built. These options are attractive as they keep change to a minimum and, as a result, are less likely to be viewed as a threat to local communities. Population changes within the City in the ten years since these boundaries were created have been relatively minor in 60 percent of wards. In these cases boundaries, for the most part, continue to reflect natural and man-made divisions and comply with the plus or minus 25 percent average population variance principle discussed earlier. For the 30 percent of wards where growth has been substantial, study will be required to ensure that principles are applied in the development of new boundaries.

On the negative side, option four reduces the size of Council from 56 to 28 Members. On average, each Councillor would have upwards of 80,000 residents to serve. Like option two, this ratio would result in a larger workload for Council Members and reduced access by residents to their elected officials. It would, however, reduce the City's annual operating costs as a result of the smaller Council.

Splitting each of the existing City wards in two resolves these issues and is the most viable of the five options presented for splitting ward boundaries. The average ward population per elected official would remain at its current level of around 39,000. A minimal number of wards would slightly exceed the 25 percent guideline, with the largest being Scarborough Malvern with approximately 54,500 residents per Councillor. (The ward with the smallest population per representative is York Eglinton with a ratio of roughly 32,500 residents per Councillor. This is well within the 25 percent norm.)

Division of wards in some areas will be straightforward in that the present City ward includes two of the former local municipal wards. Analysis would be required, however, to ensure that the former division respected boundary review principles. Other wards will be more complex, containing three or four of their former local counterparts.

In light of this information, it is recommended that the existing ward boundaries for the City of Toronto, with some minor refinements, be the basis for creating single member wards and that the boundary review process focus on splitting each of these wards in two.

Should Council elect to divide the former East York into three as opposed to two wards, it is recommended that this be achieved through the boundary review process outlined in this report.

Refinement to the existing boundaries will be recommended only in those extraordinary cases where a community or property spans more than one ward.

Selection of this option does not preclude the further review and redefinition of ward boundaries at a later date. However, implementation of this option permits Council to address the single member representation issue in a timely and cost-effective manner prior to the next election. Again, proposed changes that adjust the overall size of Council or that move to single member ward representation will require legislation to amend to the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

Boundary Review Process:

A collaborative process that includes municipal staff, Members of Council and the public is required if the process for refining and dividing wards within the new City of Toronto is to be effective. To facilitate this, it is recommended that a Staff Working Group be created to guide and manage this process.

Specifically, the Staff Working Group will liaise with Members of Council, co-ordinate and administer the boundary review process, undertake research and trend analysis, ensure legal issues and legislated requirements are addressed, facilitate development of boundary options and co-ordinate consultations. This group will include representatives from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Social Development, Economic Development and Corporate Policy and Planning functions. Project leadership will be provided by the City Clerk.

The process builds on the strengths of models reviewed earlier in this report, reflects common principles for redefining political boundaries, and is consistent with requirements of the Municipal Act. It can be divided into four broad phases.

Phase one entails conducting the research and analysis necessary to make informed decisions on boundary options. Specifically, existing boundaries will be reviewed to identify where refinements may be beneficial; population, economic and social trends and issues will be reviewed and assessed; and, communities and natural boundaries within and between wards will be identified. Also included in this phase will be preliminary stakeholder consultation with representatives of the education, business, social service and other interest groups. The purpose of this consultation will be to flag issues impacting potential boundary decisions.

Phase two considers research findings, trend analysis, stakeholder feedback, assumptions and principles and develops options as to how each ward could be divided. It also assesses the impact and implications of each of the options identified. While some wards will be straightforward and may not require the development of more than one option, others will be complex and several options will be required.

Phase three is public consultation on refined options. It is recommended that this consultation take place through the Community Councils, with each Community Council dealing with those wards within its geographic boundaries. This will ensure a manageable number of meetings, place each ward in a broader geographic context, facilitate feedback from those most impacted by boundary decisions, and simplify the volume and complexity of information to be presented to those in attendance. A communications strategy will be developed for these sessions targeting stakeholder groups and the broader public.

The last phase involves finalizing recommendations as to how existing boundaries can be refined and wards divided. The report will be submitted to Community Councils, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and, ultimately, Council.

The following summarizes the phases and the timeline associated with the boundary review process:

(1) research, analysis and preliminary stakeholder May/June 1998;

consultation

(2) development of boundary options July/August/September 1998;

(3) public consultation September/October 1998;

(4) development of Boundary recommendations November/December 1998; and

(5) report Review and Approval Process December 1998/January 1999.

This timeline permits the submission of Council-approved boundary changes to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing early in 1999, 11 months in advance of the provincial deadline.

Conclusions:

There is a desire for the City of Toronto to move to single member wards by the next municipal election in the year 2000. The most viable way of achieving this is to divide the existing wards in two. These wards comply, for the most part, with common principles for designing political boundaries. This approach minimizes change and, as a result, limits public concern as to the impact on communities of new boundaries.

This report recommends principles through which ward boundaries can be refined and divided and outlines a boundary review process that is inclusive of Members of Council, communities of interest, the public at large and municipal staff. In addition, the process, which complies with provincial requirements for changing wards as defined in the Municipal Act, can be implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner. Changes in the overall size of City Council or implementation of single member ward representation will, however, require amendment to the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

Contact Name:

Ms. Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, 392-8668.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto:

City Council, at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, the recommendations of the final report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled 'New City, New Opportunities', directed, in part, that the following Recommendation No. (21) embodied therein be referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council:

"Recommendation No. (21):

City Council should move to single-member wards for the next term of Council that begins in 2001. At that time, consideration should be given to further refining the community council boundaries to reflect historic associations among neighbourhoods."

The Urban Environment and Developments Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (February 26, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council, on February 18, 1998:

(1) considered Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(2) endorsed the principle of splitting the Wards; and

(3) directed that Scarborough Community Council's position on this matter be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and that the Committee be requested to deal with this issue as expeditiously as possible.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested that the City Solicitor report to the Committee on the process necessary to implement this change.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a communication, dated January 15, 1998, from the City Clerk advising that City Council, on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, the recommendations of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, directed, in part, that Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report, pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation, be referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following joint communication (March 5, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, and Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto:

We are writing to you in reference to Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the TorontoTransition Team pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation, which was referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration.

Based on a review of the minutes of the Community Councils, it appears that the issue of one Councillor per ward has caused some confusion as to exactly what process is in place for dealing with Recommendation No. (21).

The York Community Council has voted to defer this item until "later this year". Etobicoke has asked the Clerk to prepare a report on the matter and has indicated a desire for community consultation. The North York Community Council has directed that Legal Services prepare a report on this issue, and East York wants further discussion and a process for dealing with this issue. The Toronto and Scarborough Community Council minutes do not indicate that they have yet dealt with this matter.

It is, therefore, quite apparent that a resolution of this issue is needed that provides for a clear and timely decision from your Committee and ensures that any direction to City staff is co-ordinated. Accordingly, we would ask that the attached motion be considered at the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. Thank you for your consideration.

(Motion attached to the foregoing joint communication.)

Moved By: COUNCILLOR NUNZIATA

Seconded By: COUNCILLOR JAKOBEK

WHEREAS the Toronto Transition Team recommended that there be only one Councillor per ward representation for the next term of Council that begins in 2001; and

WHEREAS one Councillor per ward can effectively represent each constituency, similar to an MP or MPP; and

WHEREAS the reduction of the size of the City of Toronto Council by 50 percent would provide significant cost-savings to the taxpayers;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation be endorsed by Council;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council now refer this issue to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, which shall direct and oversee appropriate staff in preparing a report on the measures needed to be implemented, in order to ensure that Council can effectively move to single-member wards for the next term of Council.

--------

Ms. Elaine Baxter-Trahair made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and also filed a copy of her presentation material.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton;

- Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial;

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber;

- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber; and

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski.