Community Council Boundaries

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to consult with the border Councillors on the issues raised by Councillor Anne Johnston respecting those homes where the wards overlap.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report responds to Council's request that the Special Committee give consideration to:

(a)the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee.

The report recommends increasing the number of community councils and outlines a number of principles to guide the redefinition of community council boundaries, effective following the next municipal election.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications. A change in the number of community councils will have implications for the number and assignment of secretariat support staff to the community councils by the City Clerk's Division.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters;

(2)the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election;

(3)the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles:

(a)there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer;

(b)each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest;

(c)community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council;

(4)the process to redefine community council boundaries will be lead by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner;

(5)the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

Recommendation No. (21) in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team stated that:

"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."

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council referred the portion of this recommendation pertaining to single member wards to the Urban Environment and Development Committee. The portion of the recommendation regarding community council boundaries fell within the purview of the Special Committee.

On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of TheSpecial Committee, entitled "The Roles and responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure." In adopting the clause, Council specifically requested the Special Committee to give further consideration to:

(a)the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee.

This report responds to Council's request.

Comments:

The present boundaries of the six community councils are identical to the boundaries of the former municipalities prior to amalgamation. In the first term of Council, the utility of these boundaries has been to bridge the transition from the old structure of municipal government to the new City of Toronto. As the new City evolves, and people become used to it, the need to retain the old municipal boundaries may be expected to diminish.

The governance forms in the new City are evolving. On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 Council made a clear statement about the place that community councils should have in the governance of the City of Toronto. Council resolved that there is a distinction between matters of city-wide significance and matters of local importance and impact. The community councils are needed to focus on the latter. Council set in motion a number of initiatives to find options for further delegation of responsibilities and final decision-making authority to enable community councils to perform their functions effectively. It is important, too, to ensure that community council boundaries are defined in a way that enables community councils to focus on local matters.

Do Current Boundaries Make Sense?

The suitability of the current community council boundaries was considered in a discussion paper on "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto" which the Special Committee produced in March 1998. The discussion paper noted that "clearly¼there is an uneven distribution of workload. Some community councils have a far heavier workload than others and have proposed that they should organize sub-committees, task forces or panels within their community councils to manage the workload." The discussion paper went on to note that the uneven distribution of community council workloads could be an indication that the current community council boundaries are incorrect.

The community councils range in size from a membership of 3 in East York to 16 members in Toronto. East York encountered some practical difficulties as a result of its small size, especially for the part of the year when it had only 2 members. At the other extreme, a community council of 16members may be too large for a committee of council. Several members of the Toronto Community Council have suggested that it is too large to focus on local matters of importance to all its members.

Some Members of Council, who were interviewed for the review of the Council-committee structure, said that the current community council boundaries do not make sense. Most of the people interviewed thought that the community councils should be more equal in size and their boundaries should bear a closer relationship to groups of neighbourhoods with a community of interest. A number of councillors noted that, in the interests of "getting on with making the new City work," it was important not to maintain the former municipal boundaries as the basis for community council boundaries.

More Community Councils or Fewer?

In the interviews and in responses to the questionnaire requesting input to the review of the Council-committee structure, some councillors thought that there should be more community councils than the present six. Others said that there should be fewer.

The point of having community councils is to have a means within the political structure to focus on local issues. The strength of a community council approach is that it enables elected representatives from a local community, who know and understand the community well, to deal with matters of particular concern to the local community that do not have an impact on other communities. This point becomes obscured if there are fewer, therefore larger, community councils.

Is there an Ideal Size for a Community Council?

Following an extensive consultation process during 1997, the networks of agencies that provide community and social services across the City, proposed that the City should be divided into "civic districts" that would align more closely with natural communities rather than be based on the borders of the former municipalities. Under this proposal, about a dozen community councils could be defined by grouping civic districts together. The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto is continuing to develop the concept of civic districts.

Based on their experience of dealing with local issues in the larger community councils, some councillors have suggested that a workable size for a community council is between 5 and 7 members. This is a small enough number to increase the likelihood that members have a local connection to the matters being dealt with. It is also not too small to prevent the checks and balances that come with diverse perspectives and debate. Membership of between 5 and 7 people could be achieved by having 8 to 12 community councils.

When Could Community Council Boundaries be Revised?

As alluded to earlier in this report, the present community council boundaries provide a familiar comfort zone for citizens and elected officials during the transition from the old governing structures to the new City of Toronto. Most councillors, who were interviewed as part of the review of the Council-committee structure, said that community council boundaries should not change before the next term of Council.

There are practical considerations, too, which make any boundary revisions prior to next term unlikely. Subsection 7 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 empowers City Council to redefine the boundaries and composition of community councils so long as, under the terms of subsection 7 (6) of the Act, "no ward shall be represented partly by one and partly by another community council." The redefinition of community council boundaries is dependent, therefore, upon the outcome of the current ward boundary review process. Clearly, 57 wards rather than 28 wards provide different sets of options for building community councils.

At the staff level, the process to review ward boundaries has been lead by the City Clerk reporting to the Urban and Environment development Committee. It is appropriate that the process to revise community council boundaries also be lead by the City Clerk. Because of the mandate and function of community councils, it is important that citizens have the opportunity to participate in the definition of community council boundaries at an early stage in the process.

Conclusions:

The current community council boundaries are based on former municipal boundaries rather than on the definition of local areas. Council has decided that community councils should play an important role in the City dealing with local matters. It is appropriate that their boundaries be redefined to better suit that role. Community council areas are based on groupings of City wards. Therefore, the redefinition of community council boundaries will begin following the outcome of Council's review of the ward boundaries. It is anticipated that redefined community council boundaries will come into effect following the next municipal election.

It is recommended that:

(1)the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters;

(2)the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election;

(3)the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles:

(a)there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer;

(b)each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest;

(c)community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council;

(4)the process to redefine community council boundaries will be lead by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner; and

(5)the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries.

--------

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.1 of Report No.12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure", directed, inter alia, that the following Recommendation No. (9) embodied in the report dated June3, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, be struck out and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration:

"Community Council Boundaries:

(9)to assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City's government has an effective geographic focus, the Special Committee's examination of Council's political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

(a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC;".

________

Councillor Bill Saundercook, York- Humber, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, in connection with the foregoing matter.