Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TOWN OF AJAX REPORT REPORT TO: Community Affairs & Planning Committee SUBMITTED BY: Nicole Wellsbury Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk PREPARED BY: Alexander Harras Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval WARD(S): All DATE OF MEETING: April 3, 2017 REFERENCE: GGC Report, March 20, 2017 – ‘Ward Boundary Review – Results of
Public Consultations’ GGC Report, October 11, 2016 – ‘Ward Boundary Review – Terms of
Reference & Proposed Ward Boundary Models’ GGC Report, June 13, 2016 – ‘Ajax Council Composition and Ward
Boundaries Review’
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Option X as presented in this report be approved by Council as the Town of Ajax’s new ward boundaries beginning as of the 2018 Municipal Elections; and
2. That the necessary by-laws to enact Council’s composition and ward boundaries for the 2018 Municipal Elections be approved at the next meeting of Council.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to present final recommendations for Council to adopt a new set of ward boundaries for the Town of Ajax beginning in the 2018 Municipal Elections. In late 2016, the Region of Durham announced that the new Regional Council composition had received the necessary triple majority approval in order to be officially in effect for the 2018 Municipal Elections. As of the 2018 Municipal Elections, the Town of Ajax will receive one additional seat on Durham Regional Council, necessitating a change to Ajax Council’s composition and the Town’s ward boundaries. On October 11, 2016, General Government Committee received a report outlining the terms of reference and proposed options for the Town of Ajax 2016/17 Ward Boundary Review. The report and terms of reference established a public consultation phase to begin in January of 2017 and to conclude by March of 2017, in order to generate feedback from the public regarding how Ajax
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 2
residents envision the Town’s new three-ward system. Council approved the terms of reference and selected seven options to proceed to public consultation. The public consultation phase of the Ward Boundary Review project consisted of three public open house meetings between January and February at each of the Town’s community centres, as well as on-line and print advertising throughout this period. The Town’s website featured a Ward Boundary Review sub-site that shared past reports, background information, details on all proposed ward boundary options, and answers to commonly asked questions. Residents were invited to submit their comments through a feedback survey, available both on-line and in print format. School boards were formally notified and invited to comment as well, as school boards have the option to use the Town’s wards to elect their members. While several school board trustees actively participated in the public consultation sessions, no official responses from the school boards have been received to date. Approximately 50 individuals attended the Town’s public consultation sessions, and 130 responses to the feedback survey were received. On February 8th, 2017, Statistics Canada released the population and dwelling counts for the 2016 census. This information was incorporated into the proposed ward boundary options presented at the public consultations and reflected in the current and future population figures for all ward boundary options. Results of the public consultation process were presented in a report to the General Government Committee on March 20th, 2017, and have informed the final recommendations in this report. DISCUSSION: Staff have evaluated the feedback received through the public consultation process and have assessed the proposed options against the guiding principles approved by Council through the project’s terms of reference. As a result, three options are proposed for final consideration, along with one modification to an existing option based on community feedback. Additionally, a peer review has been performed to ensure that the process followed by staff has met the standards of best practice for performing ward boundary reviews. The peer reviewers provided guidance and assistance to staff throughout the process and offered suggestions on how to improve the ward boundary review exercise. The peer reviewers’ final report comments on staff’s process as well as the defensibility of the proposed ward boundary options presented during the public consultation. The results of the peer review are included as ATT-1 to this report. Following Committee’s decision, the necessary by-laws for the Council composition and ward boundaries will be approved by Council at its meeting on April 18th, 2017, following which a 45-day appeal period will begin and conclude on June 2nd, 2017. A notice of passing will be published on-line and in local print media. Should a member of the public choose to appeal the Town’s ward boundaries to the Ontario Municipal Board, a hearing will be held to determine whether Council erred in its decision. The public consultation process generated discussion topics that should be addressed directly before considering the final recommended options:
The role of wards in community development and inclusivity;
Council size and the capacity of ward councillors to serve larger populations; and
Electing regional councillors at large versus by ward.
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 3
Role of wards in community development and inclusivity Several comments were received that indicated a desire to use the Town’s ward boundaries to foster greater inclusivity and ‘bridge the divide’ between North and South Ajax by ensuring that each ward contains a mixture of geography in both north and south Ajax. Conversely, many comments were received in support of a ward system that acknowledges the differences between North and South communities in Ajax and keeps distinct communities within distinct wards. Two of the seven options (F and G) featured wards that shared north, midtown, and southern territories within the Town. These options are not recommended by staff. The guiding principle of ‘respecting communities of interest’ implies that wards should reflect distinct communities in order to give them a clear voice on Council. Dividing communities of interest between multiple wards would not be in keeping with this principle, regardless of the good intentions behind doing so. When communities are split between multiple wards, their representation is diluted, and as a result they may not have a clear voice to represent them on Council. By contrast, designing wards that respect distinct communities of interest will allow Council members to clearly represent their constituents, ensuring that the perspectives and interests of the Town’s diverse communities can all be heard at the Council table. The matter of community cohesiveness extends well beyond the ward system and the role that wards may or may not play in fostering greater community spirit. To this end, the Town engages in numerous other programs, initiatives, and advocacy work to foster diversity, inclusion, and community development in the Town of Ajax. Council size and capacity of ward councillors to serve larger populations Some participants in the public consultations were concerned that the move from four wards to three will create a substantial increase to the population represented by each ward councillor, and that larger council sizes should be considered to accommodate Ajax’s growing population. The size of Council was discussed early in the process through a report to the General Government Committee on June 13, 2016. Options for a larger Council size were considered, and Council resolved to maintain the seven member Council size for Ajax. Additionally, the Municipal Act is clear that Council retains the authority to determine its size – unlike ward boundaries, there is no right of appeal for decisions on Council size. The population of Ajax has indeed increased substantially over the last two decades, but in the opinion of staff has not yet reached the point where Council is hindered in its ability to adequately respond to community needs. It is possible that when this exercise is performed again in the future (most likely in 2027 following the next scheduled regional council composition review), a nine member Council may need to be considered based on growth. For the time being, staff are confident that members of Council can adequately serve the re-balanced wards. In fact, the ability of councillors to serve their populations will be improved in some areas of the Town that are currently underrepresented due to the significant population imbalance that exists between the Town’s current four wards. Electing regional councillors at large versus by ward Some comments were received in support of electing regional members at large, instead of the current practice of electing them by ward. The argument is that regional issues concern the Town broadly and are less focused on specific geographically-based needs within the Town. Ajax’s historic approach has been to elect both local and regional councillors by ward, which has been the practice since at least 1987 when the Town’s third regional council seat was added. Regional Councillors in Ajax share responsibilities with their ward counterparts for receiving and responding to residents’ concerns. This ‘team’ approach effectively gives each ward two voices
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 4
on Council, as well as a clear representative at Regional Council. While many regional issues do concern the Town at large, there are others that are geographically specific (for example, road infrastructure and public transit routes). Additionally, the Town does have a representative on Regional Council that speaks for the Town as a whole, being the Mayor. Both perspectives on regional matters are available under the current model. For these reasons, staff support continuing to elect regional councillors by ward. Recommended Options Only the final recommended options are presented below, being options B, D, E, and a modified version of option D. While options A, C, F, and G enjoyed some community support each, they were ultimately not as successful in achieving the guiding principles and therefore do not provide effective representation as well as the recommended options. As such, options A, C, F, and G are not recommended by staff. Each recommended option is assessed according to its adherence to the guiding principles as well as feedback received through the public consultation process and peer review. Following the assessments, staff have provided their professional opinion by ranking the recommended options in order of preference. Maps and population statistics for all recommended options are included as Attachments 2 through 5 to this report. Option B (ATT-2) Representation by Population: Option B exhibits a reasonable balance of Ajax’s current population, with ward 2 being slightly greater in population than wards 1 and 3. This is an acceptable amount of population variance. Future Growth Trends: Population balance improves slightly over time in Option B. Ward 3 will grow slightly faster due to the significant development occurring in the Downtown and Lakeside communities. All three wards have growth areas within their boundaries. Communities of Interest: Option B preserves some communities of interest while leaving others divided. Pickering Village is re-unified in Option B, and the waterfront communities in the south are brought under a single ward. However, the wartime homes area is divided between wards 1 and 3. Unlike the current four-ward arrangement where the wartime homes are divided between two wards that serve the south end of Ajax, Option B would divert most of the wartime homes community to a ward representing the west and northwest portions of Ajax. Physical Features as Boundaries: Boundaries in Option B are mostly clear, following major arterial roads in Ajax including Westney Road, Kingston/Hwy 2, Harwood and the 401. There is some lack of clarity in the Midtown area where the boundary veers east from Westney to Harwood, then back once the boundary heads south and reaches the 401. This could be confusing for residents that live between Kingston Road and Highway 401. Community Support: Option B enjoyed moderate support from survey respondents, and was a preferred option among 15% of respondents and the favourite of 12%. However, Option C (which was very similar to Option B) was preferred by 13% of respondents and was the favourite of 14%, splitting support
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 5
with Option B. Taken together, Options B and C combined were preferred by 28% of respondents and were the favourite of 26% of all respondents. Other Comments: Option B is a very conservative ward boundary model in that it uses many existing boundaries already found within the Town’s current four-ward system. For example, ward 2 would remain completely unchanged between the four- and three-ward models. Additionally, all current residents of ward 1 would remain in ward 1. All changes necessary to move to a three ward system occur south of Kingston Road. This may allow for a smoother transition and easier understanding for residents when the 2018 municipal elections begin. Of note, Option B was not identified as a preferred option among the peer reviewers. Conclusion: Overall, Option B achieves effective representation by balancing current and future ward populations reasonably well at minimal expense to the clarity of the boundaries and communities of interest. While Option B enjoyed only moderate support through the feedback process, it split its support with Option C, which was very similar and had many of the same qualities. Option D (ATT-3) Representation by Population: Option D exhibits extremely well balanced wards between current populations. Ward 1 has the largest population by a thin margin of only 3% above the ideal ward size. Future Growth Trends: Future ward populations become slightly unbalanced over time, as virtually all growth in the next five years will be situated within wards 2 and 3 in this model. Ward 1 does not have any significant growth areas in this option. Communities of Interest: Option D respects many identifiable communities of interest in Ajax. Southern lakefront communities are united under one ward and Pickering Village is brought together under one ward. Similar to Option B, the wartime homes are divided across Harwood Avenue between the southern-facing ward 3 and western-facing ward 1. Neighbourhoods north of Rossland Road are grouped within ward 2, along with the Audley community to the east. Physical Features as Boundaries: Option D exhibits the clearest boundaries of all the recommended options by only using Highway 401, Harwood Avenue, Rossland Road, and Kingston Road as boundaries. Community Support: Option D received moderate community support amongst survey respondents. 16% of respondents indicated support for Option D, and 14% of respondents selected Option D as their favourite option. Other Comments: Option D severs the portion of the Riverside community located north of Rossland Road and west of Church Street. Staff considered including this portion within ward 1 and determined that it was preferable to use Rossland Road as the boundary. There is no convenient dividing line north of this community to determine where the ward should end, with the exception of using the hydro corridor or TransCanada Trail which passes through the area. Doing so would create more complex boundary lines, straying further from the principle of clear boundaries. Additionally, as new development occurs on both the east and west side of Church Street north of Rossland Road,
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 6
the existing neighbourhood will gradually affiliate more with new development to its east, rather than existing development to the south. Option D was ranked third in order of preference by the peer reviewers. Conclusion: Option D achieves effective representation by providing an excellent balance between all of the guiding principles. While it is a greater departure from the current ward system than that presented in Option B, it reflects the general growth and development of the Town over time and does so using clear and understandable boundaries. Modified Option D (ATT-4) Based on feedback received during the public consultation, staff would like to propose that Committee consider a modified version of Option D as well. Namely, the portion of wartime homes west of Harwood Avenue could be included in ward 3 instead of ward 1. Doing so preserves all wartime homes in the same ward and includes them all within the southernmost ward of the Town. This is reflective of the unique history of the wartime homes area and their connection with southern Ajax. An illustration is included below to show the boundary lines that would be drawn in this case:
Representation by Population: Modifying Option D creates an almost perfectly even balance between the 2016 populations of all three wards. This is the most optimal ward arrangement found by staff for Ajax’s 2016 population. Future Growth Trends: Ward populations exhibit greater population imbalance over time in this model. This is because growth is concentrated in wards 2 and 3, and ward 1 falls gradually out of balance without the small ‘head start’ it enjoys under the original Option D.
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 7
Communities of Interest: Modified Option D is the best model to unify and respect all of the Town’s identifiable communities and neighbourhoods. Physical Features as Boundaries: Modified Option D requires an artificial boundary line to be drawn north of the wartime homes on the west side of Harwood Avenue. This line would be defined by land parcel boundaries within the neighbourhood. All other ward boundaries within the model remain clear and follow major arterial roads for their entire duration. Community Support: The proposed modification is based on feedback heard during the public consultation phase of the project. Two suggestions regarding the wartime homes were heard: first, that the entire wartime homes area be brought together in one ward, and second, that the wartime homes be included in southern-oriented wards. This modification achieves both of these goals. Modified Option D was the first choice amongst the peer reviewers. Conclusion: Modified Option D makes a clear trade-off between guiding principles, increasing respect for communities of interest at the expense of clear boundaries and future population balance. Improvements to the balance of the current population are coincidental and of marginal benefit over Option D as originally proposed. Option E (ATT-5) Representation by Population: Option E has reasonable population balance in 2016 figures, with ward 3 being slightly undersized compared to wards 1 and 2. This is an acceptable population balance. Future Growth Trends: Option E has the best balance of population in the near future. As most growth will occur in the south end of Ajax over the next five years, the undersized ward 3 receives the bulk of population growth, reaching a point where all three wards will be essentially even in the next five years, presuming that all growth assumptions are accurate. Communities of Interest: Option E does not reasonably preserve the Town’s identifiable communities of interest. Notably, Pickering Village in the west end is divided between all three wards, and the Audley community in the east end is divided along Rossland Road between wards 1 and 2. Physical Features as Boundaries: Option E exhibits mostly clear boundaries, utilizing Rossland Road and Highway 401 for the majority of its boundary lines. The boundaries are less clear in the west end, where Church Street, Kingston Road, and Westney Road delineate the boundaries. Community Support: Option E enjoyed the most support amongst survey respondents, being a preferred option among 22% of all respondents and the favourite among 29% of all respondents. When asked what was attractive about Option E, respondents frequently referenced the use of Highway 401 as a clear and obvious boundary line.
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 8
Other Comments: While other ward boundary options exhibit minor tradeoffs between different guiding principles, Option E achieves certain guiding principles at the clear expense of others. Population balance and relatively clear boundaries are achieved under Option E largely because communities of interest are not protected under this model. Option E was the second choice of the peer reviewers. Conclusion: Option E enjoyed the plurality of support throughout the public consultation process and is therefore worthy of consideration. However, Option E does not effectively achieve all of the guiding principles as well as other models presented in this report. Order of Preference Based on the analysis presented above, staff would recommend the options in an order of preference as follows, from most to least preferred:
1. Option D 2. Option D – Modified 3. Option B 4. Option E
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Ward Boundary Review project was completed at an estimated cost of $8,000 (excluding staff time). These costs were incurred for the peer review and production of display and advertising materials for the public consultations. Municipalities ordinarily rely upon professional consultants to perform ward boundary reviews, at a cost between $60,000 and $80,000 for municipalities of a similar size to Ajax. Staff are proud to have performed this work internally to a high standard and at great savings to municipal tax payers. In the event that an appeal is filed, the Town’s peer reviewers are prepared to serve as expert witnesses before the Ontario Municipal Board in defense of staff’s methodology. Additional costs may be incurred in such a case. COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Following adoption of the necessary by-laws, a notice of passing will be published in the local newspaper and on-line. The new ward boundaries will be communicated to relevant organizations including Durham Region school boards, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Region of Durham, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Staff will incorporate messaging regarding the new ward boundaries and Council composition through its election program in 2018. CONCLUSION: Revisions to the Town’s Council composition and ward boundaries are necessary following the regional governance changes that have been adopted by the Region of Durham. The Ward Boundary Review has undertaken a lengthy process to determine the best possible designs for a three-ward system for Ajax. The recommendations presented in this report are the culmination of this process and the associated public consultations.
Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Final Recommendations & Approval P a g e | 9
ATTACHMENTS: ATT-1 Peer Review Consultants’ Report ATT-2 Option B ATT-3 Option D ATT-4 Option D - Modified ATT-5 Option E ATT-6 Draft Ajax Council Composition By-law ATT-7 Draft Ajax Ward Boundaries By-law
Nicole Wellsbury – Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk
Alexander Harras – Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk
1
TOWN OF AJAX—WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW PEER REVIEW
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by: Dr. Andrew Sancton Dr. Timothy Cobban March 14, 2017
2
1. INTRODUCTION In December 2016, we were hired by the Town of Ajax to conduct a Peer Review of the staff-led Ward Boundary Review project. As we detail below, we have thoroughly reviewed all project work performed, and provided comments and suggestions for strengthening the project. In late February 2017, we submitted a Preliminary Report in which we provided a brief assessment of the project at that stage. Since then, the public consultation component of the project has been completed. In this final report, we elaborate upon our preliminary comments, summarize the general findings of our peer review, and offer our conclusions. As promised, we also provide our assessment of the ward boundary options developed by staff, and rank our three most preferred ward boundary options—which, it should be noted, were developed independently of staff. 2. CHRONOLOGY Andrew Sancton Consulting submitted a proposal to the Town of Ajax on October 26, 2016 in response to the Town’s RFP P16023. The scope of services included performing a peer review of the Ward Boundary Review being conducted by Town staff. On December 2, 2016, we were informed of the acceptance of our proposal. The scope of services, as presented in our proposal, included: • Provide a thorough review of all project work performed by staff, including all written
documents, working files, and final products. • Evaluate and review the process and methodology of the Ward Boundary Review project,
and provide written advice for strengthening the project, where appropriate. • Develop and submit written comments on the proposed ward boundary models prepared by
staff for the public consultation phase of the project. • Prepare and deliver a summary report to be included in the presentation of final
recommendations to Council. • If necessary, present evidence and serve as an expert witness at the Ontario Municipal Board
in the event of an appeal of the Town’s adopted ward boundaries. On December 14, 2016, we had our initial meeting with Town staff. Staff provided a detailed overview of the project, describing the relevant historical context and outlining the ward boundary review process being followed. The population projections were explained, as were the data sources. Each proposed ward boundary model was described at length, while staff identified the main differences among them. The public consultation component of the review was discussed, and we provided initial feedback on the timing and content of the citizen survey. Following the meeting, staff accompanied us on a driving tour of Ajax, pointing out various neighbourhoods and communities of interest, as well as key physical features and current ward boundaries. The following day, we received access to the working files for the project. These files included previous staff reports relating to the ward boundary review, planning documents (from the Town and the Region), housing occupancy reports (CHMC), and census population data (2006 and 2011). Staff also provided access to their “Ward Boundary Comparison Data” and “Ward Boundary Modelling” spreadsheets, where the data were used to develop ward boundary options.
3
On January 16, 2017, staff directed us to their dedicated webpages for the ward boundary review, which included a link to their citizen survey. They also provided a copy of their presentation materials for their public consultation sessions. We reviewed the webpages, survey, and presentation, and provided brief comments. On February 3, 2017, we received an update on the early results of the public consultation component of the project, which we then discussed during a conference call on February 6, 2017, along with the updated timeline for the project. The 2016 Census population figures were released on February 8, 2017. Within two days, staff had adjusted their population projections and ward boundary models accordingly, and provided us with an annotated copy of their files. On February 24, 2017, we submitted our Preliminary Report to staff. A few days later, the public consultation component of the review was completed. Staff developed revised boundary models in response to some of the feedback received during the consultations, which we supported. We also provided comments on these models. 3. GUIDING PRINCIPLES It is customary for ward boundary reviews to include an explicit statement of the guiding principles. In key background documents, staff identify four guiding principles for the review: representation-by-population; protection of communities of interest and neighbourhoods; current and future population trends; and physical features as natural boundaries. As staff note, these principles are established in the 1991 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case.1 The case is important because in its decision the Court articulated a requirement for “effective representation” in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures. The Court recognized the importance of “relative parity of voting power,” but it also ruled that other considerations, including “community history, community interests and minority representation” are factors which “may need” to be weighed to ensure that elected bodies are effectively representative. Even though the Supreme Court decision does not apply to Canadian municipalities, the Ontario Municipal Board has adopted “effective representation” as its guiding principle with respect to municipal electoral systems. We will not review the relevant OMB decisions and cases here, but we will state that there is considerable ambiguity in the OMB’s definition and use of “effective representation,” as it applies to municipalities. What it does not mean, however, is that particular communities or neighbourhoods should always receive considerable extra representation at the expense of voters in other parts of the municipality. In our professional opinion, the principle of equitable representation (rep-by-pop) is the most important principle to follow in designing electoral boundaries. We are pleased to report the Ward Boundary Review reflects this standard. 1 Supreme Court of Canada, Reference Re. Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158. 2 Wagar v. London (City) (2005) O.M.B.D. No. 1329; Osgoode Rural Community Association, the Rideau Rural Community Association Inc., and the West Carleton Association Inc. v. Ottawa (City) 2003 O.M.B.D. 0605.
4
4. POPULATION FIGURES If representation by population is the most important principle to follow in designing ward boundaries, then it logically follows that the population figures and projections used to determine these boundaries must be as accurate as possible. As we noted in our Preliminary Report, the population figures used in the Ward Boundary Review reflect current municipal best practices. Early in the review process, staff used 2011 Statistics Canada Dissemination Area Level population and household data to determine a base population level. Although this data is available at an even smaller geographic scale (i.e., dissemination blocks), the boundaries of dissemination areas are generally sufficiently refined for the purposes of drawing ward boundaries. To estimate current and future population levels, staff mainly relied on the population estimates produced by Town planning staff and their counterparts at the Region, along with annual housing completion data collected by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There are other approaches (incorporating MPAC data, for example), but in our experience this approach produces the most reliable estimates. In our initial meeting with staff, we were pleased to learn that staff planned to update their population figures once the 2016 Census population data were released in early February 2017. Fortunately, the revisions were relatively minor. The end result, however, are population figures that are as accurate as is reasonably possible, and population projections that are as reliable as such estimates can be. We have been impressed with the level of attention and care that staff have given to developing reliable population figures. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public participation component of the Ward Boundary Review was well-designed. Three public meetings were held at convenient times and at separate locations, which is an appropriate number and format for a boundary review of this nature. We reviewed the presentation materials in advance of the meetings, and found them to be clear and helpful. Although staff reported that attendance at the meetings was modest (about 50 persons in total), this is consistent with our expectations for a ward boundary review that is not particularly contentious. It has become increasingly common practice for ward boundary reviews to include a citizen survey as a tool for public participation, as staff have done in their Ward Boundary Review. At our initial meeting with staff, we offered some suggestions on designing and administering the survey, to which staff were receptive. According to staff, approximately 130 surveys were submitted. This response rate is consistent with our expectations, and it falls within what we would consider to be the normal range for such exercises.
5
6. WARD BOUNDARY OPTIONS As we have stated, we have been very impressed throughout this process with the quality of the data that has been provided by municipal staff and with the way in which they have conducted the public participation process. We were also pleasantly surprised by the evidence produced from the participation process that citizens highly value the concept of representation-by-population, the notion that all votes should be roughly equal because each ward is roughly equal in population. We have observed that this principle is not so readily accepted in all municipalities; citizens in particular areas within a municipality often plead that their votes should be worth more than others. The fact that such arguments appear not to have been made in Ajax is a sign of a healthy degree of community solidarity and mutual acceptance. We are pleased to re-iterate our own view that representation-by-population is the most important principle to consider in this process. All options prepared by staff respect this principle, which means that we can turn to the public participation process for most of our guidance in determining our preferred options. There are strong arguments to be advanced in favour of Options F & G, the options in which each of the three wards generally cover large territories of the municipality stretching from north to south. Proponents of these options argue that bringing older and newer portions of Ajax together in each of the wards would mean that councillors would be more likely to act in the interests of the entire municipality rather than in the interests of their own particular ward. Admirable as such views might be, they are essentially discounting “community of interest”, a factor that the OMB has considered to be of great importance in any redrawing of ward boundaries.2 We counsel against Options F & G precisely because they are both vulnerable to strong OMB challenges. In any event, we note that they were generally found to be the least popular options during the public participation process. Options A through E are essentially quite similar to each other: one ward in the south and two in the north. Option E clearly gained the most support during the public participation process. The population numbers in each ward are relatively equal in 2016 and are projected to get even better in the future. The entire Midtown neighbourhood is kept together (in a ward that is appropriately in the geographic middle of the town) and Highway 401 serves as an easily recognizable north-south boundary for all but the western portion of the town. The main problem with Option E, as pointed out by some in the public participation process, is that it splits the historic Village neighbourhood, thereby violating the principle of “community of interest”. The great virtues of Option D are that it keeps the Village neighbourhood together and the population numbers are excellent both in 2016 and in projections for the future. As pointed out in the public participation process, however, it splits the Midtown neighbourhood, including the “wartime housing” area at the heart of Midtown.
2 Wagar v. London (City) (2005) O.M.B.D. No. 1329; Osgoode Rural Community Association, the Rideau Rural Community Association Inc., and the West Carleton Association Inc. v. Ottawa (City) 2003 O.M.B.D. 0605.
6
Responding to concerns about splitting the “wartime housing” area, staff developed a modification to Option D and forwarded it to us. We were asked if it was appropriate to add a possible modification to Option D at this late stage in the process. We responded affirmatively, in large measure because doing so illustrates that citizens were listened to.3 The modification includes all of the “wartime housing” area within the proposed Ward 3. To outsiders such as us, the boundaries appear awkward, but presumably they make sense for the people in the area. Another potential problem is that the Midtown neighbourhood remains split, but not nearly as dramatically as in the original Option D. The population numbers resulting from the modification are highly unusual in that they reflect almost perfect equality in 2016, with some deterioration projected in for the future. Given these considerations, our top three preferred options ranked in order are:
1. Option D as modified so that all of the “wartime housing” is in the proposed Ward 3 2. Option E 3. Option D (as originally presented).
7. CONCLUSIONS We have completed our peer review of the staff-led Ward Boundary Review. As we noted in the Introduction, we cannot comment on staff recommendations, because the peer review process has been structured deliberately and appropriately to prevent us from knowing what they are. We are pleased to report our general conclusion that the Ward Boundary Review undertaken by staff was exemplary and of a high professional standard.
3 As the OMB has recognized, there can be no requirement that ward boundary models modified in response to public input need to be re-submitted to the public for further consultation. Gatward, Garn, and Carver v. Brant (County) 2005 O.M.B.D. No. 3257; Milani v. Vaughan (City) 2009 MM090024.
Ajax Ward Boundary Review
35180926
35180887
35180915
35180548
35180586
35181084
35180591
35180356
35180922
35181078
35181067
35180583
35180406
35180829
35181080
35180889
35181081
35180924
35180890
35180892
35181072
35180834
35180409
35181076
35180808
35180566
35180551
35180394
35181079
35181083
3518035835180405
35180899
35181066
35181077
35180891
35181040
35180375
35180404
35181082
35181085
35180593
35180588
35181069
35180913
35180403
35180361
35180568
35180368
35180908
35180408
35180397
35180562
35180921
35181065
35180381
35180366
35180365
35181052
35180573
35180372
35181071
35181070
35180560
35180549
35180363
35180564
35180567
35180581
35180555
35180828
35180380
35180401
35180385
35180914
35180399
35180407
35180382
35180827
35180590
35180357
35180833
35181055
35180373
35180589
35180916
35180582
35181068
35180920
35181038
35180371
35180934
35180563
35180936
3518036435180360
35180940
35180938
35180909
35181039
35180359
35180556
35180393
35180584
35180398
35180392
35180389
35180935
35180557
35180525
35180570
35180937
35180585
35180569
35180918
35180554
35181053
35180391
35180576
35180402
35180912
35180905
35180369
35180553
35180574
35180910
35180939
35180911
35180388
35180919
35180550
35180558
35180362
35180571
35180400
35180907
35180370
35180374
35180559
35180383
3518090635180917
35181051
35180941
35180565
35180367
35180925
35180893
35180895
35180901
35180903
35180894
35180943
35180900
35180587
35180896
35180897
35180898
35180942
35180902
35180904
HC
RU
HC
YE
NT
SE
W
MEL
AS
TAUNTON
ROSSLAND
KINGSTON/HWY 2
HWY 401
BAYLY
TFO
RC
SN
EV
AR
DO
OW
RA
H
YEL
DU
A
HC
AE
B G
NIR
EK
CIP
TNI
OP L
AO
HS
LAK
E R
IDG
ELA
KE
RID
GE
OPTION B
Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION B
2016 2021 2031
38.1k 40.9k45.6k 45.6k
42.1k46.9k 47.8k
42.9k38.7k
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3
2016 2021 2031Ward Area (ha) Pop. Target Pop. Target Pop. Target
1 1,883 38,064 -5% 40,919 -7% 42,077 -8%
2 2,662 42,933 8% 45,628 4% 46,884 3%
3 2,536 38,680 -3% 45,619 4% 47,791 5%
Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752
Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584
Diff. Lrg to Sml 4,869 13% 4,708 12% 5,713 14%
Ajax Ward Boundary Review
35180926
35180887
35180915
35180548
35180586
35181084
35180591
35180356
35180922
35181078
35181067
35180583
35180406
35180829
35181080
35180889
35181081
35180924
35180890
35180892
35181072
35180834
35180409
35181076
35180808
35180566
35180551
35180394
35181079
35181083
3518035835180405
35180899
35181066
35181077
35180891
35181040
35180375
35180404
35181082
35181085
35180593
35180588
35181069
35180913
35180403
35180361
35180568
35180368
35180908
35180408
35180397
35180562
35180921
35181065
35180381
35180366
35180365
35181052
35180573
35180372
35181071
35181070
35180560
35180549
35180363
35180564
35180567
35180581
35180555
35180828
35180380
35180401
35180385
35180914
35180399
35180407
35180382
35180827
35180590
35180357
35180833
35181055
35180373
35180589
35180916
35180582
35181068
35180920
35181038
35180371
35180934
35180563
35180936
3518036435180360
35180940
35180938
35180909
35181039
35180359
35180556
35180393
35180584
35180398
35180392
35180389
35180935
35180557
35180525
35180570
35180937
35180585
35180569
35180918
35180554
35181053
35180391
35180576
35180402
35180912
35180905
35180369
35180553
35180574
35180910
35180939
35180911
35180388
35180919
35180550
35180558
35180362
35180571
35180400
35180907
35180370
35180374
35180559
35180383
3518090635180917
35181051
35180941
35180565
35180367
35180925
35180893
35180895
35180901
35180903
35180894
35180943
35180900
35180587
35180896
35180897
35180898
35180942
35180902
35180904
HC
RU
HC
YE
NT
SE
W
MEL
AS
TAUNTON
ROSSLAND
KINGSTON/HWY 2
HWY 401
BAYLY
TFO
RC
SN
EV
AR
DO
OW
RA
H
YEL
DU
A
HC
AE
B G
NIR
EK
CIP
TNI
OP L
AO
HS
LAK
E R
IDG
ELA
KE
RID
GE
OPTION D
Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION D
2016 2021 2031
41.2k 42.1k45.6k44.5k 42.2k
46.8k 47.8k
39.8k 38.7k
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3
2016 2021 2031Ward Area (ha) Pop. Target Pop. Target Pop. Target
1 1,178 41,200 3% 42,072 -5% 42,162 -8%
2 3,367 39,797 0% 44,475 1% 46,800 3%
3 2,536 38,680 -3% 45,619 4% 47,791 5%
Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752
Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584
Diff. Lrg to Sml 2,520 7% 3,547 8% 5,628 13%
Ajax Ward Boundary Review
35180926
35180887
35180915
35180548
35180586
35181084
35180591
35180356
35180922
35181078
35181067
35180583
35180406
35180829
35181080
35180889
35181081
35180924
35180890
35180892
35181072
35180834
35180409
35181076
35180808
35180566
35180551
35180394
35181079
35181083
3518035835180405
35180899
35181066
35181077
35180891
35181040
35180375
35180404
35181082
35181085
35180593
35180588
35181069
35180913
35180403
35180361
35180568
35180368
35180908
35180408
35180397
35180562
35180921
35181065
35180381
35180366
35180365
35181052
35180573
35180372
35181071
35181070
35180560
35180549
35180363
35180564
35180567
35180581
35180555
35180828
35180380
35180401
35180385
35180914
35180399
35180407
35180382
35180827
35180590
35180357
35180833
35181055
35180373
35180589
35180916
35180582
35181068
35180920
35181038
35180371
35180934
35180563
35180936
3518036435180360
35180940
35180938
35180909
35181039
35180359
35180556
35180393
35180584
35180398
35180392
35180389
35180935
35180557
35180525
35180570
35180937
35180585
35180569
35180918
35180554
35181053
35180391
35180576
35180402
35180912
35180905
35180369
35180553
35180574
35180910
35180939
35180911
35180388
35180919
35180550
35180558
35180362
35180571
35180400
35180907
35180370
35180374
35180559
35180383
3518090635180917
35181051
35180941
35180565
35180367
35180925
35180893
35180895
35180901
35180903
35180894
35180943
35180900
35180587
35180896
35180897
35180898
35180942
35180902
35180904
CH
UR
CH
WE
ST
NE
Y
SA
LEM
TAUNTON
ROSSLAND
KINGSTON/HWY 2
HWY 401
BAYLY
RA
VE
NS
CR
OFT
HA
RW
OO
D
AU
DLE
Y
PIC
KE
RIN
G B
EA
CH
SH
OA
L P
OIN
T
LAK
E R
IDG
ELA
KE
RID
GE
OPTION D - Modified
Ajax Ward Boundary Review
2016 2021 2031
39.9k 39.8k 40.0k 40.7k
47.0k44.5k
40.8k
46.8k49.1k
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3
2016 2021 2031Ward Area (ha) Pop. Target Pop. Target Pop. Target
1 1,134 39,867 0% 40,739 -8% 40,829 -10%
2 3,367 39,797 0% 44,475 1% 46,800 3%
3 2,580 40,013 0% 46,952 7% 49,124 8%
Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752
Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584
Diff. Lrg to Sml 216 1% 6,213 15% 8,294 20%
OPTION D - Modified
Ajax Ward Boundary Review
35180926
35180887
35180915
35180548
35180586
35181084
35180591
35180356
35180922
35181078
35181067
35180583
35180406
35180829
35181080
35180889
35181081
35180924
35180890
35180892
35181072
35180834
35180409
35181076
35180808
35180566
35180551
35180394
35181079
35181083
3518035835180405
35180899
35181066
35181077
35180891
35181040
35180375
35180404
35181082
35181085
35180593
35180588
35181069
35180913
35180403
35180361
35180568
35180368
35180908
35180408
35180397
35180562
35180921
35181065
35180381
35180366
35180365
35181052
35180573
35180372
35181071
35181070
35180560
35180549
35180363
35180564
35180567
35180581
35180555
35180828
35180380
35180401
35180385
35180914
35180399
35180407
35180382
35180827
35180590
35180357
35180833
35181055
35180373
35180589
35180916
35180582
35181068
35180920
35181038
35180371
35180934
35180563
35180936
3518036435180360
35180940
35180938
35180909
35181039
35180359
35180556
35180393
35180584
35180398
35180392
35180389
35180935
35180557
35180525
35180570
35180937
35180585
35180569
35180918
35180554
35181053
35180391
35180576
35180402
35180912
35180905
35180369
35180553
35180574
35180910
35180939
35180911
35180388
35180919
35180550
35180558
35180362
35180571
35180400
35180907
35180370
35180374
35180559
35180383
3518090635180917
35181051
35180941
35180565
35180367
35180925
35180893
35180895
35180901
35180903
35180894
35180943
35180900
35180587
35180896
35180897
35180898
35180942
35180902
35180904
CH
UR
CH
WE
ST
NE
Y
SA
LEM
LAK
E R
IDG
E
TAUNTON
ROSSLAND
KINGSTON/HWY 2
HWY 401
BAYLY
RA
VE
NS
CR
OFT
HA
RW
OO
D
AU
DLE
Y
PIC
KE
RIN
G B
EA
CH
SH
OA
L P
OIN
T
OPTION E
Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION E
2016 2021 2031
40.8k 44.3k 44.3k 43.6k46.6k
44.3k 45.8k42.1k
36.8k
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3
2016 2021 2031Ward Area (ha) Pop. Target Pop. Target Pop. Target
1 2,981 40,765 2% 44,332 1% 46,646 2%
2 1,688 42,096 6% 44,258 0% 44,258 -3%
3 2,413 36,816 -8% 43,586 -1% 45,848 1%
Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752
Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584
Diff. Lrg to Sml 5,280 14% 736 2% 2,388 5%
ATT‐6
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AJAX
BY-LAW NUMBER XX-2017
Being a By-law to change the composition of the Municipal Council of the Town of Ajax
WHEREAS Section 217 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, authorizes a local municipality to change the composition of its Council; and WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham’s By-law 40-2016, being a by-law to change the composition of regional council, received the necessary triple majority support, granting Ajax one additional seat on Durham Regional Council beginning as of the 2018 Municipal Elections; and WHEREAS Ajax Council considered potential changes to the composition of Town Council in response, and resolved to maintain the size of Town Council at seven (7) members; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Ajax hereby enacts as follows:
1. Ajax Council shall be comprised of seven (7) members of Council as follows:
a. The Mayor, who shall serve as Head of Council and be elected at large in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act and shall have the duties and the responsibilities of the head of municipal Council as set out in the Municipal Act;
b. Three (3) Regional Councillors, who shall be elected by ward vote in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act as follows:
One (1) Regional Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 1; One (1) Regional Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 2; and One (1) Regional Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 3.
c. Three (3) Ward Councillors, who shall be elected by ward vote in accordance with
the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act as follows: One (1) Ward Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 1; One (1) Ward Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 2; and One (1) Ward Councillor elected by the eligible electors in Ward 3.
2. That this By-law shall come into force on the day the new council of the Town of Ajax is organized following the regular municipal elections in 2018.
3. That notwithstanding Clause 2 of this By-law, in accordance with Section 217 (4) of the Municipal Act, as amended, the regular municipal election scheduled for 2018 shall be conducted as if this By-law was already in force.
READ a first and second time this Eighteenth day of April, 2017.
READ a third time and passed this Eighteenth day of April, 2017.
________________________ Mayor
________________________ D-Clerk
ATT‐7
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AJAX
BY-LAW NUMBER XX-2017
Being a By-law to Re-divide the Wards in the Town of Ajax
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Ajax is authorized by Section 222. (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to divide or re-divide the Town into wards or to dissolve existing wards; and WHEREAS, as a result of changes to Durham Regional Council and increased population within the Town, it is deemed expedient to re-divide the Town into three new wards; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Ajax enacts as follows:
1. That the Town of Ajax shall be divided into three wards, as described below and as also shown on the map attached as Schedule 'A' to this By-law:
Ward 1 [DEFINITION TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVED MODEL] Ward 2 [DEFINITION TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVED MODEL] Ward 3 [DEFINITION TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVED MODEL]
2. That By-law 26-2009 is hereby repealed.
3. That this By-law shall come into force on the day the new council of the Town of Ajax is organized following the regular municipal elections in 2018.
4. That notwithstanding Clause 3 of this By-law, in accordance with Section 222 (9) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the regular municipal election scheduled for 2018 shall be conducted as if this By-law was already in force.
READ a first and second time this Eighteenth day of April, 2017.
READ a third time and passed this Eighteenth day of April, 2017.
________________________ Mayor
________________________ D-Clerk
ATT‐7
SCHEDULE ‘A’
BY-LAW XX-2017
[ILLUSTRATION TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVED MODEL]
