Committee of the Whole Agenda Monday, May 3, 2021 - 9:30 AM Electronic Meeting via Zoom
Page
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
4. ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE/PERSONNEL – COUNCILLOR JOHNSON, LIAISON
4.1. High water bill 22 Willow Cres, Brechin 4 - 6 TR 10 21 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT we received Report TR-10-21; AND THAT we require payment of the water bill in full.
4.2. Breakdown of Brechin Sewer costs 7 - 8 TR 09 21 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT council receive the report as information
4.3. Ward Boundary Review 9 - 71 Ramara WBR Final Report_FINAL DRAFT FOR SUBMISSION Recommendation: THAT we proceed with Option 5a in the Ward Boundary Review dated April 26, 2021 by StrategyCorp; AND THAT staff prepare a bylaw for Council consideration to redefine the ward boundaries in Ramara Township; AND THAT public notice be provided.
4.4. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Correspondence - 72 - 73 Strengthening Accountability for Municipal Council Members. MMAH Recommendation: THAT we appoint ______to participate in the townhall session with MMAH on strengthening accountability for municipal council on May 18, 2021.
Unfinished or New Business
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Administration/Finance/Personnel
5. CULTURE & RECREATION SERVICES – COUNCILLOR LAMB, LIAISON
Unfinished or New Business
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Culture and Recreation
Page 1 of 103
6. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – COUNCILLOR FISHER, LIAISON
Unfinished or New Business
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Environmental Services
7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – DEPUTY MAYOR GOUGH, LIAISON
7.1. Official Plan work plan update 74 - 95 AD-17-21 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT we receive Report AD17-01; AND THAT Council endorses the Official Plan work plan submitted by D.M. Wills; AND THAT Council endorses the priority areas of work for the Official Plan, and receives quarterly updates on the progress of the Official Plan; AND THAT the amount of $70K be earmarked for budget 2022 to complete the plan.
Unfinished or New Business
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Planning & Development Services with the exception of Planning Applications
8. PROTECTIVE SERVICES – COUNCILLOR SNUTCH, LIAISON
8.1. Police Services Board Composition 96 - 98 AD-16-21 - Pdf Recommendation: That Council accept Option 1 and that the funds be allocated in the next budget in the amount of $14,500;
8.2. Short Term Rental Accommodations Bylaw 2020.11 - Housekeeping 99 - 101 Amendments CD-09-21 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT Committee of the Whole review the recommended amendments to Short Term Rental Accommodation Bylaw 2020.11; AND THAT staff prepare the required amending bylaw for Council approval.
8.3. Municipal Parking Lot Parking Fee Rate 102 - 103 CD-10-21 - Pdf Recommendation: THAT Committee of the Whole receive report CD- 10-21 and approve the daily parking rate of $5.00 per hour, $25.00 per day or $200.00 per seasons pass for municipal parking lots where Honk Mobile will be implemented.
Unfinished or New Business
Page 2 of 103
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Protective Services
9. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES – COUNCILLOR HETHERINGTON, LIAISON
Unfinished or New Business.
Questions from Media and Public regarding items on the agenda pertaining to Transportation Services.
10. CLOSED SESSION
10.1. Brechin and Beyond Committee Application - personal matter in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act.
10.2. Correspondence dated April 28th, 2021 regarding a solicitor client privilege matter under Section 239.1(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 of 103 Agenda Item #4.1.
Page 1 of 3
Staff Report #TR 10 21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: Zach Drinkwalter, Director of Finance/Treasurer Subject: High water bill 22 Willow Cres, Brechin
Suggested Motion THAT we received Report TR-10-21; AND THAT we require payment of the water bill in full.
Background & Discussion Per discussions with ratepayer, they have been unable to come up to their cottage due to the stay-at- home order. They received a much higher then average water bill ($2,420.48 compared to $400).
After receiving their high water bill they went to their cottage to find the outside tap was left on.
The ratepayer is asking for some forgiveness on the water bill, possibly the sewer charge as the water did not go into the sewer system. See attached letter for more detail.
Alternatives Provide forgiveness on the water bill.
Financial Information None if not written off.
Strategic Priority Areas:
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☑ N/A
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☐ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained ☐ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Page 4 of 103 Agenda Item #4.1.
Page 2 of 3 High water bill 22 Willow Cres, Brechin
Policy Implications: None
Recommended Action: That the bill be paid in full.
Attachments: Outstanding Water Bill
Reviewed By Approved By: Department: Status: Zach Drinkwalter, Finance Approved - 28 Director of Department Apr 2021 Finance/Treasurer John Pinsent, Chief Executive Services Approved - 28 Administrative Officer Department Apr 2021 Jennifer Connor, Legislative & Approved - 28 Director of Community Apr 2021 Legislative and Services Community Department Services/Clerk
Page 5 of 103 Agenda Item #4.1.
Page 3 of 3
From: Jennifer Connor To: Madison Dunn Subject: FW: Outstanding Water Bill Date: April 26, 2021 2:46:01 PM
From: Sent: April 21, 2021 3:28 PM To: Jennifer Connor
To The Ramara Council,
Re: 22 Willow Cres, Brechin. Acct 0086600000
This last weekend we received our sewer and water bill. ($2420.48) Due to CVID we have not been travelling to our cottage as per the government guidelines. Imagine the shock after opening this bill when we have never had an issue before. We have owned this property for over 20 years and never had any kind of problem. We immediately drove up on Saturday to check and found everything inside to be fine. My husband checked the outside water tap and found it to be dripping. (We now turn off the water every time we leave.)
We have never missed a bill or ever had any issue before. Why this tap was not fully closed we will never know. We would normally have seen it had it not been for the travel restrictions put on due to COVID.
I have called in to the office and spoken to Audrey. She was so helpful and so amazing in helping me through this awful time. She suggested that I email to the council. Would there be any chance of some forgiveness of even the sewer charge since it actually never went through the sewer? This bill will be even higher since the bill in question cut off on April1 and we did not get it April 17th.
Would it be possible to give some leeway on this bill and the one to follow if at all possible.
Thank you,
Page 6 of 103 Agenda Item #4.2.
Page 1 of 2
Staff Report #TR 09 21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: Zach Drinkwalter, Director of Finance/Treasurer Subject: Breakdown of Brechin Sewer costs
Suggested Motion THAT council receive the report as information
Background & Discussion Per council request staff has prepared a breakdown of how the Brechin Sewer costs are funded.
2020 Fund General Brechin Sewers Sewers Breakdown Tax Revenue 292,000 - - Development Charges - - -
Debt Payments - 292,000 - Net Revenue(loss) 292,000 (292,000) -
• The total debt for the Brechin Sewer costs owing to Ontario Infrastructure $3.1M • If enough development charges(DCs) are received in a given year from new construction, DCs will be applied to the Brechin Sewer Debt • Money from taxes is collected each year to cover the cost of the debt. These funds go into the general reserve and are kept aside for future payment of the Brechin Sewer debt if needed • Deficit will be recorded in Brechin Sewers until development charges are receive • If DCs are never received council will need to decide what reserve account(general, sewer, other) the funds to cover the debt should come from.
Alternatives None
Financial Information See impact in discussion
Strategic Priority Areas:
Page 7 of 103 Agenda Item #4.2.
Page 2 of 2 Breakdown of Brechin Sewer costs
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☑ N/A
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☑ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained ☐ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Policy Implications: None
Recommended Action: THAT council receive the report as information
Reviewed By Approved By: Department: Status: Zach Drinkwalter, Finance Approved - 28 Director of Department Apr 2021 Finance/Treasurer John Pinsent, Chief Executive Services Approved - 28 Administrative Officer Department Apr 2021 Kathy Sipos, Director Environmental Approved - 28 of Infrastructure Services Apr 2021
Page 8 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Review The Township of Ramara April 26th, 2021
Page 9 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Table of Contents Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations 3 Part 1: Project Overview 5 Progress to Date 5 Review Process Since the Interim Report 7 Part 2: Designing Ward Boundary Concepts 8 Design Process 8 Key Factors That Influence All Designs 10 Part 3: Description and Analysis of Ward Boundary Options 17 Draft Boundary Option 1 18 Draft Boundary Option 2 22 Draft Boundary Option 3 26 Draft Boundary Option 4 30 Draft Boundary Option 5 34 Draft Boundary Option 6 39 Public Feedback Overview of All Draft Options 45 Part 4: Recommendations 48 Population Parity, Today and Tomorrow 48 Appendix A: Projected Population Growth (Interim Report Excerpt) 51 Appendix B: Other Draft Boundary Options 54 Appendix C: Projected Mid-Growth 2030 Population Projections 57 Appendix D: Guiding Principles of this Review 60 Appendix E: Terms of Reference 62
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 2 Draft Final Report
Page 10 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations In December 2020, the Township of Ramara (the “Township” or “Ramara”) retained StrategyCorp Inc. and Sajecki Planning to conduct a Ward Boundary Review (the “Review”). Since then, we have had the pleasure of speaking to Ramara’s elected officials, staff, and residents about the structure of Ramara’s ward boundaries. Ontario law gives municipalities a significant degree of set their own ward boundaries. In the case of Ramara, the challenge is finding a model that can deliver effective representation given: • the municipality’s distinct communities of interest; • the wide range of potential growth scenarios; and • the uneven distribution of expected population growth.
Steps Since our Interim Report Since the presentation of our interim report, we have: 1. developed ward boundary concepts, based on the insights from our earlier phases of work, the principles of Effective Representation, and the Terms of Reference (TOR) evaluative criteria. 2. Pre-screened concepts for adherence to Effective Representation factors and TOR evaluative criteria. 3. Consulted public with via an on-line survey and two digital public meetings on a “Long-List” of 6 favourable options. 4. Narrowed the “Long-List” to a “Short-List” of preferred options based on public comment, and our evaluation, based on the principles of Effective Representation, and the TOR evaluative criteria. 5. Prepared this Final report to Council: o reporting on consultation and o making recommendations having regard to the principles of Effective Representation, and the TOR evaluative criteria.
Summary of Recommendations The report presents six options and several subvariants that arose from the consultation process. Options 1 to 5 would all be satisfactory to meet the population parity requirements of the Terms of Reference. This report Recommends Option 5, as described below, and as amended by 5a, as most suitable to meet the requirements of the Terms of Reference. 5a was a minor tweak proposed in the consultations which extends the boundary of ward 5 slightly to the south to achieve better population parity goals. • Choosing Among Options 1-5: While each of options 1-5 would be acceptable on the mathematics of parity alone, we do not believe they are all equally desirable from a perspective of Effective Representation. • Ruling out Options 2 and 4: In our consultations, we heard many times that it was a desirable outcome of this process to unify the Lake St. John area in one ward. Options 1-5 all achieve this goal. Options 1, 3 and 5 would allocate the area to ward 1 and Options 2 and 4 would allocate it to ward 2.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 3 Draft Final Report
Page 11 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
We believe the alignment with ward 1 is more appropriate, and we think this is sufficient advantage on which to rule out options 2 and 4. • Ruling Out Option 1: We heard in our consultations that the flaw in Option 1 is that it results in boundaries for ward 2 that are unreasonably large. This would likely lead to challenges in workload for the local councillor that could undermine the overall effectiveness of representation in the ward. Option 1 also fails to respect the existence a large provincially significant wetland which was the basis for the current ward 1 boundary. The new configuration would leave residents on the north side of the wetland isolated from the remainder of the ward, undermining its ability to provide effective representation. • Choosing between Options 3 and 5: There are reasons to prefer both options 3 and 5. ▪ Both are acceptable from the perspective of relative parity of ward population. ▪ Both unify Lake St John in Ward 1. ▪ Both avoid creating unacceptably large wards. ▪ Both deliver three wards that will have a vested interest in the affairs of the rural community. This compares favourably with Option 1, that would only have had two rural wards. The alignment of wards in Option 3 is more readily understandable and communicable than the shapes of the wards in Option 5. Option 5 maximizes the number of wards that will have a direct interest in Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. Some commentators who saw the narrow corridors of wards 2 and 4 touching Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe viewed this as a weakness, that risked “cutting up” the accountability of representation along the shoreline into too many wards, and too many councillors. On the other side, we heard “we should all have a stake in protecting the shoreline.” We would be sympathetic to the concerns of blurring accountability if we were drawing municipal boundaries and dividing up a shoreline among different governance structures. In this case, the issue is drawing wards within one municipality, and one governance structure, where all decision-making is the role of the entire Council, and not of any one local councillor. We agree with those who think that it is a positive move to draw wards to maximize attachment to shoreline issues. Conclusion: On this basis, having regard to all the factors in the terms of reference, and in particular the overall principles of effective representation, we: ▪ Favour options 3 and 5, and of the two; and ▪ Recommend option 5, as amended by 5a, as being the best fit for the next ten years of Ramara’s growth.
Report Sections • Part One provides a project overview including progress to date, and engagement following the Interim Report. • Part Two describes the process and major considerations that went into designing initial ward boundary configurations. • Part Three presents the initial six Draft Ward Boundary Options, feedback on public consultations, and our evaluation of each option on its own. • Part Four evaluates the Draft Ward Boundary Options against the evaluative criteria set by the Terms of Reference and Makes our Recommendations to Council.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 4 Draft Final Report
Page 12 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Part 1: Project Overview
Progress to Date A full description of the process so far, including methodology for making current and future population estimates can be found in our Interim Report dated February 22nd, 2021, which is linked here.
Summary of Key Findings & Recommendations From our Interim Report
1. The image (right) shows Ramara’s current wards boundaries, and the table bellow illustrates how the current ward structure no longer delivers effective representation due to lack of population parity among wards.
Population Per Variance from Ward Share Ward Average Ward 1 2,882 19% -2% Ward 2 3,365 22% +15% Ward 3 3,710 24% +26% Ward 4 1,583 17% -12% Ward 5 2,146 14% -27% Total 14,686 (100%) 2,937 (Average)
2. With the current boundaries, this problem is forecast to worsen over the period 2020 to 2030. The rate at which the variance in population among wards will increase varies based on three potential growth scenarios. • Low-Growth: This assumes 2.3% growth based on historical population growth between 2011-2016 but is distributed using the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. • Mid-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur but to only 50% the anticipated capacity. This would represent a 20% population growth from 2025 projections, with the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. • High-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur resulting in 32% growth from 2025 projections. The distribution of this growth is 60% occurring in ward 3; 35% in ward 2; and 5% in ward 4.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 5 Draft Final Report
Page 13 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Low growth (at 2.3%) Mid-Growth (at 20%) High-Growth (at 32%) 2030 Population Share Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,937 19% 2,937 17% 2,937 15% Ward 2 3,518 23% 4,248 27% 5,101 25% Ward 3 4,330 28% 5,582 36% 7,045 35% Ward 4 2,599 17% 2,692 17% 2,801 14% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% 2,146 11% Total 15,529 17,605 20,031 Based on guidance from Council at the meeting on February 22nd, 2021, we have based our analysis of ward boundary options on the low growth option, on the basis that: • the high growth forecast would be considerably greater than historic levels of growth. It is contingent on normal economic conditions, as well as provincial and local policy approvals. • Much of the growth in the high growth scenario is not expected to be occupation-ready until 2030, which is the last year of the period covered by this study. • There is some likelihood that projects contemplated by the medium and high growth scenarios will not occur until after 2030, which is the outer planning horizon for this study.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 6 Draft Final Report
Page 14 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Review Process Since the Interim Report During the third phase, we developed Ward Boundary Options based on the findings of the first two phases.
Public Engagement There were several opportunities for public input and feedback, including: Information about the Review was posted on the Township’s website. Two virtual public meetings held to seek comment on the Draft Boundary Options. These Town Halls were held on March 17th, and on March 24th. Advance public notice was provided via the normal communications channels of the Township; and A public engagement survey was posted on the Township’s website from March 10th to April 2nd, 2021.
Engagement in a Time of COVID In compliance with Ontario’s Emergency Order, public consultation has been and will continue to be undertaken in an interactive online format, in lieu of more normal face-to-face meeting arrangements.
The Online Public Engagement Surveys The public engagement survey was available on-line and provided a convenient mechanism for residents to get involved by providing their opinions and feedback. Physical copies were also made available upon request. A total of 33 participants completed the online survey. The completed responses provided qualitative insights into the opinions of participants, which were very helpful in the preparation of the Interim Report. A Public Engagement Survey is NOT to be mistaken for a Scientific Opinion Poll: Given that respondents were self-selecting, the public engagement survey results should not be misconstrued as a representative sample of the public or a quantitative public opinion poll of the population of Ramara. Such a poll would have been different in that it would have required a randomly selected group of participants, chosen using methods to model Ramara’s demographics. A public engagement survey is a survey of self-selected willing participants. As a result, where we have reported on the numerical outcomes of the survey, it should be taken as a report on the opinions of those who participated but NOT as statistically representative of broader public opinion.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 7 Draft Final Report
Page 15 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Part 2: Designing Ward Boundary Concepts
Design Process To create potential draft ward boundary for options for consideration by the public and Council, StrategyCorp 1) identified “population blocks”, and 2) grouped those population blocks into draft ward configurations. The factors used to determine these two steps are described below. Step One: Identify “Population Blocks” Population blocks are the “building blocks” of ward design. They were developed using the following process: • Existing communities of interest such as neighbourhoods and hamlets were identified. • The boundaries of these areas were delineated having regard to natural, human made features and/or property ownership. • For each identified population block, current and future populations were estimated. The following image illustrates some of the original “population blocks” created for the analysis. Community Current Share Block Name Population Washago 1,847 13% Coopers Falls 524 4% Lake St. John 1,005 7% Rama Rd N.
(Fawn Bay) 432 3% Rama Rd S. 147 1% Atherley Narrows 97 1% Atherley 1,235 8% Uptergrove (N of HW-12) 244 2% Orkney Beach 1,012 7% Joyland Beach 800 5% Bayshore 1,244 8%
Lagoon City 2,477 17% Brechin Beach 400 3% Gamebridge Beach 840 6% Brechin 699 5% S. Dalrymple 299 2% N. Dalrymple 138 1%
Sebright 136 1% Udney 1,109 8%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 8 Draft Final Report
Page 16 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Step 2: Group Population Blocks into Draft Ward Configurations Population blocks are then assembled to create possible ward boundary options, having regard to the following considerations over the period of 2020 to 2030. • Current and forecasted population of “population blocks” and their ability to deliver appropriate parity among wards. ▪ The Ideal average ward size for 2020, based on a population of 14,686 is 2,937. ▪ The Ideal average ward size for 2030, based on a population of 15,532 is 3,106. • Areas forecasted to experience the most growth were identified for their potential impact on population parity between wards. • Population blocks were evaluated for their patterns of community of interest. • Key natural and human made boundaries were identified for their potential to create common boundaries for groups of population blocks. • Patterns of communication and transportation among grouped population blocks were considered, where relevant. • Township servicing issues, such as water and wastewater, were considered, where relevant. • Issues relating to overall “effective representation” and the fit of population blocks as draft wards were assessed, including such issues as: ▪ Rural representation ▪ Waterfront representation ▪ Overall area of the wards ▪ Projected workload of Councillors This analysis creates literally dozens of inputs into the design of wards which are then reflected in the Ward Boundary Options that we developed. The ones brought forward for consultations meet a minimum threshold of population parity, and an at least satisfactory performance on other characteristics. Many other versions which failed to meet this level of fit were left “on the cutting room floor.”
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 9 Draft Final Report
Page 17 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Key Factors That Influence All Designs Based on the analysis above, certain overarching factors came to light that provide the basic “facts on the ground” that all options must have regard to. The following list is not exhaustive of all factors, but highlights for the reader some of the facts that need to be accommodated in a ward design that will deliver on effective representation for all Ramara. They are summarized here and elaborated on in the pages below. • Focus Points of Projected Growth: Growth is NOT forecast to be evenly distributed, and areas with planed growth need to be taken into consideration for 2020 and 2030 to ensure reasonable population parity. • Rural and Waterfront Representation: With 80% of the Township population clustered in waterfront population blocks, any ward boundary design that reflects population parity and delivers effective representation, need to have an element of east-west orientation in the wards that links waterfront and rural areas. • Addressing Population Shortfalls in Wards 4 and 5: Given their location in the Township, to make progress on this lack of parity, any new ward design would need to move the northern boundary of wards 4 and/or 5 north and reallocate population among the resulting two wards. • Defining Ward 3 Around Atherley: Due to the Atherley’s relatively high population density, its central location, and proximity to key growth areas in the Township, ward 3 presents the most options for ward alignment to consider. • Achieving unified Representation for Lake St. John: Lake St. John was identified as an area with a legitimate community of interest that is currently divided among wards. Options are presented to achieve “single ward” representation for Lake St. John. • Township Servicing Issues: Water and wastewater services are a high-cost item relevant to representation but is only provided to some neighbourhoods within the Township.
All the factors discussed in this section were considered, along with other factors relevant to effective representation and the terms of reference, to develop the six Draft Ward Boundary Options presented in this report, as well as several options shown in Appendix B that were not shown in public consultations because they were deemed unsuitable by StrategyCorp and were “left on the cutting room floor”.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 10 Draft Final Report
Page 18 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Focus Points of Projected Population Growth The following map (right) illustrates the distribution of expected development and population growth across the Township. These projections were fully discussed in our previous report, and are fully described in Appendix A. The areas highlighted in red are those that will be completed by 2025 with a high degree of certainty. Most of this development is centered in ward 3 along Highway 12, with some limited development slated in Longford Mills (ward 1) and Sebright (ward 2). The areas highlighted in purple are those slated to be complete between 2025-2030, but that have a lower degree of certainty for several reasons. This includes several developments along the Rama Road corridor (ward 2 and 3), and a large development in Brechin (ward 4). Given most of the population growth will occur around Atherley and the Rama Road corridor, care must be taken to ensure anticipated growth in these areas is divided among wards to ensure the boundaries can withstand expected growth until 2030.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 11 Draft Final Report
Page 19 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Rural and Waterfront Representation This analysis illustrates the challenges of balancing the requirement for relative population parity, with maintaining wards of a reasonable geographic size when considering rural and waterfront representation. It demonstrates that in any design that reflects population parity and delivers effective representation, there is a need to have an element of east-west orientation in the wards, that links waterfront and rural areas. This map (right) shows the distribution of current population and anticipated growth for the major shorelines of Lake Simcoe, Lake Couchiching, and the in-land areas. Roughly 80% of Ramara’s population is focused along the shores of these two lakes. The remaining 20% includes the entire eastern side of the Municipality comprised of mostly rural in-land communities, but also some smaller waterfront communities along Dalrymple Lake, and the Trent-Severn Waterway. So, designing a purely rural ward that achieves relative population parity would require one “too big” ward that included the entire north- south length of Ramara. Clearly, this would not be conducive to “effective representation.” The options that we present reflect this population distribution reality.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 12 Draft Final Report
Page 20 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Addressing the Population Shortfalls in Wards 4 and 5 At present, Ramara’s two southern wards (4 and 5) have a low population share relative to the northern wards. They need to gain up to ~2,200 residents to achieve full population parity with the northern wards of the Township. In the current configuration, ward 5 is surrounded by ward 4. Other than through increase in population, which is not forecasted due to zoning limitations, it can only grow at the expense of ward 4 which already has a low share of the population. Considered as a block, wards 4 and 5 are surrounded by water on the west and municipal boundaries to the south and east. Given their location, to make progress on this lack of parity, any new ward design would need to move the northern boundary of wards 4 and/or 5 further north. Lagoon City is a community built around a network of canals with a population of just under 2,500 residents. Lagoon City is almost entirely represented by ward 5. A small portion is in ward 4. Ward 5 is over-represented on council with only 14% of the current population, resulting in a variance from the average of -27%. Bayshore Village is currently in ward 2. It is the first significant population block to the north of wards 4 and 5, with a population of just over 1,200 people, including those along the shoreline to the south. Given the proximity and population size of Bayshore Village to both Lagoon City and Brechin, and how sparsely populated the eastern side of the Township is, it is reasonable to assume either ward 4 or ward 5 will need to include Bayshore Village. From community consultation, we learned that these two communities have very distinct expectations. Each was strongly identified as a community of interest that should not be divided. The images below illustrate the two options for moving Bayshore into ward 4 (left) or ward 5 (right) that were discussed in public consultations.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 13 Draft Final Report
Page 21 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
During the first round of consultations, we heard divided stakeholder and public input on whether Bayshore and Lagoon City should be included in the same ward. Those in favour point out that Lagoon City and Bayshore are both connected to municipal water and sewer, both shoreline communities, and both share many of the same concerns related to many issues including bylaw enforcement, and short-term rentals. Those opposed note that the two communities are separated by an impassable provincially significant wetland, meaning that they are not as close in travel time as they appear to be, as the crow flies. They also note that both these communities generate large amounts of case work for their respective councillors. From a population parity perspective, combining the populations of Bayshore Village and Lagoon City would locate over 25% of the Township’s population in one ward, +27% greater than the average and more than the current wards 4 and 5 combined. In our view, there is not a justification related to the goals of effective representation that would make it desirable to combine Bayshore Village and Lagoon City at this time. Given the volume of comment about combining those communities, we modelled it in Option 6. However, we do not recommend it. In the remaining 5 options: • Ward 4’s population is increased by extending its northern boundary to Concession Rd. 7 to include Bayshore Village. • Ward 5’s population is increase by extending its southern boundary south to Concession Rd. 1. This extension of ward 5 was made to ensure the entire Lagoon City community was in the same ward, and to include additional shoreline properties with that would be more aligned with the new ward than other surrounding properties, to achieve population parity.
Defining Ward 3 Boundaries Around Atherley Due to the Atherley’s relatively high population density, its central location, and proximity to key growth areas in the Township, ward 3 presents the most options for ward alignments. We have presented five different options for its boundaries (below) that account for several factors described on the next page.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 14 Draft Final Report
Page 22 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Projected Growth around Atherley and the Rama Road Corridor As described in the previous section on key growth areas in the Township, the areas southeast of Atherley and Uptergrove will receive most of the the Township’s growth between 2020 and 2025, and the Rama Road Corridor is forecast to experience the greatest growth over the period of 2025 to 2030. The need to accommodate this growth is both a challenge and opportunity in designing the ward around Atherley and the Rama Road Corridor. Orientation of Atherley’s Surrounding Communities One factor under consideration is how communities that surround Atherley are oriented with respect to their communication and servicing patterns. Many stakeholders identified that the communities to the east and south including Orkney Beach, Uptergrove, and Joyland Beach were far more oriented toward Atherley and Orillia, than to Brechin in the south. Those communities north of Atherley along the Rama Road Corridor seem to orient to both the north with other communities along Lake Couchiching, and to the south, accessing services primarily in Atherley or Orillia. This flexibility presents several acceptable options for configuring the communities along Rama Road. Boundaries Along the Rama Road Corridor Rama Road runs between Atherley and Washago along Lake Couchiching. The stretch of road between Highway 12 and Territory of the Chippewas of Rama First Nations is known as the Rama Road corridor. Currently the corridor is divided just south of Casinorama between wards 2 and 3 along Mara Rama Boundary Rd. – a vestige of the pre-amalgamation divisions. North of Casinorama, ward 2 abruptly ends just south of Longford Mills at the boundary for ward 1 (see image right). These boundaries were identified during the first round of consultations as arbitrary and difficult to understand even for residents who lived in the area. One of the priorities established for the new ward designs was to ensure these boundaries were logical and easy to understand by using more identifiable boundaries including the Casino, Monck Rd., or to have only 2 wards cover the entire Lake Couchiching shoreline to reduce the number of boundaries along the corridor entirely.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 15 Draft Final Report
Page 23 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Achieving Unified Representation for Lake St. John The residents along Lake St. John were identified as a community of interest that is currently divided between wards 1 and 2. With its own resident association and ~1,000 residents, it was identified as an area that would receive more effective representation if it were unified in one ward. All the Draft Options are designed to achieve this goal. We presented Options that included the Lake St. John area with Washago in ward 1 (top row), or with the Rama Road Corridor (bottom row) in ward 2 or 3.
Generally, stakeholders confirmed that the Lake St. John area would be better served in some version of a northern ward 1, as they tended to relate more to Washago then other communities on the southern shore of Lake Couchiching.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 16 Draft Final Report
Page 24 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Part 3: Description and Analysis of Ward Boundary Options What follows are the ward boundary options that we presented to the public for their consideration. For each, we have presented the following: • A map, showing the boundaries. • A chart showing the population for 2020, 2025 and 2030, as well as variance from the average. • A chart showing public and stakeholder feedback and comments on each option. • Results of the input from the community survey.1 • StrategyCorp’s evaluation of each Option having regard to the scorecard which reflects our terms of reference, and the “Effective Representation” test, as elaborated by the Supreme Court of Canada, and decisions of Ontario Tribunals in the context of ward boundary reviews.
1 As noted above, due to small sample size and self-selection by participants in the survey, the survey results should NOT be taken as a statistically relevant quantitative report on public opinion. Rather, it is a qualitative assessment of those who were kind enough to participate. (and we think them for it!!)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 17 Draft Final Report
Page 25 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 1
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 18 Draft Final Report
Page 26 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 1 Option 1 - Summary of Participant Feedback2 Favourable “Ward 2 currently is mostly rural. The lakefront people's votes could easily be swamped by the rest of the ward. Proposal 1 resolves this.” “As a ward 1 resident, the boundaries of ward 1 in option 1 nicely end in logical spots. This option allows Ward 1 to represent all lakeshore cottagers and shoreline residential, as they have the same concerns.” “This makes the most sense of keeping neighbourhoods (and their specific respective interests) together, and respecting socio-economic and geographical boundaries, whilst keeping the numbers pretty fair.” “This segregates the lakeshore from the interior, managing the potential for cottager votes to be washed out by permanent residents.” Not Favourable “Not fair representation by 2030.” “Ward 2 way too big geographically.” “Shoreline communities in Wards 2 and 4 are isolated from similar communities. Balancing the population of each Ward is not the most important part of effective representation.” “Ward 2 is too big and ward 1 too small geographically.” Improvement Ideas “Move Bayshore down to Ward 5. Bayshore has more similarities with Lagoon City than Ward 4.” “Reduction of Ward 2 to exclude shoreline properties and population.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 1 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure 15
10
5
Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
2 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 19 Draft Final Report
Page 27 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 1 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively ▪ This option provided excellent parity in the near term, with under/over in equal population totals. However, the low single digits. a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity is maintained through 2025, with no ward deviating more consider current and anticipated than 5% from the average and only 7% between the smallest and largest population increases/decreases so ward populations. that ward sizes will be balanced ▪ By 2030, focused growth in Atherley and along the Rama Rd. corridor for up to three terms of Council. results in larger but still acceptable variances between wards of up to 21% between the smallest and largest ward populations. ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +57% variance from the average because this alignment of ward 3 focuses all the forecast growth in the Rama/Atherley corridor in one ward. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods ▪ In this design, ward 2 is very large. The result is that it includes several into wards that reflect current rural neighbourhoods that in their transportation and service transportation and consumption patterns orient in very different directions, with those in the communication patterns. north orienting to Washago, those in the south orienting to Brechin, and the eastern areas orienting to Atherley or Orillia. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls topographical features to which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the north of the delineate ward boundaries while wetland by the councillor from ward 2. keeping wards compact and easy ▪ With the size of ward 2, the drive from the northeast end at Cooper’s Falls to understand. to Joyland Beach in the southwest would take around 40 minutes. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward ▪ Ward 2 represents primarily rural communities and farmland, grouping boundaries should be drawn similar communities of interest including Udney, Rathburn, Sebright, and around recognized settlement Coopers Falls together. areas, traditional neighbourhoods, ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among two wards and the and community groupings – not waterfront among all five wards. through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, hamlets, and villages. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 20 Draft Final Report
Page 28 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 1 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. Options 1-5 all have a similar treatment of wards 4 and 5. The benefits of combining Bayshore Village with ward 4 to promote population parity outweigh the risks associated with the workload of the resulting ward, and these issues can be addressed in other ways, through corporate casework management improvements. While some have expressed the view that Bayshore does not have any commonality of interest with the rest of ward 4, this appear to be overstated, particularly in comparison with its current alignment with ward 2. A downside is that results in an alignment for ward 2 that is geographically too large to deliver effective representation. This also has the result that there are only 2 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). Risk Management: It also focuses the Rama/Atherley corridor in one ward, ward 3, making the model vulnerable to population inequality should actual growth exceed the low growth forecast. For this reason, it is an acceptable option, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 21 Draft Final Report
Page 29 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 2
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 22 Draft Final Report
Page 30 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 2 Option 2 - Summary of Participant Feedback3 Favourable ▪ “In option 2, Bayshore Village is linked with Brechin and some waterfront communities further south. I think it's OK.” ▪ “Option 2 makes the most sense. It keeps the Rama Road community all together. Ward 3 is good. Ward one covers the north and central rural Ramara well and wards 4 and 5 are done well.” ▪ “My biggest concern is to ensure we can be as equal as possible, option 2 seems to maintain that over time.” Not Favourable ▪ “Ward 4 is completely cut off from similar communities. They would not receive effective representation based on this model.” ▪ “Ward 2 still too large.” ▪ “I don't see how ward 2 aligns with natural or human features or any relationship”? ▪ “This option is bound to force the councillor to not be able to adequately represent the entire ward, as the interests of the rural crowd vs shoreline are not the same.” ▪ “Not fair representation by 2030.” ▪ “This option makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” Improvement Ideas ▪ “I live on Monck road and I’m unsure why a section between Monck road and Hwy 169 is included in ward 1? This seems odd and cuts half our neighbours into a new ward?” ▪ “Ward 1 ward 2 are divided by the lake around Rama. Use it.
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 2 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of of Number Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
3 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 23 Draft Final Report
Page 31 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 2 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively ▪ This option provides excellent parity in the near term, with under/over in equal population totals. However, the low single digits. a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ By 2025, variances increase, but remain within acceptable ranges, with consider current and anticipated ward 3 ward deviating +13% from the average and 19% between the population increases/decreases so smallest and largest populations. that ward sizes will be balanced ▪ Between 2025 and 2030, population parity remains relative stable. for up to three terms of Council. ▪ Risk Management Note: As with option 1, in the medium growth scenario, ward 2 would reach +37% variance from the average because this alignment of ward 2 focuses all the forecast growth in the Rama Corridor in one ward. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods ▪ In this option, Atherley is grouped with shoreline communities to the into wards that reflect current south, which many stakeholders identified as being more reflective of transportation and common transportations and communications patterns. communication patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls topographical features to which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the south of the delineate ward boundaries while wetland by the councillor from ward 1. keeping wards compact and easy ▪ This option clearly divides representation along Ramara’s two major to understand. lakeshores of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe ▪ This option uses highway 12 as a boundary between wards 2 and 3 which was identified in the first round of consultations as an appropriately identifiable landmark but was more recently identified as potentially increasing alienation of northern wards who often feel underrepresented. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward ▪ Boundaries may divide some rural neighbourhoods or hamlets around boundaries should be drawn Rathburn in the centre of the Township. around recognized settlement ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a areas, traditional neighbourhoods, weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point and community groupings – not of view. through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in three wards. ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards and the waterfront among all five wards.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 24 Draft Final Report
Page 32 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 2 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 2. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. Risk Management: It focuses the Rama corridor growth in one ward, ward 2, making the model vulnerable to population inequality should actual growth exceed the low growth forecast. We think it is a positive that this option provides substantial rural representation in three wards, unlike other options that only provide two wards with substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). The problem with option 2 is that it makes more sense for Lake St. John to be in Ward 1 and it is more oriented to the north of Ramara Township. For these reasons, this is an acceptable option on the mathematics of population parity, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 25 Draft Final Report
Page 33 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 3
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 26 Draft Final Report
Page 34 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 3 Option 3 - Summary of Participant Feedback4 Favourable ▪ “Having Bayshore and Brechin in the same ward is okay.” ▪ “Better.” ▪ “I like this one the best.” Not Favourable ▪ “I do not see this as an improvement over the current boundary. Shoreline communities are cut off from similar communities. This does not give effective representation to Ward 2 and Ward 4.” ▪ “This is way too much on ward 1 councillor's plate in option 3. Considering the problems that exist in north Ramara (i.e., internet), this is too big a problem to be spread out that far, and somebody would get the short end of the stick.” ▪ “Lakefront residents will have difficulty having their voices heard.” ▪ “Wildly unfair representation both in 2020 and 2030.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Bayshore population more aligned with Ward 5 or Ward 3 than Ward 4.” ▪ “Why not move Ward 5 to take in the corner on Concession 7 to take some of the pressure off ward 4?”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 3 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
4 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 27 Draft Final Report
Page 35 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 3 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provided acceptable, but sub-optimal parity in the near population totals. However, a degree term, with under/over of up to 37%, which is less effective than of variation is acceptable given other options. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity improves through 2025, with the deviation between consider current and anticipated the smallest and largest ward populations decreasing to 34%. population increases/decreases so ▪ By 2030, the deviation further narrows to 26%. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, all wards to three terms of Council. would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ In this design, all wards are relatively compact in their geography, wards that reflect current minimizing the practical impacts of transportation and service transportation and communication consumption issues. patterns. ▪ In this Option, Lake St. John is grouped with other northern communities that share an orientation towards Washago in the north. ▪ In this option, Atherley is grouped with shoreline communities to the south, which many stakeholders identified as being more reflective of common transportation and communications patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ Generally, this option uses clear geographic features as the basis of features to delineate ward boundaries boundaries, including Hwy 12, the Rama First Nations Territory, while keeping wards compact and Concession Rd. 7, and the large wetland south of Cooper’s Falls easy to understand. resulting in clear, easy to understand boundaries. ▪ This option clearly divides representation along Ramara’s two major lakeshores of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. ▪ This option uses highway 12 as a boundary between wards 2 and 3 which was identified in the first round of consultations as an appropriately identifiable landmark but was more recently identified as potentially increasing alienation of northern wards who often feel underrepresented. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in three wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 28 Draft Final Report
Page 36 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 3 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves acceptable population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. It starts out with worse performance on parity, but unlike some other options, its performance improves with growth. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario and performs well in the mid-growth scenario. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (3). It provides substantial rural representation in three wards, unlike other options that only provide for two wards with rural representation, The main problem with option 3 is current population distribution. In our stakeholder interviews, we found some tolerance for ward 1 starting off at a higher base relative to the other wards, as it is not slated for any significant growth over time. It may promote the durability of the ward structure to allow ward 1 to start. For these reasons, this is one of our two preferred options, but not our recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 29 Draft Final Report
Page 37 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 4
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 30 Draft Final Report
Page 38 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 4 Option 4 - Summary of Participant Feedback5 Favourable ▪ “Better than current.” ▪ “This is the fairest representation both in 2020 and 2030.” ▪ “Having Bayshore linked with Brechin is fine.” Not Favourable ▪ “Ward 4 and Ward 2 shoreline communities are cut off from similar communities. They would not get effective representation.” ▪ “This does have Wards 1,2, & 4 all stuck with a portion of waterfront properties and developments. These populations are not the rural community. Ramara is more than her shores.” ▪ “Ward 1 is too big of an area for a councillor to be traipsing around. Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Personally, I like Atherley being separate from the Rama Road Corridor. It does not really impact my travel and is not really part of my immediate community. We associate more with Joyland Beach and Val Harbour.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 4 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
5 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 31 Draft Final Report
Page 39 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 4 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provides excellent parity in the near term, with population totals. However, a degree under/over in the low single digits. of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity is still excellent through 2025, with the deviation consider current and anticipated between the smallest and largest ward populations only at 12%. population increases/decreases so ▪ By 2030, the deviation further grows to only 14%. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 2 to three terms of Council. would reach +42% variance from the average because of more concentrated growth south of Atherley and Uptergrove then in ward 3. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ Lake St. John and Atherley are combined in single ward, though they wards that reflect current are service consumption patterns orient in very different directions, transportation and communication with Lake St. John orienting north to Washago, those in Atherley patterns. orienting to Orillia to the west or Brechin to the south. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option does not respect the significant wetland south of Coopers features to delineate ward boundaries Falls which makes it less convenient to service the residents to the while keeping wards compact and north of the wetland by the councillor from ward 2. easy to understand. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in two wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 32 Draft Final Report
Page 40 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 4 Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves excellent population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 2. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (2) and Lake Simcoe (4). Risk Management: While this alignment delivers excellent parity on the low growth scenarios, ward 2’s alignment makes it vulnerable in the medium growth scenario because of growth south of Atherley. The problem with option 2 is that it makes more sense for Lake St. John to be in Ward 1 and it is more oriented to the north of Ramara Township. For these reasons, it is an acceptable option, but not our preferred recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 33 Draft Final Report
Page 41 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 5
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 34 Draft Final Report
Page 42 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 5 Option 5 - Summary of Participant Feedback6 Favourable ▪ “This is the fairest option.” Not Favourable ▪ “I don't think Rama Road Corridor should be lumped in with Atherley. They are also different lakes. Plus, in this example the Rama Road Corridor is cut in half which doesn't make sense to me.” ▪ “Makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” ▪ “Wildly unfair representation.” ▪ “Shoreline communities that share common needs are cut off from each other. It is not just about balancing the numbers.” ▪ “Doesn't make sense to extend Ward 3 to the East.” ▪ “This is still too much for the ward 1 councillor to carry. To have ward 1 be all the way in the most northeastern corner, no thank you.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Ward 3 has more community relationships along the southern shores.” ▪ “I Could see that if you were to move ward 1 boundary about 2km east of 169, maybe that would work.”
Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 5 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure
15
10
5 Number of Respondents 0 Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
6 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 35 Draft Final Report
Page 43 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 5 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal ▪ This option provided acceptable, but sub-optimal parity in the near population totals. However, a degree term, with under/over of up to 26%, which is less effective than other of variation is acceptable given options. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity remains stable through 2025 with the largest gap being consider current and anticipated 26% but becomes more balanced with the largest variance from the population increases/decreases so average at 13%, down from 15% in 2020. that ward sizes will be balanced for up ▪ By 2030, the largest deviation between wards narrows to 22%. to three terms of Council. ▪ Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +31% due to projected growth along the Rama/Atherley corridor being more concentrated in ward 3 than ward 2. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into ▪ In this Option, Lake St. John is grouped with other northern wards that reflect current communities that share an orientation towards Washago in the north. transportation and communication patterns. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option most closely resembles the existing ward boundaries. features to delineate ward boundaries ▪ This option respects the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls while keeping wards compact and which makes a convenient boundary between wards 1 and 2. easy to understand. ▪ This option uses several side roads and property lines as boundaries that may be less identifiable. 5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in three wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards. ▪ It includes Bayshore in ward 4. This is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by different stakeholders from a quality of representation point of view.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 36 Draft Final Report
Page 44 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Option 5A – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 23% +15% 22% +10% Ward 2 18% -11% 18% -11% Ward 3 19% -7% 22% +8% Ward 4 20% -1% 19% -6% Ward 5 21% +4% 20% -1% Original Option 5 Population Distribution Ward 4 21% +5% 20% 0% Ward 5 20% -2% 19% -7% Option 5A is minor variant to Option 5 suggested in the stakeholder discussion. It is intended to balance out the population distribution between wards 4 and 5, by extending the ward 5 boundary further south along the shoreline from Concession Rd. 1 to Concession Rd A. This move ~200 residents from ward 4 to ward 5. As you can see from the chart above 5A provides marginally better outcomes than Option 5.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 37 Draft Final Report
Page 45 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 5 and 5A Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option achieves acceptable population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. • The minor variant, 5A, which we recommend, achieves slightly better outcomes, and reduces the size of ward 4 relative to ward 5 slightly. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1, which is in our view the better way to achieve this outcome. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment maximizes the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (3) and Lake Simcoe (4). Risk Management: While this alignment delivers acceptable parity on the low growth scenarios, In the medium growth scenario, ward 3 would reach +31% due to projected growth along the Rama/Atherley corridor being more concentrated in ward 3 than ward 2. For these reasons, Option 5 as amended by 5A is our preferred Option.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 38 Draft Final Report
Page 46 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 6
*Projections for the medium-growth scenario for this option is available in Appendix C.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 39 Draft Final Report
Page 47 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback – Option 6 Option 6 - Summary of Participant Feedback7 Favourable ▪ “This option best congregates similar communities based on interests and features.” ▪ “Combining Bayshore Village, Glenrest Beach, Southview Beach, Sandy Cove and Lagoon City in one Ward would achieve effective representation in Ward 5. This is the only option that delivers this! I think the effective representation it delivers outweighs that population imbalance.” Not Favourable ▪ “The needs to Joyland beach are not the same as Brechin. This option is my least favourite. It’s too jumbled and broken.” ▪ “Makes it harder for Lakefront residents to have voices heard.” ▪ “Bayshore is linked with Lagoon City in this option; we do share many issues, but we'd both be under-represented and probably outvoted by communities with other interests.” ▪ “This is the most unfair representation by population.” ▪ “Bayshore and lagoon should not be in same ward.” ▪ “The portion of 4 above 5 seems disconnected and they aren't heading to Brechin. There services are Atherley and Orillia.” ▪ “Ward 5 is too big in this one, and it is not a natural collaboration, to have Lagoon City and Bayshore together. That said, at least they all have internet and water/sewer, so they have similar issues. Ward 1 is also too big.” ▪ “Not understanding why ward 4 needs to be chopped.” ▪ “The councillor workload for Ward 5 will be too high; by adding it, it would be too much and could make it too heavy a burden.” Improvement Opportunities ▪ “Ward 2 could take up some and 3 could take up the shoreline communities.” ▪ “Lagoon City has more in common with the Southern shoreline communities.” Residents were asked whether they were satisfied with how Option 4 met the five established criteria for achieving “effective representation.” Their responses are presented below.
20 Yes No Not Sure 15
10
5
0 Number of Respondents Current Population Future Population Georgraphy Communities of Communication Interest Patterns
7 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 40 Draft Final Report
Page 48 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Ward Boundary Evaluation – Option 6 Meets Test of Effective Representation? YES / NO 1. Consideration of Representation by Population Wards should have relatively equal This option does fall within the Supreme Court’s guidelines for population population totals. However, a degree parity, with ward five reaching a +27% variance from the average of variation is acceptable given resulting in an over/under spread of 49%. differences in geography and population densities as well as the township’s characteristics. 2. Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends Population and Electoral Trends: ▪ Relative parity falls into acceptable ranges through 2025, with the consider current and anticipated deviation between the smallest and largest ward populations population increases/decreases so decreasing to 46%, with no wards deviating from the average by that ward sizes will be balanced for up more than 23%. to three terms of Council. ▪ By 2030, this deviation further narrows to 41%, but is still sub- optimal compared to other options. Risk Management Note: In the medium growth scenario, all wards would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. 3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Group existing neighbourhoods into This option groups Joyland Beach with several southern communities in wards that reflect current ward 4 though they are service consumption patterns orient in different transportation and communication directions. While southern communities orient around Brechin and patterns. Gamebridge, Joyland Beach orients toward Atherley to the northwest. 4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Use geographical and topographical ▪ This option respects the significant wetland south of Coopers Falls features to delineate ward boundaries which makes a convenient boundary between wards 1 and 2. while keeping wards compact and easy to understand. ▪ This option does not respect a provincially significant wetland north of Lagoon city that geographically separates Lagoon City from other communities to the north.
5. Community or Diversity of Interests: As far as possible, ward boundaries ▪ Boundaries do not arbitrarily divide existing neighbourhoods, should be drawn around recognized hamlets, and villages. settlement areas, traditional ▪ The option divides Ramara’s rural communities among three wards neighbourhoods, and community and the waterfront among all five wards. groupings – not through them. ▪ Lake Couchiching is represented in three wards, and Lake Simcoe is represented in four wards.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 41 Draft Final Report
Page 49 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft 6A – Alternative Boundary Configuration: Not Recommended Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 23% +15% 22% +10% Ward 2 13% -37% 13% -35% Ward 3 22% +12% 25% +26% Ward 4 17% -17% 16% -21% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This adapted configuration of Option 6 was developed to respond to stakeholder input as a potential way to limit the amount of new shoreline and geographic size added on the northern end of Ward 4, by adding the Joyland Beach area to Ward 3 and making up the necessary population in ward 4 by pushing up the northern boundary of the ward along the eastern border of the Township instead. This option does not achieve sufficient population gains for ward 4 to achieve parity goals. Based on the inability to deliver population parity, this is not recommended.
Draft 6B – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 16% -19% 15% -24% Ward 2 20% -2% 20% -1% Ward 3 22% +12% 25% +26% Ward 4 17% -17% 16% -21% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This adapted configuration of Option 6 makes further amendments to Draft 6A to correct for some of the issue’s reduction in the population of ward 2 caused by increasing ward 4 at the expense of ward 2. As a result, ward 1 is reduced to increase the size of ward 2 by moving the Lake St. John area into ward 2 from ward 1. This version is not recommended as it also fails to achieve parity and has desirable characteristics, such as allocating Lake St. John to Ward 2.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 42 Draft Final Report
Page 50 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft 6C – Alternative Boundary Configuration Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 16% -19% 15% -24% Ward 2 20% -2% 20% -1% Ward 3 19% -7% 22% +8% Ward 4 20% 0% 19% -5% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20% This variation aims to address some of the more confusing boundary lines in the original Option 6 by including all of Lake Dalrymple in Ward 4, and adjusts the boundaries of Wards 1, 2, and 3 to accommodate and more evenly distribute the lower population in those wards. This variation is still based on a Ward 5 that includes both Lagoon city and Bayshore Village, and a Ward 4 that includes waterfront both north and south of Lagoon City.
Based on the inability to deliver population parity, this is not recommended.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 43 Draft Final Report
Page 51 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
SCI Observations – Option 6 and Proposed Variations Without repeating each of the factors set out above, in general: • This option fails to achieve the target outcomes for population parity based on current numbers and the low growth forecast. It would begin with a population variance of 49% between highest and lowest. Other variants considered do not significantly improve this performance. • It achieves unified representation for Lake St. John, in a revised ward 1, which is in our view the better way to achieve this outcome. • It addresses population growth issues in wards 2 and 3 under the low growth scenario, subject to the risk management considerations set out below. • It addresses the population shortfalls in wards 4 and 5. This alignment delivers 3 wards with a substantial rural representation. This alignment does not maximize the number of wards with a direct interest in each of Lake Couchiching (3) and Lake Simcoe (3). Risk Management: In the medium growth scenario, all wards would be within the acceptable maximum range for variance from average, with none exceeding 24%. See appendix C. The main difference between options 1-5 and 6 is the method of addressing the population parity challenges of wards 4 and 5. • The approach taken in option 6 is to merge Lagoon City and Bayshore Village in a new Ward 5, and to expand the boundary of ward 4 north along the eastern border of the Municipality. • The approach taken in options 1 to 5 is to expand ward 5 to the south, and ward 4 north to concession y across from Lake Simcoe to the eastern border of Ramara, including Bayshore Village in Ward 4. In our view, the approach taken in options 1-5 delivers better results than Option 6 and its sub-variants 6A, 6B, and 6C, that we modelled to see if we could make Option 6 work. We think there is good reason to be cautious about combining the communities of Lagoon City and Bayshore Village into one ward. This could reduce the effectiveness of their representation both within the resulting combined ward, and at the Council table, where they would only then have one directly interested councillor, instead of two. The realities of Ramara geography dictate that the boundary of ward 4 needs to move north, and we think Bayshore Village will achieve effective representation in a new urban-rural ward 4, much as it is currently represented in the current urban rural ward 2. Similarly, we think that the resulting ward 4 will continue to give effective representation for residents outside of Bayshore Village. For these reasons, we do not recommend this Option.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 44 Draft Final Report
Page 52 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Public Feedback Overview of All Draft Options Respondents were asked to select their preferred option among those presented, as well as identifying all the options they would be satisfied with overall. Prefered Option Satisfactory Option 12 10 8 6 4 2
Number of Respondents 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6
*6 respondents indicated they would not be satisfied with any of the presented options.
Overall, the preferred option was Option 5, followed by Option 1, and Option 6. However, the option that respondents most frequently reported being satisfied with were Options 3 and 6, followed by Options 1 and 5.
Respondent's Current Ward Ward 5, Ward 1, 3 respondents 6 respondents The figure (left) shows the current ward of the Ward 4, respondents who responded to the Public Survey. The 1 respondents majority of respondents came from ward 2, with very few Ward 2, responses from wards 3 and 4. Ward 3, 15 respondents 8 respondents
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 45 Draft Final Report
Page 53 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Summary of Participant Feedback8 On the presented options ▪ “I like that options 5 & 6 keep the rural communities in ward 2.” ▪ “In every option shoreline communities are cut off from similar properties." ▪ “Make the Lake St. John area into Ward 1.” ▪ “I think slightly below Monk road should be the dividing line between the wards.” General comments ▪ “Make the population equal between all wards even if a ward splits a street in half. Make it fair.” ▪ “Have you considered designing the wards around the existing infrastructure?” ▪ “Go back and do your homework and make things fair and equal. Otherwise, you have one less voting family here.” On shoreline and rural representation ▪ “Ramara is strung out along the lake: the reason many of us are here is the lake; it is really important that each ward councillor has a stake in the health of the lake and the watersheds; prefer everyone to have a share.” ▪ “As a shoreline resident, I would not want a rural councillor, and I would also think that a rural resident would not want a shoreline councillor.” ▪ “There is underlying resentment between the rural and shoreline communities. It is evident to anyone in Ramara that this is a "high/low" township, in that there are two distinct socio-economic groups, and these can generally be divided as shoreline vs rural. ▪ “If you mix the shoreline and rurals under one representation, there will be someone getting the short end of the stick, and the councillor will suffer gross job dissatisfaction based on always feeling like somebody hates him.” ▪ “Ward 1 should represent all lakeshore cottagers and shoreline residential, as they have the same concerns. There is enough for one councillor to ensure the needs of these residents are met, without having to also be familiar with rural issues.” ▪ “I do believe that going back to the well, with a view in mind of grouping together shoreline communities with other shoreline communities. Hopefully, you would eventually come up with a better solution for all of the shoreline residents that would not have so many individual shoreline areas clumped in with totally dissimilar communities!”
8 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 46 Draft Final Report
Page 54 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Summary of Stakeholder Feedback9 Ward 1 ▪ “Option 1 eliminates all rural representation from ward 1, which should be avoided.” ▪ “It makes a lot of sense to add the entire Lake St. John area into ward 1.” ▪ “Having a larger population in ward 1 is reasonable given the area will not see much growth in the future.” Ward 2 ▪ “If ward 2 remains mostly rural, it makes sense that its population might be smaller to ensure they are adequately represented on Council.” ▪ “Option 1 just makes ward 2 too big.” ▪ “Ward 2 should have some representation on both Lake Simcoe and Lake Simcoe.” Ward 3 ▪ “Options that use Highway 12 as the northern boundary for ward 3 may reinforce old pre- amalgamation divisions.” ▪ “Ward 3 should include representation on both sides of Highway 12 and both Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe.” ▪ “Making ward 3 a purely waterfront ward, by extending up the Rama Corridor or to Lake St. John will not result in balanced representation.” Ward 4 ▪ “Bayshore Village represents a high amount of case work, adding it to Ward 4 would make the workload for that Ward unmanageable, and detract from areas like Brechin which also generate a lot of casework.” ▪ “Bayshore would appear to be manageable as part of ward 4, it would also more equitably distribute case work from community organizations and resident associations amongst Council.” ▪ “Adding Bayshore Village to Ward 4 results in a nice balance of rural and “urban” residents.” ▪ “Ward 4 is already a large ward geographically; it shouldn’t grow much larger than it currently is.” ▪ “There may be unintended consequences to only having fewer councillors with constituents on municipal sewer.” Ward 5 ▪ “Extending Ward 5 south makes the most sense, it balances the population and representation between Lagoon City and other waterfront properties.” ▪ “Ward 5 is already the craziest when it comes to casework, adding Bayshore would require a full- time Councillor.” ▪ “Extending ward 5 north will not make sense for equally distributing population.” ▪ “Ward 5 could be extended even further south than presented in options 1-5 to balance out wards 4 and 5 more.”
9 We have edited some comments for clarity and brevity.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 47 Draft Final Report
Page 55 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Part 4: Recommendations
Achieving “Effective Representation” The following recommendations are based on our application of Council’s Terms of Reference (see Appendix E) to all of the inputs that we have received from this process as described above. We make these recommendations in an attempt to give effect to the principles of “effective representations” which guide this process and influenced the Terms of Reference.
Choosing Among Options 1-6 Options one to five would all be satisfactory to meet the population parity requirements of the Terms of Reference. Ruling out Option 6: Option 6 would not meet the Terms of Reference regarding population parity in the near term, although its fit would improve over time. The plus 27% of ward 5 in Option 6 would not absolutely disqualify Option 6, but variances in parity of greater than 25% should only be accepted if the lack of parity is the necessary consequence to achieving some otherwise missing and unattainable aspect of effective representation. In our view, the population parity differences in Option 6 are not necessary to promote effective representation and might make representation worse. The main difference between options 1-5 and 6 is the method of addressing the population parity challenges of wards 4 and 5. • The approach taken in options 6 is to merge Lagoon City and Bayshore Village in a new Ward 5, and to expand the boundary of ward 4 north along the eastern border of the Municipality. • The approach taken in options 1 to 5 is to expand ward 5 to the south, and ward 4 north to concession y across from Lake Simcoe to the eastern border of Ramara, including Bayshore Village in Ward 4. In our view, the approach taken in options 1-5 delivers better results than Option 6 and its sub-variants 6A, 6B, and 6C, that we modelled to see if we could make Option 6 work. We think there is good reason to be cautious about combining the communities of Lagoon City and Bayshore Village into one ward. This could reduce the effectiveness of their representation both within the resulting combined ward, and at the Council table, where they would only then have one directly interested councillor, instead of two. The realities of Ramara geography dictate that the boundary of ward 4 needs to move north, and we think Bayshore Village will achieve effective representation in a new urban-rural ward 4, much as it is currently represented in the current urban rural ward 2. Similarly, we think that the resulting ward 4 will continue to give effective representation for residents outside of Bayshore Village. We are mindful that some expressed the view that the resulting ward 4 (combining in Bayshore) would result in an excessive volume of casework. We are of this view that there are potential solutions to this problem in corporate approaches to case management that can address this issue for all wards, without it needed to be a barrier to ward boundary design.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 48 Draft Final Report
Page 56 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Choosing Among Options 1-5 While each of options 1-5 would be acceptable on the mathematics of parity alone, we do not believe they are all equally desirable from a perspective of Effective Representation. Ruling out options 2 and 4: In our consultations, we heard many times that it was a desirable outcome of this process to unify the Lake St. John area in one ward. Options 1-5 all achieve this goal. Options 1, 3 and 5 would allocate he area to ward 1 and Options 2 and 4 would allocate it to ward 2. Based on the input we heard from the consultations, and on the overall principles of effective representation, we believe the alignment with ward 1 is more appropriate, and we think this is sufficient advantage on which to rule out options 2 and 4. We reach this conclusion, while acknowledging that both wards 2 and 4 have excellent outcomes in terms of parity compared to other options. We recognize this but note, as many courts and tribunals have concluded, that ward boundary design is not a purely mathematical exercise. The question is not which one delivers the greatest mathematical parity, it is which model delivers the best outcomes in effective representation while meeting the requirements of mathematical parity. Ruling Out Option 1: We heard in our consultations that the flaw in Option 1 is that it results in boundaries for ward 2 that are unreasonably large. This would likely lead to challenges in workload for the local councillor that could undermine the overall effectiveness of representation in the ward. Option 1 also fails to respect the existence a large provincially significant wetland which was the basis for the current ward 1 boundary. The new configuration would leave residents on the north side of the wetland isolated from the remainder of the ward, undermining its ability to provide effective representation. Options 3 and 5 achieve better outcomes without causing similar disruption.
Considering Options 3 and 5: There are reasons to prefer both options 3 and 5. • Both are acceptable from the perspective of relative parity of ward population. • Both unify Lake St John in Ward 1 • Both avoid creating unacceptably large wards. • Both deliver three wards that will have a vested interest in the affairs of the rural community. This compares favourably with Option 1, that would only have had two rural wards. One strong feature of option 3 is the transparent and “orderly” structure of its boundaries, which are based on readily recognizable features, making them easy to understand and communicate to the public. Of note is the difference between the regular shape of wards 2 and 4 in option 3, versus the puzzle-piece shapes of wards 2 and 4 in option 5. While the visual alignments of wards 2 and 4 may be preferable in Option 3, the wards shapes in Option 5 do delivers important functionality by increasing the number of wards with a direct interest in the shoreline. Unlike option 3, option 5 maximizes the number of wards that will have a direct interest in Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe. See table below.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 49 Draft Final Report
Page 57 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Maximizes wards with an interest Option 3 Option 5 in shoreline: 2 Councillors 3 Councillors Lake Couchiching (wards 1,2) (wards 1,2,3) 3 Councillors 4 Councillors Lake Simcoe (wards 3,4,5) (wards 2,3,4,5)
To be fair, some commentators who saw the narrow corridors of wards 2 and 4 touching Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe viewed this as a weakness, that risked “cutting up” the accountability of representation along the shoreline into too many wards, and too many councillors. On the other side, we heard “we should all have a stake in protecting the shoreline.” That view saw option 5 as being the best at delivering effective representation for waterfront interests. We would be sympathetic to the concerns of blurring accountability if we were drawing municipal boundaries and dividing up a shoreline among different governance structures. That is not at stake here. In this case, the issue is drawing wards within one municipality, and one governance structure, where all decision-making is the role of the entire Council, and not of any one local councillor. We agree with those who think that it is a positive move to draw wards to maximize attachment to shoreline issues. We think this is certainly favourable to (already dismissed) option 4, which would have created a narrow shoreline ward along Lake Couchiching, potentially setting up unhelpful “we-they” dynamics between wards with more seasonal and wards with more permanent residents. Option 5a was a minor tweak proposed during the consultations. It would extend the boundary of ward 5 slightly to the south to achieve better population parity goals, as set out on pages 38-39. Conclusion: On this basis, having regard to all the factors in the terms of reference, and in particular the overall principles of effective representation, we: • acknowledge that all of options 1-5 could be suitable or preferred by some, but • we favour options 3 and 5, and of the two, • we recommend option 5, as amended by 5A, as being the best fit for the next ten years of Ramara’s growth.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 50 Draft Final Report
Page 58 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Appendix A: Projected Population Growth (Interim Report Excerpt) Under the Terms of Reference, this Review is intended to accommodate projected growth through the 2022, 2026, and 2030 municipal elections. For consistency with the Township’s planning framework, 2030 was chosen as the population growth horizon. StrategyCorp worked with Ramara’s staff to estimate current and future population growth as well as anticipate where that growth is expected to occur.10 There are two complications in projecting growth of the purpose for designing wards: • There is a significant variance between the past actual growth and the projected possible growth for Ramara. For example, Simcoe County has Ramara projected to reach a permanent population of 13,000 by 2031, representing an average year-over-year growth rate of 2.5% from 9,488 in 2016.11 This would be a very large increase from StatsCan’s reported year-over-year growth of 0.46% between 2011-2016.12 • Most of the projected growth is almost entirely focused along the Rama Road corridor, primarily within the boundaries of current ward 3 and to a lesser extent ward 2. A list of forecasted development projects and a map indicating where they are anticipated to occur are on the following pages. Many of these projects have been in the planning stage for some time and are contingent on provincial land use approvals which have yet to be granted.
Known Development Projects 2020-2025 # of New Additional Est. "Move. Development Ward Units Population in Date" Ramara Lakefront Resorts 1 24 55 2022 7199 Rama Rd (Rosy Beach Crt) 6119 Concession Rd B-C (Sebright) 2 3 7 2022 6029 Concession Rd. B-C (Sebright) 2 10 23 2023 4185 Concession Rd 11 3 5 12 2021 3894 Concession Rd 10 3 5 12 2021 4672 McNeil Street (Atherley) 3 2 5 2023 7 Balsam Road (Atherley) 3 4 9 2025 Lakepoint Village 3 150 345 2025 3986 Concession Rd 10 Rama Resorts 3 12 28 2025 Christopher Cres. Concession Rd. 12 Total 215 495
10 For the purposes of a ward boundary review, we do not express any opinion on whether proposed growth will happen or should happen. We take it in to account only for the purpose of forecasting the effect that growth would have on the distribution of population among wards relevant to the Effective Representation test. 11 Simcoe County 2018 Economic Development Data Report. https://www.ramara.ca/en/business-and- development/resources/Documents/Ramara-Economic-Development-Data-Report-2018.pdf 12 StatsCan (2016) Census data
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 51 Draft Final Report
Page 59 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Distribution of projected growth 2020-2025 These development applications and proposals provide us with accurate and specific population growth projections to the year 2025, ahead of the 2026 elections.
The chart (below) describes how these developments would impact the current ward populations. The map (right) illustrates the concentration of potential development activity.
Year 2020 2025 Ward Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,882 19% 2,937 19% Ward 2 3,365 22% 3,395 22% Ward 3 3,710 24% 4,119 27% Ward 4 2,583 17% 2,583 17% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% TOTAL 14,686 15,180
Anticipated Development Projects 2025-2030 # of New Additional Est. "Move Development Ward Units Population in Date" Waterpark/Resort 2 742 1707 2030 South of Casino Rama on Rama Rd. corridor Harbour Village at the Narrows 3 500 1,150 2030 West of Rama Rd. S. of Fern Rd. Senior Living Development 3 322 741 2030 Rama Rd, between Fawn Bay and Fern Resort Concession 11/ON-125699 Highway 12 3 150 345 2030 180 Courtland St. 3 300 690 2030 Veltri Subdivision 4 95 219 2030 2123 Concession Road 4 (Brechin) Total 2,109 4,851
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 52 Draft Final Report
Page 60 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Distribution of projected growth 2025-2030 Potential Growth in the 2025-2030 period would have a major effect on the relative population of the wards. Planned projects would deliver an unprecedented increase in the pace of population growth in Ramara. Planned developments for the 2025-2030 period, if realized, would have a significant impact on Township. There is a high degree of uncertainty to these growth forecasts. In addition to the usual uncertainty that comes from the economy, many of the proposed 2025-2030 development projects rely on yet to be confirmed provincial and municipal land use approvals, and the availability of servicing. Growth will be unevenly distributed. As illustrated in this map, if the growth happens, 95% of it will happen in Wards 2 and 3. The contingent nature of forecast growth, and its materiality to ward boundary design has prompted us to develop three possible growth scenarios to assess the range of possible effects on ward boundary design: 1. Low-Growth: This assumes 2.3% growth based on historical population growth between 2011-2016 but is distributed using the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. 2. Mid-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur but to only 50% the anticipated capacity. This would represent a 20% population growth from 2025 projections, with the same distribution as the high-growth scenario. 3. High-Growth: This assumes all the above developments occur, resulting in 32% growth from 2025 projections. The distribution of this growth is 60% in ward 3; 35% in ward 2; and 5% in ward 4.
Low growth (at 2.3%) Mid-Growth (at 20%) High-Growth (at 32%) 2030 Population Share Population Share Population Share Ward 1 2,937 19% 2,937 17% 2,937 15% Ward 2 3,518 23% 4,248 27% 5,101 25% Ward 3 4,330 28% 5,582 36% 7,045 35% Ward 4 2,599 17% 2,692 17% 2,801 14% Ward 5 2,146 14% 2,146 14% 2,146 11% Total 15,529 17,605 20,031
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 53 Draft Final Report
Page 61 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Appendix B: Other Draft Boundary Options
Draft A This option is designed to keep the rural and shoreline communities as isolated as possible. It results in a very large rural ward the spans the entire eastern side of the Township. It also presents issues in creating population parity among wards while respecting existing communities of interests.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 19% -4% 19% -6% Ward 2 20% +1% 19% -3% Ward 3 20% -2% 23% +16% Ward 4 14% -30% 13% -34% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 54 Draft Final Report
Page 62 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft B
This option was designed to keep Joyland Beach, Val Harbour, and Bayshore Village together, a priority identified during the second round of public consultations.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 19% -3% 19% -6% Ward 2 13% -33% 13% -36% Ward 3 20% -2% 23% +16% Ward 4 22% +10% 21% +5% Ward 5 25% +27% 24% +20%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 55 Draft Final Report
Page 63 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft C This option was designed to examine alternate configurations for Bayshore Village that place it outside of ward 4 or 5. This option also examines how far north the boundary for ward 4 would need to move up the eastern border of the Township to reach a relatively even population.
Year 2020 2030 Share of Variance Share of Variance Ward Pop. from Avg. Pop. from Avg. Ward 1 20% -1% 19% -5% Ward 2 25% +24% 26% +29% Ward 3 20% -2% 21% +6% Ward 4 16% -19% 15% -23% Ward 5 20% -2% 19% -7%
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 56 Draft Final Report
Page 64 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Appendix C: Projected Mid-Growth 2030 Population Projections The following tables show the 2030 projects for each Draft Boundary Options under the medium-growth scenario presented in the Interim Report. These figures were deemed by Council to be less likely than the low-growth scenario, but they have been included to illustrate how the presented options might withstand more growth then is anticipated.
Draft Boundary Option 1 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,850 -3% 2,905 -18% Ward 2 3,054 +4% 3,085 -12% Ward 3 2,822 -4% 5,536 +57% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 2 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,921 -1% 2,952 -16% Ward 2 2,758 -6% 4,823 +37% Ward 3 3,048 +4% 3,764 +7% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 57 Draft Final Report
Page 65 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 3 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,407 -3% Ward 2 2,302 -22% 4,367 +24% Ward 3 3,048 +4% 3,764 +7% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 4 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 2,921 -1% 2,952 -16% Ward 2 2,933 0% 4,998 +42% Ward 3 2,873 -2% 3,589 +2% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 58 Draft Final Report
Page 66 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Draft Boundary Option 5 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,432 -3% Ward 2 2,615 -11% 3,498 -1% Ward 3 2,735 -7% 4,608 +31% Ward 4 3,082 +5% 3,191 -9% Ward 5 2,877 -2% 2,877 -18% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Draft Boundary Option 6 2020 Variance 2030 Variance Ward Population from Avg Population from Avg Ward 1 3,376 +15% 3,432 -3% Ward 2 2,298 -22% 3,193 -9% Ward 3 2,491 -15% 4,352 +24% Ward 4 2,799 -5% 2,908 -17% Ward 5 3,721 +27% 3,721 +6% TOTAL 14,686 17,608 (Average) (2,937) (3,522)
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 59 Draft Final Report
Page 67 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Appendix D: Guiding Principles of this Review
This Ward Boundary Review is led by Guiding Principles which are informed by: • Statutory Authority • Council’s Terms of Reference • The Principles of “effective Representation” as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada and other Ontario Tribunals Statutory Authority The Municipal Act gives councils discretion to set the ward configuration, including the number of wards, the number of Councillors to be elected in each ward and the boundaries of the wards (Municipal Act, 2001, s. 222 (1)). Council’s Terms of Reference As set out in the Terms of Reference, the overarching purpose of the Review is to conduct a review of the Township’s ward boundaries. The full terms of reference can be found in Appendix X. The Principle of Effective Representation The principle of effective representation was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (Carter),13 the leading authority for evaluating electoral systems in Canada. The issue in Carter was whether a difference in population between provincial ridings in Saskatchewan infringed the right to vote protected by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). In Carter, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of the right to vote enshrined in the Charter is not “equality of voting power” but the right to “effective representation.” Effective representative is the right to be “represented in government,” where “representation” entails both the right to a voice in the deliberations of government (the legislative role of elected representatives) and the right to bring your concerns to your representative (the ombudsman role of elected representatives). Effective representation begins with voter parity, the idea that all votes should have equal weight and, as a result, the number of people living in each ward should be similar. According to the Supreme Court: A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to and assistance from his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation. While parity is of “prime importance,” the Supreme Court held that it is “not the only factor to be considered in ensuring effective representation:” Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a
13 Carter is available online here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/766/index.do.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 60 Draft Final Report
Page 68 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without considering countervailing factors. The Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be considered, including geography (natural and manmade), community history, community interests (such as urban and rural), minority representation and population growth. These factors allow the population of wards to vary to some extent. It is generally accepted, that wards should not vary in population by more than 25% from the average, unless there is a good reason to depart from this having regard to overall effective representation. When defining effective representation as the right protected by the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the relative parity of voting power was a prime, but not an exclusive, condition of effective representation. One thing is clear though. While maintaining relative parity is important, both now and in the future, it is not the only factor. As one Ontario Tribunal put it, “ward design is not just a purely mathematical exercise.” Departure from mathematical parity should be avoided and minimized but may be justified where the other factors set out above combine to justify the departure to achieve overall effective representation. In other words, effective representation is a balance. The Supreme Court rejected the “one person – one vote” approach in favour of a more nuanced approach that balances voter parity with a number of other factors to ensure “legislative assembles effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.” The principle of effective representation has been interpreted and applied in a long line of Ontario Municipal Board cases dealing specifically with ward boundary and council structure issues.14
14 See, for example, Teno v. Lakeshore (Town), (2005), 51 O.M.B.R. 473 and Osgoode Rural Communities Association et al. v. Ottawa (City) [2003] Decision/Order 0605.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 61 Draft Final Report
Page 69 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Appendix E: Terms of Reference OBJECTIVE To conduct a comprehensive review of the Township of Ramara’s ward boundaries and make recommendations as to options that would achieve an effective system of fair representation for residents. CONTEXT
Pursuant to section 222 of the Municipal Act, a municipal council has the authority to divide or re- divide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards. GUIDING PRINCIPLES The review will have regard to the following guiding criteria, subject to the overriding principle of “effective representation” as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries and elaborated by successive OMB/LPAT decisions: ▪ Representation by Population: wards should have relatively equal population totals. However, a degree of variation is acceptable given differences in geography and population densities as well as the town’s characteristics. ▪ Population and Electoral Trends: consider current and anticipated population increases/decreases so that ward sizes will be balanced for up to three terms of Council. ▪ Means of Communication and Accessibility: group existing neighbourhoods into wards that reflect current transportation and communication patterns. ▪ Geographic and Topographical Features: use geographical and topographical features to delineate ward boundaries while keeping wards compact and easy to understand; and, ▪ Community or Diversity of Interests: as far as possible, ward boundaries should be drawn around recognized settlement areas, traditional neighbourhoods, and community groupings – not through them. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Having regard to the Municipal Act and the Guiding Principles, the review of the ward boundaries will consider: 1. Acceptability of the status quo. 2. Options for reconfiguration of ward boundaries. TIMING CONSIDERATIONS For the Ward Boundary Review to be completed and take effect for the 2022 Municipal Election, the By-law to amend the City’s Wards must be adopted and in full force and effect by December 31, 2021. Under the Municipal Act, there is a 45-day appeal period once the By-law is adopted by Council. ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES Council • Approve terms of reference. • Monitor public consultation, provide input on options. • Decision maker on final recommendations
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 62 Draft Final Report
Page 70 of 103 Agenda Item #4.3.
Consultant • In consultation with the Clerk, develop a communication plan to inform the public of the ward boundary review. • Review all pertinent background information made available by the Town. • Review OMB cases, best practices, and other relevant resources • Consult with Council, Ramara staff, school boards and any other significant stakeholders. • Organize public consultation in a manner consistent with the Township’s current COVID 19 protocols in collaboration with the Clerk. • Prepare appropriate public consultation materials, which shall include a description of the process, the current ward boundary structure and provide an opportunity for the public to give ask questions, receive answers, and give input for inclusion into the review. • Receive and review comments and submissions from stakeholders and the public. • Develop a report detailing options and present to Council for consideration.
CAO, Clerk & Township Staff • Work in collaboration with consultant, to assist in scheduling necessary consultations with Council and the public, in a manner consistent with norms of the Township. • Provide information regarding current population and projected population forecasts. • Promote the ward boundary review using normal Township communications channels. • Maintain a webpage on the review. • Draft all required staff reports to accompany the consultant’s recommendation.
Ramara Ward Boundary Review 63 Draft Final Report
Page 71 of 103 Agenda Item #4.4.
Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales and Housing et du Logement
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000
April 27, 2021
Dear Head of Council, As you may be aware, the Ontario government is consulting on how to strengthen accountability for municipal council members. We want to ensure that councillors and heads of council maintain a safe and respectful workplace and carry out their duties as elected officials ethically and responsibly. More information on the scope of consultations can be found at Ontario.ca. As part of this work, my colleague Jill Dunlop, Associate Minister for Children and Women’s Issues will be seeking input from members of council representing each of Ontario’s municipalities through one of two hour-long telephone townhall sessions with municipal representatives from Central Ontario’s municipalities on May 18, 2021 at 1:45 PM EDT. This session will provide participants with the opportunity to share their valuable feedback on: • what changes or mechanisms are needed to better hold council members accountable for municipal code of conduct violations; • how to effectively enforce these codes • whether a broader range of penalties for violations of the codes of conduct are needed; and • the circumstances in which these potential penalties could be applied. Please identify one member of your council to participate in the session. Once chosen, the one identified member of your council should register via Eventbrite by Thursday, May 6, 2021. The registered member will receive instructions about how to participate in the session prior to the meeting. We have also launched an online survey to seek input on ways to strengthen accountability mechanisms for municipal council members. I encourage members of council and municipal staff to provide their input on this important topic through the online survey: Consultation: Strengthening accountability for municipal council members | Ontario.ca. This online survey will be available until July 15, 2021. Please share this link with your municipal staff. I hope you will accept this invitation to participate in this session, as we look forward to hearing your feedback on how to strengthen accountability for municipal council members. Sincerely,
Page 72 of 103 Agenda Item #4.4.
Steve Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing c: Clerk and Chief Administrative Officers Jill Dunlop, Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues Kate Manson-Smith Deputy Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Marie-Lison Fougère, Deputy Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues
Page 73 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 1 of 22
Staff Report #AD-17-21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: John Pinsent, Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Official Plan work plan update
Suggested Motion THAT we receive Report AD17-01; AND THAT Council endorses the Official Plan work plan submitted by D.M. Wills; AND THAT Council endorses the priority areas of work for the Official Plan, and receives quarterly updates on the progress of the Official Plan; AND THAT the amount of $70K be earmarked for budget 2022 to complete the plan.
Background & Discussion Background
In 2019, the Township initiated its Official Plan (OP) review and made some progress to its completion until COVID-19 struck. This event, coupled with the decision to change planners, resulted in a delay in the planning process. The reality is the OP process had stalled. Given the Township has retained a new planning firm and much of the uncertainty of the pandemic has passed, it is appropriate to reengage staff and consultants in the completion of the OP.
Discussion
Council was briefed on 1 March 2021 on the high level approach staff would take to the completion of the OP. There was an endorsement to participate in the County lead Municipal Comprehensive Review and to work with the County to try and achieve Township objectives related to the Official Plan. If successful, the completion of the Township plan would be relatively simple related to an approved county plan. D.M Wills have made introductions to the County staff and have done their necessary review of our previous progress with our Official Plan. We have also asked D.M Wills to provide us with an estimate of work and an associated project plan to take us from project initiation (post Council approval) to the completion of our Official Plan in 2022. The proposed plan, with a schedule as an annex, is attached for Council’s review. Although not specifically laid out in this report, the estimated cost for the work is $140K. There is $70K allocated for the OP work this year, and additional 70k allocated (at the high-end) for FY 2022. This is a high end estimate as there are components of the plan that can be completed by staff (specifically GIS and community engagement). Although the estimated cost may seem high, it is comparable with another rural municipality undertaking the same work, and because of the MCR process. As previously presented, staff will work with our planners to complete the Official Plan. It would be our intent to use some of the consultation processes to dig deeper into strategic issues facing the municipality, evaluate land use matters, evaluate the business opportunities related to land and
Page 74 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 2 of 22 Official Plan work plan update potential uses and potentially expand on some of the issues raised during the Ward Boundary review. In essence, the bulk of this work would complement our work in developing a community based Strategic Plan. In preparation for the Official plan review, and to ensure alignment with council, staff is presenting the following priorities as it relates to the development of the OP: • A policy revision of the Economic Employment District (Rama Road Corridor). The intent would be to seek more flexibility in the approval of development in that area. The Township is not looking to radically change the intended uses, but to alter sequencing and loosen the mandatory relationships with destination commercial development; • A review of Settlement areas. An area such as Udney may no longer qualify as a Settlement area; • Mapping and designation reviews of: o Natural Heritage and Greenspace o Prime Agriculture; and o The Canadian Shield and uses This is an important exercise to be undertaken by staff, guided by council and assisted by planning consultants. It is expected that there will be discussions around developable land, management of growth with emphasis on active and passive recreation, the protection of the environment and collaboration with neighboring communities. The successful completion of the OP, coupled with the recent completion of the Ward Boundary Review, consultations on our service delivery review will all inform the strategic direction of the municipality.
Conclusion Setting a strategic vision and articulating priorities for Ramara is an important exercise which staff are prepared and equipped to take on.
Alternatives THAT Council does not endorse the Official Plan work plan submitted by D.M. Wills
Financial Information The estimated cost for the work is $140K. There is $70K allocated for the OP work this year, and additional 70k allocated (at the high end) for FY 2022. Staff have asked to budget 70K for 2022.
Strategic Priority Areas:
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☑ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☐ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained
Page 75 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 3 of 22 Official Plan work plan update
☑ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Policy Implications: At this time, there is no policy implications.
Recommended Action: THAT we receive Report AD-17-01; AND THAT Council endorses the Official Plan work plan submitted by D.M. Wills; AND THAT Council endorses the priority areas of work for the Official Plan, and receives quarterly updates on the progress of the Official Plan; AND THAT the amount of $70K be earmarked for budget 2022 to complete the plan.
Attachments: 84001_Revised Work Plan - Revised - accessible
Reviewed By Approved By: Department: Status: John Pinsent, Chief Executive Services Approved - 29 Administrative Officer Department Apr 2021
Page 76 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 4 of 22
April 27, 2021
Township of Ramara 2297 Highway 12, P.O. Box 130 Brechin, Ontario L0K 1B0 Attention: John Pinsent, CAO
Dear Mr. Pinsent:
Re: Official Plan Update Township of Ramara Revised Work Plan D.M. Wills Associates Project No. 21-84001
1.0 Introduction D.M. Wills Associates Limited (Wills) is pleased to submit the below revised work plan as it pertains to the Official Plan Update (Project) for the Township of Ramara (Township). In accordance with recent discussions with Township Staff, it is anticipated that the work plan will proceed in the following phases: • Phase 1: Background Review and County MCR Participation • Phase 2: Policy Conformity Updates to Township Official Plan • Phase 3: Preparation of Updated Township Official Plan • Phase 4: Preparation of Updated Rama Road Secondary Plan The detailed description of each of these work plan phases is provided below. The work plan is to be read in conjunction with the originally submitted Proposal for Municipal Planning Consulting Services (Proposal), prepared by Wills and dated December 2, 2020; and more specifically should be read as a replacement to Section 7 and subsection 8.2 of such Proposal. Appendix A and B to this revised work plan are provided as replacements to Appendix C and D of the original Proposal. At the direction of Township Staff, this work plan outlines the anticipated scope of work involved in review and update of the Rama Road Secondary Plan. However, it is noted that the scope of work to update the Rama Road Secondary Plan is subject to Township endorsement, and may be subject to change as this work item is approached. Dependent on the scope of work requested, additional studies may be required to support the Rama Road Secondary Plan update.
Page 77 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 5 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 2 of 16 April 27, 2021
2.0 Work Plan Based on the communication with Township Staff, we have prepared the following revised scope of work to address the needs of the Township.
Phase 1: Background Review and County MCR Participation
2.1.1 Project Management, Correspondence and Communications Wills’ Project Manager will organize and coordinate meetings, project milestones, and deliverables as part of the Project undertaking. The Department Manager will be the main point of contact throughout the Project duration to ensure consistent and timely responses to Project items as well as to document and monitor consultation feedback. As part of the Project, progress updates on Phase 1 will be provided via email to the Township. During Phase 1, Wills’ Project Team will also engage with Township Staff and relevant agencies (i.e. Strategy Corp.) to provide feedback and comment on the Strategic Plan update process. Wills’ Department Manager will attend additional meetings as required to participate in the Strategic Plan update.
2.1.2 Background Review At the onset of the Project, all background information will be requested from Township Staff regarding the specific policy related issues and needs identified within the Township. Wills’ Project Team will review all background information to further understand the status of existing planning items and analyze the work completed on both the Township Official Plan and County Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) to date. The background review will include all applicable Township and County planning documents, specifically focused on the following: • Township Official Plan • Township Strategic Plan • Draft Updated Township Official Plan • Staff Reports regarding Draft Updated Township Official Plan • Public Consultation records for Draft Updated Township Official Plan • County Official Plan • Staff Reports regarding County MCR • Staff Reports from surrounding municipalities (i.e. Orillia) regarding land needs • Staff Reports from surrounding municipalities pertinent to Township development plans (i.e. Rama Road development)
Page 78 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 6 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 3 of 16 April 27, 2021
The background review will serve to identify the needs of the Township required to be considered during the County MCR process, as well as identifying existing gaps in the Township’s Official Plan from both a Township vision and legislative (i.e. Planning Act) perspective. A list of outstanding policy requirements and additional studies, as may be necessary to support the Township vision and future development goals, will be developed from the background review and identified as recommendations in a background report. The background report will also identify opportunities arising from recent provincial policy modifications (i.e. 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 Consolidation).
The background review will also include review of historical building permits and development applications to inform a scoped lands need assessment. The scoped land needs assessment will be critical to the proper representation of the Township in the County MCR and in forming the policies for the updated Township Official Plan. The land needs assessment will inform intensification opportunities and challenges, and employment area conversion requests required to be provided to the County for the MCR process. Should the Township prefer to undertake a more detailed and comprehensive land needs study; such study would be outside the scope of this work plan. However, proposals for a more comprehensive land needs study can be provided at the request of the Township.
A background report will be prepared highlighting key findings of the background review and land needs assessment. Wills’ Project Team will present the background report to Council.
2.1.3 County of Simcoe MCR Participation Wills’ Project Team will participate in the County MCR process, in conjunction with Township Staff. The Wills’ Project Team will keep apprised of the status of the County MCR process and actively participate with the Township. The Wills’ Project Team will work with Township Staff to provide any and all information required to assist the County and the County’s consultant, Hemson Consulting Ltd. (Hemson), in the MCR process. As outlined in the Memo from Hemson, this may include, but is not limited to: • Confirmation of density and intensification targets; • Constraints to development; • Local priorities for growth; • Employment area delineation and conversion requests; • Employment studies and data;
Page 79 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 7 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 4 of 16 April 27, 2021
• Prime agricultural areas and refinement requests; • Natural heritage system and refinement requests; • Watershed management information; • Climate change studies and data; • Servicing capacity information and plans; • Settlement areas and proposed expansions; • Supporting GIS information; Prior to providing any information to the County and Hemson, the Wills’ Project Team will work with Township Staff to prepare reports to Council outlining the proposed directions and seek Council direction. As the technical studies and various milestones for the MCR are completed, the Wills’ Project Team will review and assess the technical studies with Township Staff. Wills’ Project Team will assist in preparing reports to Township Council to provide an assessment on each technical study and MCR milestone. The reports to Council will include a summary of the technical study / milestone, and suggested comments to be provided to the County and Hemson. In reviewing and commenting on the technical studies for the MCR, the Project Team will ensure the Township’s interests are represented, including specific considerations for Brechin-Lagoon City and Rama Road development potential. Wills’ Department Manager will attend all MCR presentations made by the County and/or Hemson, as are deemed pertinent to the Township. A debrief of the presentations with Township Staff will occur following each presentation via either email or video-conference.
Phase 2: Policy Conformity Updates to Township Official Plan The comprehensive update to the Township’s Official Plan, as described in Section 2.3, will need to be informed by, and consistent with the County MCR. Therefore, the comprehensive update to the Township’s Official Plan will be suspended until such time as the County MCR has been completed. Notwithstanding, it is recognized that there are certain planning issues that may be outstanding in the Township’s current governing documents that should be addressed in the immediate future. These planning issues may include the following: • On-farm diversified uses (OFDUs); • Additional residential units (ARUs) as required by the Planning Act; • Housekeeping (i.e. mapping / formatting); • Consolidation of official plan amendments;
Page 80 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 8 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 5 of 16 April 27, 2021
• Source water protection; • Other topics as identified during the background review, as outlined in Section 2.1.2. The Wills’ Project Team proposes to proceed with an interim policy conformity exercise prior to the preparation of an updated Official Plan for the Township. The policy conformity update process will consist of the items described in Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.5. It is anticipated that components of Phase 2 will run in tandem with the background review of Phase 1 of the Project.
2.2.1 Project Management, Correspondence and Communications Project management, as described in Section 2.1.1, will continue through Phase 2 of the Project, inclusive of organizing and coordinating meetings, correspondence with Township and County Staff and documenting consultation feedback. During Phase 2, Wills’ Project Team will also engage directly with County Staff as required to provide the required materials for final approval of the proposed official plan amendment.
2.2.2 Background Report and Draft OPA Based on the background review, including review of existing local and provincial planning policy, Wills’ Project Team will prepare a draft official plan amendment (OPA) to address to identified issues, including revisions to the Official Plan schedules, as necessary. In addition to addressing changes arising from updated provincial planning policy, and the opportunities arising from such, the draft OPA will be prepared based on discussions with Township Staff, a review of policies and provisions employed in similar and surrounding municipalities and the Wills’ Project Team experiences. Wills’ Project Team will prepare a summary report in conjunction with the draft OPA. The summary report will identify and explain each policy revision proposed in the draft OPA, and review the rationale for the proposed policy revision. The summary report and draft OPA will be presented by the Wills’ Project Team to Council for information and comment in conjunction with Township Staff, with use of a PowerPoint presentation. The draft OPA and summary report, as well as the presentation slides, will be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates also being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
2.2.3 Public Open House Wills’ Project Team will coordinate with Township Staff to conduct public consultation on the proposed OPA. A public open house will be held to collect public feedback on the proposed OPA. It is anticipated that the public open house will be held in a Township facility. However, if required
Page 81 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 9 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 6 of 16 April 27, 2021 given COVID-19 restrictions, the public open house may be modified to a virtual format. The public open house will also serve to collect general public feedback on planning and development in the Township, and if public opinions have remained constant or changed since the earlier public consultation efforts conducted in the OP update process. The open house will consist of a brief PowerPoint presentation to introduce the OPA and provisions policy revisions, following which discussion will be facilitated with those in attendance based on a series of prepared questions and materials. Notice of the open house will be provided on Reach Out Ramara and the Township’s social media platforms, as well as in a local newspaper. Notice will also be provided to prescribed ministries and agencies, including local First Nations groups. Presentation slides and prepared engagement materials from the open house will also be made available on Reach Out Ramara, for those unable to attend.
2.2.4 Statutory Public Meeting, Update Report and Second Draft OPA Following the open house, any necessary revisions to the OPA will be conducted, as informed by the public feedback received. An update report will be prepared in conjunction with the second draft of the OPA. The update report will outline the feedback received at the open house, and the revisions to the draft OPA made as a result of the feedback. The update report and second draft OPA will be presented by the Wills’ Project Team at a Statutory Public Meeting, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The purpose of the Statutory Public Meeting is present the second draft OPA and garner further public input, as well as comments of Council. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting will be provided on Reach Out Ramara and the Township’s social media platforms, as well as in a local newspaper. Notice will also be provided to prescribed ministries and agencies, including local First Nations groups. The update report and second draft OPA, as well as the presentation slides, will be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates also being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
2.2.5 Final Report and OPA Following the Statutory Public Meeting, Wills’ Project Team will incorporate any revisions deemed necessary based on the feedback received from the public, Council and relevant ministries and agencies. A final report to accompany the final OPA will be prepared, which will provide a summary of the background review and the public and stakeholder feedback received. The final report will highlight each policy revision proposed, and address the rationale for each. The final report and OPA will be presented by the Wills’ Project Team at a regular meeting of Council, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The final
Page 82 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 10 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 7 of 16 April 27, 2021 report and OPA, as well as the presentation slides, will be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates also being circulated on the Township’s social media channels. Following a decision by Council on the final OPA, Wills’ Project Team will work with Township Staff to prepare and circulate the notice of decision; together with preparing the required materials to be submitted to the County for adoption.
Preparation of Updated Township Official Plan Upon completion of the County MCR and associated updates to the County’s Official Plan, Wills’ will re-commence the Official Plan updates for the Township. Specific tasks for the Official Plan update are outlined below.
2.3.1 Project Management, Correspondence and Communications Project management, as described in Section 2.1.1, will continue through Phase 3 of the Project, inclusive of organizing and coordinating meetings, correspondence with Township and County Staff and documenting consultation feedback. During Phase 3, Wills’ Project Team will also engage directly with County Staff as required to provide the required materials for final approval of the proposed official plan amendment.
2.3.2 Policy Directions Report Wills’ Project Team will review and analyze the existing draft Official Plan for conformity with the updated County Official Plan and relevant provincial planning documents including the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. While the Official Plan will have been brought into greater conformity with prevailing planning policies during Phase 2 of the project, a review will be required to confirm the status of the existing Township Official Plan policies, specifically in the context of the new County Official Plan, and the following topics which are to be specifically reviewed in the MCR process: • Provincial Natural Heritage System Review and Refinement • Provincial Agricultural System Review and Refinement • Employment Strategy • Climate Change Strategy • Watershed Management Strategy • Growth Management The review will identify any policy conflicts within the Official Plan as a result of the County MCR that are required to be addressed in the Official Plan update. It is anticipated that the review will also address the following policy areas:
Page 83 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 11 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 8 of 16 April 27, 2021
• Aggregate Resources • Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Needs/Network • Intensification/Built Boundary • Industrial Lands Supply • Rural Severance Policy • Additional policies to be identified during review. A policy directions report will be prepared by the Wills’ Project Team and presented with use of PowerPoint to Council in conjunction with Township Staff. The report will outline the anticipated key policy areas, challenges and opportunities to be addressed during the Official Plan update. The review will run in tandem with the Phase 1 MCR Summary Report as described in Section 2.1.3. The policy directions report and Council presentation will be posted on Reach out Ramara with corresponding updates being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
2.3.3 Draft Updated Official Plan Following confirmation of the policy directions and review with Council, the Wills’ Project Team will proceed to prepare a red-lined version of the Official Plan to incorporate the required policy modifications. Revised Official Plan schedules will also be prepared. The red-lined draft Official Plan and revised schedules will be reviewed with Township Staff and presented in a report to Council for Council review and comment. A background report will be prepared in conjunction with the draft updated Official Plan. The background report will outline each of the proposed policy modifications in the draft updated Official Plan, and the purpose behind each. The red-lined draft updated Official Plan will be posted on Reach out Ramara with corresponding updates being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
2.3.4 Ministry, Agency and Stakeholder Consultation The red-lined draft Official Plan will be sent electronically to the relevant ministry, agency and stakeholders for review as identified in a contact list to be provided by the Township. The Department Manager will be the main point of contact for any comments and proposed revisions received. As part of the ministry, agency and stakeholder consultation, a specific meeting with local First Nations groups will be conducted to collect their feedback. Feedback collected will be considered in the overall Official Plan update, but will also specifically inform subsequent updates to the Rama Road Secondary Plan, as described in Section 2.4.
2.3.5 Public Open Houses Five (5) public open houses will be coordinated to review the red-lined draft Official Plan with members of the public, one in each Township ward. The
Page 84 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 12 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 9 of 16 April 27, 2021 open houses will be advertised on Reach Out Ramara and the Township website, through the Township’s social media channels (@RamaraOPUpdate), via email notification and through local newspaper postings. The open houses are to occur over three days, with sessions held in the morning, afternoon and evening.
The open houses will provide the public with an opportunity to discuss the policy changes and updates to the Official Plan. The open houses will guide attendees through the review process, highlighting the changes made to best reflect their Township as well as illustrate how the land use schedules were updated to be more user friendly. The Project Team will prepare the required display boards, sign-in and comment sheets and presentation materials for review and discussion. The open house will commence with a brief PowerPoint presentation, and transition into engaged discussion and activities. The open houses are to be held at accessible facilities with Wi-Fi capabilities in central locations within each ward of the Township, where available. If required given COVID-19 restrictions, the open houses can be modified to be held a virtual format. Notice of the open houses will be provided on Reach Out Ramara and the Township’s social media platforms, as well as in a local newspaper. Notice will also be provided to prescribed ministries and agencies, including local First Nations groups. The open house materials will also be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
2.3.6 Statutory Public Meeting, Update Report and Second Draft Updated Official Plan Following the open house, and upon compiling the feedback received from the ministries, agencies, stakeholders, community and Township Staff, a second draft updated Official Plan will be prepared. An update report will also be prepared in conjunction with the second draft of the updated Official Plan. The update report will outline the feedback received at the open house, and the revisions to the draft Official Plan made as a result of the feedback. The update report and second draft updated Official Plan will be presented by the Wills’ Project Team at a Statutory Public Meeting, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The purpose of the Statutory Public Meeting is present the second draft updated Official Plan and garner further public input, as well as comments of Council. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting will be provided on Reach Out Ramara and the Township’s social media platforms, as well as in a local newspaper. Notice will also be provided to prescribed ministries and agencies, including local First Nations groups. The update report and second draft updated Official Plan, as well as the presentation slides, will be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates also being circulated on the Township’s social media channels.
Page 85 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 13 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 10 of 16 April 27, 2021
2.3.7 Final Report and Updated Official Plan Following the Statutory Public Meeting, Wills’ Project Team will incorporate any revisions deemed necessary based on the feedback received from the public, Council and relevant ministries and agencies. The final updated Official Plan will be accompanied by a final report, which will provide a public consultation summary and highlight each of the updates to the Official Plan proposed, and the reasons and rationale for each. The final updated Official Plan will be brought forward for adoption at a regular Council meeting. In conjunction with Township Staff, the Wills’ Project Team will present the final updated Official Plan and final report utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The final documents and presentation slides will be made available on Reach Out Ramara, with updates also being circulated on the Township’s social media channels. Following a decision by Council on the final OPA, Wills’ Project Team will work with Township Staff to prepare and circulate the notice of decision; together with preparing the required materials to be submitted to the County for adoption.
Preparation of Updated Rama Road Secondary Plan The scope of work detailed below for the Rama Road Secondary Plan updates is provided as a high-level overview. Scope of the Secondary Plan updates will be subject to the direction of Council and will be impacted by various technical studies that may be required to support the Secondary Plan. Notwithstanding, the below scope of work has been provided as a reference at this time.
2.4.1 Project Management, Correspondence and Communications Project management, as described in Section 2.1.1, will continue through Phase 4 of the Project. Project management specific to the Secondary Plan update will include organizing and coordinating meetings with Township Staff and relevant commenting agencies and authorities; correspondence with Staff and project updates; and the documentation of consultation feedback. Project management for Phase 4 will also include the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee and a Steering Committee. In order to gather local knowledge and help to disseminate information, a Steering Committee will be formed. It is recommended that the Steering Committee be comprised of local councillors and community members who are interested in the Rama Road Secondary Plan. Throughout the preparation of the Secondary Plan, periodic meetings with the Steering Committee will occur. The information obtained and discussed within the Steering Committee will provide insight on the vision for Rama Road. The Steering Committee will also connect the Wills’ Project Team with interested property owners and developers whose insight may be valuable to the Secondary Plan
Page 86 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 14 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 11 of 16 April 27, 2021 process. Separate meetings will be held with the identified property owners and developers. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will also be formed, consisting of key Project members such as Township planning and engineering staff, representatives from the County, consultants for the technical studies and the Wills’ Project Team. The TAC will meet regularly throughout the Secondary Plan update process. As part of the Secondary Plan update process, project management will also include coordinating any additional updates to the Secondary Plan as requested by the County.
2.4.2 Background Report The Project Team will conduct a background review on the history and status of the existing Rama Road Secondary Plan, including existing challenges and opportunities with the plan. The background review will serve to help define the scope of the Secondary Plan update based on the needs of the Township. A background report will be prepared and presented to Council, in conjunction with Township Staff. The background report will highlight the challenges and opportunities of the plan, key considerations in determining the Secondary Plan update scope, and a list of recommended technical studies to support the Secondary plan update. The background report will be made available on Reach Out Ramara and shared via the Township’s social media channels.
2.4.3 Technical Studies As described above, in order to inform and support the Secondary Plan update process, it is anticipated that technical studies will be required. Technical studies may include, but are not limited to: • Transportation Assessment • Environmental Impact Study • Servicing including municipal and private options. It is assumed that the technical studies for the Secondary Plan will be subject to a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
2.4.4 Public and Stakeholder Consultation Extensive public consultation will be required as part of the Secondary Plan update process. It is assumed that public consultation will occur via similar mechanisms to those described above for the OPA and updated Official Plan. Suggested public consultation efforts for the Secondary Plan update process are described in brief below. 1. Public Open Houses – At the onset of the Secondary Plan update process, a public open house will be coordinated to inform the
Page 87 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 15 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 12 of 16 April 27, 2021
public of the process, and gather input from members of the community and relevant stakeholders on their thoughts, visions and concerns for the Rama Road Secondary Plan area. Upon preparation of the draft updated Secondary Plan, a second open house will be conducted. 2. Online Survey – An online survey will be established specific to the Secondary Plan update process. The survey will be publicly available, and will be advertised on Reach Out Ramara and the Township’s social media channels. The survey will serve to gather additional public input on the Secondary Plan update. 3. Interactive Map – The Project Team will create an online interactive map highlighting the Rama Road Secondary Plan area. The map will be created as an interactive platform, in which users can anonymously provide comments specific to a location in the Secondary Plan area. The map will augment the public open houses and online survey, and will help to establish the preferred land use concept for the Secondary Plan area. 4. Ministry, Agency and Stakeholder Consultation – Following Council review, the draft updated Secondary Plan will be sent electronically to the relevant ministry, agency and stakeholders for review as identified in a contact list to be provided by the Township. The Department Manager will be the main point of contact for any comments and proposed revisions received. 5. Statutory Public Meeting – Upon compiling the final feedback received from ministry, agency, stakeholder, community and Township Staff, the Project Team will present the final draft updated Secondary Plan at a Statutory Public Meeting.
2.4.5 Reports and Updated Secondary Plan Throughout the Secondary Plan update process, various background reports will be prepared to document public feedback received and detail the proposed updates to the Secondary Plan. The reports will accompany the draft and final copies of the updated Secondary Plan. While the scope of the Secondary Plan update process is subject to change, the below provides indication of the anticipated required reporting. 1. Public Consultation Review and Reporting – Following the public open houses, online survey and interactive map, the information provided through the various public consultation mechanisms will be analyzed to identify key themes and trends emerging from the public consultation. A summary of the results will be presented in a public consultation report.
Page 88 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 16 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 13 of 16 April 27, 2021
2. Draft Updated Secondary Plan – With consideration of the public comments received, an updated draft of the Rama Road Secondary Plan, will be prepared, to be implemented via an OPA. The draft will include updates to the preferred land use concept and associated schedules, and will incorporate policy updates that support the identified themes and vision for the Secondary Plan area. A corresponding report will be prepared to highlight the proposed policy updates. 3. Update Draft Secondary Plan – Upon compiling the final feedback received from ministry, agency, stakeholder, community and Township Staff, a final draft of the updated Secondary Plan and OPA will be prepared to be presented to Township Council and the Public at a Statutory Public Meeting. A corresponding report will be prepared to highlight the proposed policy updates. 4. Final Updated Secondary Plan and Council Adoptions – Following the Statutory Public Meeting, any final revisions to the Secondary Plan and OPA as may arise during the Statutory Public Meeting will be incorporated. A final copy of the updated Secondary Plan and a corresponding detailed report will be prepared.
3.0 Key Assumptions Based on a review of available information, we have generated the following assumptions as they pertain to each task in our proposed work plan. Administration • Email and telephone correspondence will be the main method of communication between the Project Team and Township Staff; • Any meetings outside of the stated scope of work will be considered additional work and will charged on a time and expense basis; • Electronic versions of meeting agendas and meeting minutes will be provided to Township Staff where required; • The proposed work program is subject to review. Any changes in scope will be reflected in a revised time task matrix; and • All Council presentations will be in person, unless otherwise dictated by COVID-19 restrictions, except for the presentation of the technical studies in Phase 1. Background Review and Transition • Red line versions of the Official Plan, Land Use Schedules and subsequent drafts will be made accessible; • All background materials, collected information and work completed to date will be made accessible to the Project Team in electronic format (.doc or .pdf);
Page 89 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 17 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 14 of 16 April 27, 2021
• A copy of all stakeholder engagement materials, including contact lists, will be made accessible; • All existing parcel fabric data in shapefile (.shp) or georeferenced AutoCAD (.dwg) format will be made accessible to the Project Team; • All available data will be spatially referenced and compatible with ArcGIS; • Any existing GIS data sharing agreement with the County is to be transferred to Wills in order to finalize the Official Plan Land Use Schedules; • Digital copies of the existing and updated draft Official Plan is available; and • The mapping produced from this exercise will be in PDF format. Public Consultation • The Township is responsible for booking facilities for open houses and, if applicable, providing refreshments at the open houses; • The Township has a Zoom account (or other software that permits virtual meetings); • Community engagement and advertising for public open houses can continue through “Reach Out Ramara”, and the twitter handle @RamaraOPUpdate; • The Township’s website can additionally host a page for the OP update; • The materials stored on the existing external webpage can be transferred to the allotted OP update page on the Township’s website; • The work plan provides for one (1) public open house during Phase 2 and five (5) public open houses (one in each ward) in Phase 3. Any additional public open houses (outside of the Statutory Public Meeting) will be considered additional work and will charged on a time and expense basis; • Township Staff will be available to attend the public open house; • All open houses will be in person. If required given COVID-19 restrictions, open houses can be moved to a virtual format; and • Wills will host any online survey and interactive map through Wills’ company accounts. Scope of Work • The comprehensive review of the new updated Official Plan for the Township will proceed following completion of the County MCR and subsequent approval and adoption of any implementing OPA(s); • The specific scope of the Rama Road Secondary Plan Update will be confirmed at a later date; • The Rama Road Secondary Plan Update will proceed following completion of the Official Plan update and subsequent approval and adoption. It is anticipated that two years will be required for the
Page 90 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 18 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 15 of 16 April 27, 2021
Secondary Plan update. Specific timelines for the Secondary Plan update will be confirmed at a later date; and • This Work Plan is intended to provide a high level review of the minimum requirements to undertake a comprehensive review of the Township’s Official Plan. Additional details on specific methods to implement the Work Plan may be required.
4.0 Corporate COVID-19 Response Wills is committed to the health and safety of our team, our clients and our community through our response to COVID-19. As such, Wills has implemented health and safety measures to address the ongoing hazard of COVID-19. Under the guidance of government and health officials, Wills shall continue to take all steps reasonable to combat the spread and mitigate the risk of COVID-19 – and all other health and safety hazards. We have put additional measures in place for both field and office works to ensure the safety of our team. Examples of the actions being taken by Wills in regard to COVID-19 include, implementing physical distancing practices including virtual meetings and the maintenance of at least 2 m distance, wherever possible. Measures include contactless deliveries and supplying appropriate PPE (gloves, masks) as and where appropriate based on work requirements and hazards. Wills continues to monitor the direction of health officials and modify our response as and where appropriate. Further details of the specific measures being taken by Wills can be provided upon request.
5.0 Project Schedule The Project Schedule is provided in Appendix A. The Project Schedule is largely contingent on the timelines of the County MCR, and therefore may be subject to change. Wills has no control over the timeline of government agencies and other parties and cannot assume any liability for delays that are beyond its control. Should Wills’ timeline and work activities be constrained by organizations, agencies, municipalities, contractors or conditions (e.g. access restrictions, weather, agency approvals, etc.) beyond the control of Wills, the Township be notified of the potential impact to the Project Schedule and will be provided with suggestions to mitigate such impacts. The schedule will be maintained and updated as required throughout the process. Specific dates for the Rama Road Secondary Plan update process can not as of yet be determined. However, we anticipate that the Secondary Plan update would be a two-year process, commencing after final approval of the updated Official Plan.
Page 91 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 19 of 22
Township of Ramara Page 16 of 16 April 27, 2021
6.0 Fee Schedule Wills understands that a fee schedule will be prepared subsequent to a project initiation meeting with the Township to clarify scope. The detailed fee schedule (time/task matrix) will be broken down by major task and will illustrate a maximum upset limit for each approved Phase.
7.0 Closing The contents within this proposal reflect our understanding of the Township’s requests and requirements as they pertain to the desired update of the Township’s Official Plan and Rama Road Secondary Plan. If additional information or clarification is required, we would be happy to meet with you to discuss.
Emma Drake, M.Sc. Diana Keay, MCIP, RPP Land Use Planner Manager, Planning Services ED/DK/hd
Page 92 of 103 Agenda Item #7.1.
Page 20 of 22
Appendix A
Project Schedule
Page 93 of 103 ID Task Name Start Finish 2021 Qtr 2 2021 Qtr 3 2021 Qtr 4 2022 Qtr 1 2022 Qtr 2 2022 Qtr 3 2022 Qtr 4 2023 Q tr 1 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 1 Phase 1 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 2 Project Management, Correspondence, Communications 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 3 Background Review 2021 May 05 2021 July 05 4 Background Review 2021 May 05 2021 June 23 5 Scoped Land Needs Assessment 2021 May 05 2021 June 23 6 Background Report 2021 May 05 2021 June 23 7 Council Presentation 2021 July 05 2021 July 05 8 County of Simcoe MCR Participation 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 9 Meetings with County Staff 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 10 Provision of Information to County 2021 May 05 2022 April 04 11 Review of Technical Studies and Couty OPA(s) 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 12 Technical Studies Reporting 2021 May 05 2022 July 29 13 MCR Summary Report 2022 January 03 2022 July 29 14 Council Presentation 2022 August 15 2022 August 15 15 Phase 2 2021 June 28 2021 November 01 16 Project Management, Correspondence, Communications 2021 June 28 2021 November 01 17 Background Report and Draft OPA 2021 June 28 2021 August 16 18 First Draft OPA 2021 June 28 2021 August 04 19 Background Report 2021 June 28 2021 August 04 20 Council Presentation 2021 August 16 2021 August 16 21 Public Open House 2021 August 17 2021 September 08 22 Materials Preparation 2021 August 17 2021 September 08 23 Open House Attendance 2021 September 02021 8 September 08 24 Statutory Public Meeting, Update Report and Second Draft OPA 2021 September 02021 8 October 04 25 Second Draft OPA 2021 September 02021 8 September 22 26 Update Report 2021 September 02021 8 September 22 27 Council Presentation + Statutory Public Meeting 2021 October 04 2021 October 04 28 Final Report and OPA 2021 October 04 2021 November 01 29 Final Draft OPA 2021 October 04 2021 October 20 30 Final Report and OPA 2021 October 04 2021 October 20 31 Council Presentation 2021 November 0 20211 November 01 32 Phase 3 2022 January 03 2022 December 05 33 Project Management, Correspondence, Communications 2022 January 03 2022 December 05 34 Policy Directions Report 2022 January 03 2022 August 15 35 Review 2022 January 03 2022 July 29 36 Policy Directions Report 2022 January 03 2022 July 29 37 Council Presentation 2022 August 15 2022 August 15 38 Draft Updated Official Plan 2022 January 03 2022 September 19 39 First Draft Updated Official Plan 2022 January 03 2022 September 07 40 Background Report 2022 January 03 2022 September 07 41 Council Presentation 2022 September 12022 9 September 19 42 Ministry, Agency and Stakeholder Consultation 2022 September 12022 2 November 14 43 Public Open Houses (5) 2022 September 22022 0 October 12 44 Materials Preparation 2022 September 22022 0 October 12
Project: 84001_Revised ScheduleV Page 21 of 22 Task Task Summary Phase Summary Council Meeting Open House Agenda Item #7.1. Date: 2021 April 26
Page 1 Page 94 of 103 ID Task Name Start Finish 2021 Qtr 2 2021 Qtr 3 2021 Qtr 4 2022 Qtr 1 2022 Qtr 2 2022 Qtr 3 2022 Qtr 4 2023 Q tr 1 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 45 Open House Attendance 2022 October 12 2022 October 12 46 Statutory Public Meeting, Update Report and Second Draft Official P2022 lan October 12 2022 November 14 47 Second Draft Updated Official Plan 2022 October 12 2022 November 02 48 Update Report 2022 October 12 2022 November 02 49 Council Presentation + Statutory Public Meeting 2022 November 1 20224 November 14 50 Final Report and Updated Official Plan 2021 November 12022 4 December 05 51 Final Draft Updated Official Plan 2022 November 1 20224 November 23 52 Final Report 2021 November 1 20224 November 23 53 Council Presentation 2022 December 0 52022 December 05
Project: 84001_Revised ScheduleV Page 22 of Task Task Summary Phase Summary Council Meeting Open House Agenda Item #7.1. Date: 2021 April 26
Page 2 Page 95 of 103 Agenda Item #8.1.
Page 1 of 3
Staff Report #AD-16-21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: John Pinsent, Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Police Services Board Composition
Suggested Motion
That Council accept Option 1 and that the funds be allocated in the next budget in the amount of $14,500.
Background & Discussion
The following are key points for consideration: • Every municipality is required, by law, to provide for adequate and effective policing. • The Orillia OPP Detachment is an integrated Detachment servicing the City Orillia, the Townships of Oro-Medonte, Ramara, and Severn, and provincial responsibilities. • On March 26, 2019, Ontario adopted the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 (Bill 68) and established the CSPA. • Once in-force, the CSPA will replace the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 15, as amended (PSA). • The Ministry is working towards the CSPA being proclaimed in early 2022. • There are approximately 50-70 matters for regulation that are being developed to bring the CSPA into force, including regulations related to the OPP and Board remuneration. • The intent of the OPP Detachment Board Framework is to provide municipalities receiving direct and/or supplemental services from the OPP with the flexibility to create a Board that reflects the community and local needs. • Under this framework, municipalities receiving direct and/or supplemental services from an OPP Detachment are being asked to submit one proposal (per Detachment) indicating the composition of their Board and, if needed, a rationale for multiple Boards and the composition of each additional Board. • After determining the composition of the Detachment Board(s), municipalities within a Detachment area may select one municipality to complete and submit the proposal. • Proposals must meet base requirements set by the Ministry, which include: o A minimum number of five members per Board; and • A requirement that each Board should be composed of 20% community representatives and 20% provincial appointees. • Municipalities are not required at this time to identify the names of the individuals that will be participating on the Detachment Board. Rather, municipalities are only asked to identify the number of seats each municipality will be allocated on the Detachment Board, as well as the number of community representatives and provincial appointments. The administrators (CAOs) from the 3 municipalities were consulted by the City of Orillia. In that consultation process there were two (2) options put forth in for the Board Composition. These options included:
Page 96 of 103 Agenda Item #8.1.
Page 2 of 3 Police Services Board Composition
Option 1
THAT one OPP Detachment Board comprised of 10 members be established within the Orillia OPP Detachment with representation from the City of Orillia as well as the Townships of Oro-Medonte, Ramara and Severn;
AND THAT the 10 member OPP Detachment Board include the following: • One elected representative from each municipality (being the head of the municipal Council or, if the head chooses not to be a member of the Board, another member of the Council appointed by resolution of the Council); • One community representative from each municipality (being one person appointed by resolution of the Council, who is neither a member of the Council nor an employee of the municipality); and • Two provincial representatives appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;
AND THAT the City of Orillia and the Townships of Oro-Medonte, Ramara and Severn be directed to determine the level of administrative support required for the OPP Detachment Board
Option 2
THAT one OPP Detachment Board comprised of 9 members be established within the Orillia OPP Detachment with proportionate representation from the City of Orillia and the Townships of Oro-Medonte, Ramara and Severn determined based on the cost of policing for each municipality;
AND THAT the 9 member OPP Detachment Board include the following: • One elected representative each from the City of Orillia and the Township of Oro-Medonte (being the head of the municipal Council or, if the head chooses not to be a member of the Board, another member of the Council appointed by resolution of the Council); • Two community representatives from the City of Orillia (being two people appointed by resolution of the Council, who are neither members of the Council nor employees of the municipality); • One community representative from the Township of Oro-Medonte (being one person appointed by resolution of Council, who is neither a member of the Council nor an employee of the municipality); • One elected or community representative from the Township of Severn; • One elected or community representative from the Township of Ramara; • Two provincial representatives appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;
Financial Information
Estimated OPP Detachment Board costs associated with Options 1 and 2 are summarized on the table below:
Salaries (Part-Time Administrative Support) $40,000
Remunerations and Honorariums for Board Members $7,500
Office Materials and Supplies/Advertising (Website Domain) $1,000
Mileage (to conferences and zone meetings) $1,000
Audit Fees $1,000
Page 97 of 103 Agenda Item #8.1.
Page 3 of 3 Police Services Board Composition
Educational Seminars (OAPSB Spring Conference and AGM) $3,500
Memberships (OAPSB and OAPSB – Zone 3) $5,000
Total Annual Expenditure (estimated) $59,000
Option 1 - Equal representation between Orillia, Oro-Medonte, Ramara $14,500 per municipality and Severn
Option 2 - Proportionate representation between: Orillia Oro-Medonte $31,325 Ramara $10,770 Severn $ 7,680 $ 9,225
Strategic Priority Areas:
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☑ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☐ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained ☑ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Recommended Action: That Council accept Option 1 and that the funds be allocated in the next budget in the amount of $14,500.
Reviewed By
Page 98 of 103 Agenda Item #8.2.
Page 1 of 3
Staff Report #CD-09-21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: Jon Popple, Community Standards Manager Subject: Short Term Rental Accommodations Bylaw 2020.11 - Housekeeping Amendments
Suggested Motion THAT Committee of the Whole review the recommended amendments to Short Term Rental Accommodation Bylaw 2020.11; AND THAT staff prepare the required amending bylaw for Council approval.
Background & Discussion In January 2020, the Township passed Short Term Rental Accommodation (STRA) Licensing Bylaw 2020.11, to licence and regulate short term rentals operating in the Township. Over the past year staff have noted some requirements, administrative sections and enforcement provisions needed amendments to improve the clarity, administration and enforcement of the bylaw.
The following are the recommended amendments that should be included in an amending bylaw for council’s consideration: Recommended STRA Bylaw 2020.11, amendments:
1- Insurance:
a. That the Liability and Property Insurance requirements be amended to require proof of insurance upon licensing and anytime upon request by the Township that the licence holder provide proof of valid insurance, and;
b. That the requirement for insurance providers to notify the Township of cancelation of the policy be deleted, and;
c. That an STRA Licence holder must notify the township immediately if their insurance is cancelled or revoked. Currently applicants are required to provide proof of insurance upon application and the bylaw requires that the Township be notified upon cancelation of the policy by the provider. The Township is not an interested party financially in STRA properties and therefore most insurance providers won’t notify the municipality.
2- Licensing Number:
Page 99 of 103 Agenda Item #8.2.
Page 2 of 3 Short Term Rental Accommodations Bylaw 2020.11 - Housekeeping Amendments
a. That all STRA licence holder must post their valid Township of Ramara STRA licence number on all rental listings.
Currently this is not a requirement, this will ensure tenants are made aware they are renting properties that are licenced under the bylaw.
3- Ontario Building Code Act and Fire Code References:
a. That references in the bylaw to the Ontario Building Code Act and the Ontario Fire Code be amended to require the structures and dwellings being used for a licenced STRA be compliant with all building permits issued to the property under the Building Code and applicable Fire Code enacted at the time of construction.
These amendments will ensure the property and structures were constructed in accordance with the applicable Ontario building and fire codes. Licensing inspections will continue to be done to ensure all health and safety requirements are met, including required fire alarms, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers are installed.
4- Administrative Monetary Penalties:
a. That the minimum Administrative Monetary Penalty be increased to $500.00 per offence, and;
b. That a system of escalating fines be implemented for licenced and un-licenced locations who fail to comply with the requirements of the bylaw.
4th or 1st Offence 2nd Offence 3rd Offence Subsequent Offences $500.00 $1000.00 $1500.00 $2000.00
c. That locations that advertise or operate a short term rental accommodation prior to the issuance of a valid licence from the Township of Ramara and are convicted of an offence or have received a confirmed Administrative Monetary Penalty shall pay a $500.00 administrative fee in addition to the annual licensing fee (currently $1000.00). Currently the Administrative Monetary Penalty for all violations is $300.00 per offence under the bylaw.
5- Separation between Licenced STRA Locations (setbacks):
a. That a licence not be granted to an applicant if the location of the proposed STRA is located within 300 metres of any lot line of a currently licenced STRA location. There are currently no distance separation requirements within the bylaw for STRA’s. At the time of the writing of this report there are only two (2) licenced STRA locations in the Township that are located within 300 feet of each other. These locations would be legal non-conforming or grandfathered as long as they maintain their STRA licence annually.
Page 100 of 103 Agenda Item #8.2.
Page 3 of 3 Short Term Rental Accommodations Bylaw 2020.11 - Housekeeping Amendments
Alternatives That no amendments be made to the STRA Bylaw.
Financial Information None
Strategic Priority Areas:
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☑ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☑ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained ☐ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Policy Implications: None
Recommended Action: THAT Committee of the Whole review the recommended amendments to Short Term Rental Accommodation Bylaw 2020.11, and that staff prepare the required amending bylaw for Council approval
Reviewed By Approved By: Department: Status: Jennifer Connor, Legislative & Approved - 28 Director of Community Apr 2021 Legislative and Services Community Department Services/Clerk John Pinsent, Chief Executive Services Approved - 28 Administrative Officer Department Apr 2021
Page 101 of 103 Agenda Item #8.3.
Page 1 of 2
Staff Report #CD-10-21
Meeting: Committee of the Whole - 03 May 2021 Staff Contact: Jon Popple, Community Standards Manager Subject: Municipal Parking Lot Parking Fee Rate
Suggested Motion THAT Committee of the Whole receive report CD-10-21 and approve the daily parking rate of $5.00 per hour, $25.00 per day or $200.00 per seasons pass for municipal parking lots where Honk Mobile will be implemented.
Background & Discussion Municipal Parking Lot Parking Fee:
In order to move forward with the implementation of Honk Mobile for the collection of parking lot fees it is recommended that the following parking rates be established for the selected municipal parking lots.
2021 Parking Rates:
1- Hourly Parking Rate - $5.00 per vehicle 2- Daily Parking pass - $25.00 per vehicle 2- Municipal Parking Lot Season Parking Pass $200.00 per pass
The payment of the hourly, daily or season parking pass rate would only permit parking in a municipal parking lot selected for paid parking and would not include parking lots and on street locations reserved for resident parking passes.
Alternatives None
Financial Information none
Strategic Priority Areas:
Do the recommendations of this report advance the Strategic Priority Areas of the Township?
☑ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Page 102 of 103 Agenda Item #8.3.
Page 2 of 2 Municipal Parking Lot Parking Fee Rate
Which Priority Area(s) does this report support?
☐ Workforce that is skilled and motivated ☐ Community that is involved and engaged ☑ Operations and services that are defined, prioritized and sustained ☐ Growth is planned, promoted and fostered
Policy Implications: none
Recommended Action: THAT Committee of the Whole receive report CD-10-21 and approve the daily parking rate of $5.00 per hour or $20.00 per day for municipal parking lots where Honk Mobile will be implemented.
Reviewed By Approved By: Department: Status: Jennifer Connor, Legislative & Approved - 29 Director of Community Apr 2021 Legislative and Services Community Department Services/Clerk John Pinsent, Chief Executive Services Approved - 29 Administrative Officer Department Apr 2021
Page 103 of 103