The Corporation of the City of

Council Report

Report Number CLK 2015-009

Date: March 24, 2015 Time: 2:00p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Community Identifier:

Subject: Ward Boundary Review Process

Author/Title: Judy Currins, City Clerk

Recom mendation(s):

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2015-009, Ward Boundary Review Process, be received.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director I Other:

Chief Administrative Officer: Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 2 of 15

Background:

At the Council Meeting of November 26, 2013, Council adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVED THAT Report CA02013-009, Final Report- Governance Review Task Force, be received; ......

THAT the City Clerk provide a report to Council at a March 2015 Regular Council Meeting on the process for a ward boundary review. CARRIED CR2013-1171

This report addresses the previous direction of Council.

Rationale:

The Municipal Act sections 217 and 222 address Council's authority to undertake such a review of ward boundaries and council size. Those sections are attached to this report as Appendix "A".

Many municipalities undergo a regular review of their ward boundaries to ensure that representation by ward is kept within a comparable level. This municipality has not reviewed ward boundaries since the incorporation of the City in 2001 . Any change to the ward structure should be planned to be completed by June 2017 (including the appeal period) to allow proper implementation for the 2018 municipal election. A listing of the current electors by ward is attached as Appendix "8".

Several examples from other municipalities were reviewed in preparation for this report. Consistently within these reports, whether completed in-house or by a consultant, it is acknowledged that the initial decision that is required of Council prior to any ward boundary review is, "Does Council want to change the number of wards?" By determining this at the outset of the exercise, it provides a solid foundation to complete the review successfully. With this decision completed, the process can be organized to allow the focus and time to be spent on the proper information rather than the review being too broad or looking at options that council does not want to consider. For example, if there is no desire to change the size of Council then it allows a focus to the ward boundary lines and representation only. This report suggests a process for both scenarios. For any review, Council should adopt Guiding Principles that set the parameters for the review. Suggested Guiding Principles are attached as Appendix "C". Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 3 of 15 Retain 16 Wards and Adjust Ward Boundary Lines

The proposed process to review the ward boundary lines only is outlined.

Step 1 - Scope Determined and Guiding Principles Approved Step 2- Decision on how Review to be conducted- in-house or consultant Step 3- Complete the Review Step 4 - Report to Council

Each step is more fully explained below.

Step 1. Council makes decision to review only ward boundary lines and adopts the Guiding Principles (this scenario assumes realignment only). This decision can be completed at any point which starts the process timeframe.

Step 2. Council makes a decision on how the review is conducted a) in-house or b) by consultants

Step 3. a) If in-house- i) Assign a staff person to lead the review exercise, in most cases this is the City Clerk as it deals with electoral boundaries but can be other staff. ii) The Staff Lead will seek resources from municipal experts such as members of Council, Planning, MPAC, Education, and Ministry staff and will provide to Council a report outlining up to three options for the realignment of boundaries to support the adopted Guiding Principles. No preferred option will be presented. This decision will set the parameters for public consultation. iii) Public Consultation to be held to receive input on the preferred options. This could include conducting surveys on-line and at municipal service centres, receiving input through the web site, information and displays at service centres. Public consultation could take the form of public meetings, however, there may be more feedback received if it was a less formal open house and discussion. The public consultation should be conducted to ensure it is accessible to non-resident electors. iv) The Staff Lead and mun icipal experts will review input from the public consultation process.

Step 3. b) By Consultant i) Issue an RFP- within the RFP, it would include requirements and expectations for public consultation, reporting to Council, etc. Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 4 of 15 ii) Report to Council on the procurement process iii) Consultant completes work, including reporting on options, conducting public consultation and reporting to Council as outlined in the proposal.

Step 4 - Reporting i) The Staff Lead or Consultant present a report to Council on the preferred option or the reporting could be done as an interim report and final report. ii) Council makes decision iii) By-law is presented for adoption if change is approved. iv) Appeal period v) Implementation commences.

The time frame estimated to complete this project as noted above would be Q4 of 2015 for in-house and 2016 for consultant due to the procurement process timelines. Council would still have the option of further review and public consultation after the final report is presented which would lengthen the project according to the direction given. A detailed workplan noting approximate timelines for this option is attached as Appendix "D".

Th e resolution required to direct that a ward boundary review be undertaken in­ house would be:

RESOLVED THAT a ward boundary review be undertaken by staff to ensure that the electors per ward are within a XX% variance of each other for representation. THAT the Guiding Principles be a follows:

1. Representation by Population - this considers that every Councillor would generally represent the same number of electors with a degree of variation acceptable. It is suggested that a XX% variance would be an acceptable range which on average would be 1,000 electors. NOTE: Percentage should be determined prior to starting this project.

2. Protection of Communities of Interest- this would consider established settlement patterns and existing communities.

3. Population and Electoral Trends- this would review present and future population growth or decline to maintain the balance for a number of years. This mu nicipality also has to include consideration for non-res ident electors.

4. Physical and Man-Made Features as Boundaries- this wou ld include a review of the physical features of the municipality that create natural boundaries such as the rivers and lakes. Man-made features would also be included such as road patterns, telephone exchanges, servicing capabilities, etc. Report C LK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 5 of 15 5. "Effective Representation"- all options should have consideration for the overriding principle of effective representation for all electors.

The resolution required to direct that a ward boundary review be undertaken by a consultant would be the same as above but replace the first THAT with:

RESOLVED THAT staff be instructed to prepare and issue a Request for Proposal document for a ward boundary review for the municipality.

Change the Number of Wards

Council has the authority to change the size of Council (increase or decrease) and also the method of selecting members of the Council including - by ward or at large. The review could also examine the establishment of an elected "deputy head of council" position. This type of review would require more time than that for a ward boundary line adjustment.

Council may wish to test the ideas of the electors/residents on the number of wards in the municipality and/or the method of electing their Councillor, prior to making a decision to do this review. A survey could be conducted by staff using an on-line tool and also have it available at municipal service centres with the results reported prior to a decision on a ward boundary review. This is an effective way to receive feedback for the least cost and provide Council with an indication of the feelings of the electors before committing to an unbudgeted expense.

If Council wished this extensive review to be done in-house, it is recommended that a similar stepped approach be done as noted for a boundary line review, however, it must be recognized that more resources would be required with the time frame for completion extended. It is noted that some external resources would likely be required as a peer review of the analysis.

It is estimated that if done by a consultant, the final report would be presented to Council by Q4 2016, however this is dependent on the submissions, the amount of public consultations conducted and the detail required by Council.

In consideration of the fact that this is a very complex project that has not been undertaken by staff previously and it is currently not part of any workplans, if it were completed in-house, it is estimated to take until 04 2016.

A detailed workplan noting approximate timelines for this option is attached as Appendix "E". Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 6 of 15 Other Alternatives Considered:

The alternatives for a ward boundary line review have been noted above. The other alternative is to remain status quo with no review. If this is the decision, the Report is simply received.

Financial Considerations:

If Council chooses to review ward boundary lines only as outlined, the cost of this exercise would be relatively low as the public consultation would be held in city facilities and the staff time is already accounted for. The major cost would be advertising and material preparation for public open houses and meetings. It is estimated that the cost would be under $5,000.00.

If the review is more extensive and to include a change in the number of wards and/or method of selecting members, the estimate for a consultant would be greater than $20,000.00. If this is to be done in-house, the work would have to be included in staff workplans.

In discussion with the City Treasurer, the funding for this is recommended to come from the Contingency Reserve.

Relationship of Recommendation(s) To Strategic Priorities:

This report does not directly impact or align with a specific Strategic Priority as it deals with an issue of representation governed by the Municipal Act.

Review of Accessibility Implications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A

Servicing Comments:

N/A

Consultations: Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 7 of 15

Attachments:

Appendix "A" - Excerpt from the Municipal Act Appendix "B"- Current Elector Figures Appendix "C"- Guiding Principles Appendix "D" - Workplan Timelines for Ward Boundary Line Review Appendix "E"- Workplan Timelines for Complete Ward Review

Phone: (705) 324-9411 Ext. 1295 E-Mail: jcu rrins@city. kawarthalakes.on .ca Department Head: Mark Fisher, CAO Department File: Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 8 of 15

Appendix "A" Excerpt of Section 217 and Section 222 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001,c. 25 Changes to Council

Composition of council of local municipality

217. (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a local municipality to change the composition of its council subject to the following rules:

1. There shall be a minimum of five members, one of whom shall be the head of council.

2. The members of council shall be elected in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

3. The head of council shall be elected by general vote.

4. The members, other than the head of council, shall be elected by general vote or wards or by any combination of general vote and wards.

5. The representation of a local municipality on the council of an upper-tier municipality shall not be affected by the by-law of the local municipality under this section. 2001, c. 25, s. 217 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 92 (1).

(2) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 92 (2).

Coming into force

(3) A by-law described in this section does not come into force until the day the new council is organized,

(a) after the first regular election following the passing of the by-law; or

(b) if the by-law is passed in the year of a regular election before voting day, after the second regular election following the passing of the by-law. 2001 , c. 25 , s. 217 (3); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 92 (3) .

Election Report CLK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 9 of 15 (4) The regular election held immediately before the coming into force of a by­ law described in this section shall be conducted as if the by-law was already in force. 2001, c. 25, s. 217 (4); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 92 (4).

Term unaffected

(5) Nothing in this section authorizes a change in the term of office of a member of council. 2001 , c. 25, s. 217 (5).

Wards

Establishment of wards

222. ( 1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 96 (1).

Conflict

(2) In the event of a conflict between a by-law described in subsection (1) and any provision of this Act, other than this section or section 223, any provision of any other Act or a regulation made under any other Act, the by-law prevails. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 96 (1).

Notice

(3) Within 15 days after a by-law described in subsection (1) is passed, the municipality shall give notice of the passing of the by-law to the public specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal under subsection (4). 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 96 (1 ).

Appeal

(4) Within 45 days after a by-law described in subsection (1) is passed, the Minister or any other person or agency may appeal to the Municipal Board by filing a notice of appeal with the municipality setting out the objections to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objections. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 96 (1).

Notices forwarded to Board

(5) Within 15 days after the last day for filing a notice of appeal under subsection (4), the municipality shall forward any notices of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. 2001 , c. 25, s. 222 (5).

Other material Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 10 of 15 (6) The municipality shall provide any other information or material that the Board requires in connection with the appeal. 2001, c. 25, s. 222 (6).

Board decision

(7) The Board shall hear the appeal and may, despite any Act, make an order affirming, amending or repealing the by-law. 2001 , c. 25, s. 222 (7).

Coming into force of by-law

(8) A by-law of a municipality described in this section comes into force on the day the new council of the municipality is organized following,

(a) the first regular election after the by-law is passed if the by-law is passed before January 1 in the year of the regular election and,

(i) no notices of appeal are filed,

(ii) notices of appeal are filed and are all withdrawn before January 1 in the year of the election, or

(iii) notices of appeal are filed and the Board issues an order to affirm or amend the by-law before January 1 in the year of the election; or

(b) the second regular election after the by-law is passed, in all other cases except where the by-law is repealed by the Board. 2001, c. 25, s. 222 (8); 2006, c.32,Sched.A,s.96(2).

Election

(9) Despite subsection (8), where a by-law comes into force on the day the new council of a municipality is organized following a regular election, that election shall be conducted as if the by-law was already in force. 2001 , c. 25, s. 222 (9).

Notice to assessment corporation

(9.1) When a by-law described in this section is passed, the clerk of the municipality shall notify the assessment corporation,

(a) before January 1 in the year of the first regular election after the by-law is passed, if clause (8) (a) applies;

(b) before January 1 in the year of the second regular election after the by-law is passed, if clause (8) (b) applies. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21 , s. 6 (10).

Regulations Report CLK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 11 of 15 (1 0) The Minister may prescribe criteria for the purpose of subsection (2). 2001, c. 25, s. 222 (10). Report CLK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 12 of 15 Appendix "8"

Current Elector Figures

Ward Electors

1 4,169 2 3.469 3 3,271 4 4,359 5 3,713 6 3,674 7 4,010 8 5,298 9 4,223 10 3,999 11 5,599 12 4,548 13 4,012 14 4,786 15 4,385 16 4,092

Average 4,225

Lowest 3,271

Highest 5,599

%Difference- from lowest to highest 71% Report CLK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 13 of 15

Appendix "C"

Guiding Principles

1. Representation by Population- this considers that every Councillor would generally represent the same number of electors with a degree of variation acceptable. It is suggested that a 25% variance would be an acceptable range which on average would be 1 ,000 electors.

2. Protection of Communities of Interest - this would consider established settlement patterns and existing communities.

3. Population and Electoral Trends- this would review present and future population growth or decline to maintain the balance for a number of years. This municipality also has to include consideration for non-resident electors.

4. Physical and Man-Made Features as Boundaries- this would include a review of the physical features of the municipality that create natural boundaries such as the rivers and lakes. Man-made features would also be includes such as road patterns, telephone exchanges, servicing capabilities, etc.

5. "Effective Representation" - all options should have consideration for the overriding principle of effective representation for all electors. Report CLK2015-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 14 of 15

Appendix "011

Workplan Timelines for Ward Boundary Line Review

In-House

Time Activity

March Decision made to undertake Ward Boundary Line Review OR Instruction to conduct a survey and report back before decision is made

April to June Review Ward Boundaries and Analyze Distribution

Last Meeting in June Interim Report to Council with options

Decision on options to put out for public consultation

July/August/September Public Consultation -Open Houses

December Final Report to Council

Consultant

Time Activity 2015 March Decision made to undertake Ward Boundary Line Review

April to September Issue and Award RFP

September to December Review Ward Boundaries and Analyze Distribution 2016 January Interim Report to Council with options

Decision on options to put out for public consultation

May to September Public Consultation - Open Houses

October to December Final Report to Council

NOTE: The timelines are assuming that public consultation would be required during the summer months of 2016. Report CLK20 15-009 Ward Boundary Review Process Page 15 of 15 Appendix "E11

Workplan Timelines for Complete Ward Review

Time Activity 2015 March Decision made to undertake Ward Review OR

Instruction staff to conduct a survey and report back before decision is made

April (optional) Conduct surveys to determine public opinion to conduct a full ward review

May (optional) Report to Council with survey results- Decision on complete ward review

May to December In-House- Review and Analyze Options - Work with Executive Committee on Options Interim Report in Fall of 2015

Consultant- RFP prepared - May/June RFP evaluated and awarded - July/August Review and Analyze Options - September to December

2016 January Report to Council with Options for Council to make a decision on final options for public consultation

February to September Final Document for Public Consultation prepared

Public Consultation including on-line surveys, written comments, engagement of associations, open houses (over summer months)

October to December Final Report and Decision The Corporation of the Gity of Kawartha Lakes

Gouncil Report

Report N umber CLK201 5-027

Date: October 27,2015 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Gommunity ldentifier:

Subject: Ward Boundary Review Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles Author/Title:Judycurrins,cityGlerkSignature,a,^'/+ûe q/ (t Recommendation(s):

RESOLVED THAT Report CLI<2015-027, Ward Boundary Review Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles, be received;

THAT the Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles for the Ward Boundary Review appended to Report CLK201 5-027, be adopted.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director / Other:

Gh ief Administrative Officer: Report CLK2O15-027 Ward Boundary Review Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles Page 2 oÍ 4

Background:

At the Council Meeting of March 24,2015, Council adopted the following resolution:

Moved by Councillor Veale, seconded by Gouncillor Jamesn RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2015-009, Ward Boundary Review Process, be received; THAT a ward boundary review be conducted in-house to provide options to reduce the number of wards; and THAT the workplan and timelines for a Complete Ward Review as outlined in Appendix "E" to Report CLK2015-009 be as follows: April - December 2015 - Review and Analyze Options - work with Executive Committee on Options - lnterim Report provided as required; January 2016 - Final Report to Council with Options for Council to make a decision on final options for public consultation; February to September 2016 - Final Document for Public Consultation prepared and Public Consultation Conducted; Q4 2016 - Final Report and Decision' .ARR¡ED cR2or5-341

This report addresses a portion of that direction and provides an update to Council on the project.

Rationale:

As lead on this project, the City Clerk conducted research by reviewing other municipal ward boundary projects including reading reports and speaking to other Clerks who have been involved in this type of activity. The underlying advice was to engage an expert on this type of project to ensure that the final result is defendable at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) if appealed.

The ward boundary review team was established with the City Clerk leading, both Deputy Clerks and both GIS staff members participating. Dr. Robert Williams, a ward boundary review expert, was invited to meet with the team to consider the general principles, actions required, draft time lines and steps to complete to make sure all decisions made throughout the process are defendable. Dr. Williams has agreed to assist in the process on an as required basis which will limit the expense to the City for such service. He will review our documentation and peer review the end product before it is provided to Council for final decision, and he will act as a witness before the OMB if required.

Within the MunicipalAct, Section 217 allows Council to determine the size of Council it wishes to represent the municipality. This decision is not appealable to Report CLK2015-027 Ward Boundary Review Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles Page 3 of 4 the OMB. Section 222 deals with ward boundaries and there is an appeal process to the OMB as noted in the previous report to Council.

The first step in the review process is to establish terms of reference for the staff team. The draft terms of reference attached to this Report as Appendix A set out the project objective, key roles, workplan and timelines for the project. lt is very important that the process be documented and objective, as the final decision can be appealed to the OMB and the decision must be defendable before the Board.

As you will note in the workplan, the next step in any ward boundary review is to determine the options for the síze of Council. This step is important as it narrows the work that is required to bring fonruard options for ward boundaries for Council consideration and ultimately public consultation. A Feedback opportunity will be provided for each member of Council and this feedback will assist with the preparation of the report in November where Council will be asked for direction with respect to the size of Council. The team will also put parameters around the concepts to be used in this process such as "communities of interest" and "settlement patterns". "Natural boundaries" and "Manmade features" will also be identified. The team will determine variables so that they are applied consistently throughout the process. The Executive Committee will be advised of the completion of major milestones as we progress through this process.

Other Alternatives Gonsidered :

Council could amend the Terms of Reference or Guiding Principles prior to their adoption.

Fi nancial Considerat¡ons:

There are no financial considerations relating to this report.

Relationship of Recommendation(s) To Strategy Map:

This report does not directly impact or align with a specific Strategy Map topic.

Review of Accessibility lmplications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A Report CLK2015-027 Ward Boundary Review Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles Page 4 of 4 Servicing Comments:

N/A

Consultations:

Ward Boundary Review Team

Attachments:

Appendix A - Terms of Reference including the Guiding Principles É¡rffi t-l Ward Boundary Review Terns of Refr

Phone: 705-324-9411 E.x[.1295 E-Mail: [email protected] Department Head: Ron Taylor, CAO Department File: Ward Boundary Review Project

Terms of Reference

Objective

To conduct a comprehensive review of the municipal ward boundaries in the City of Kawartha Lakes in order to arrive at an effective and equitable system of representation. lnsofar as possible, the review should accommodate for growth in the City for at least the next three regular municipal elections (2018,2022,2026). The revised structure and boundaries will be approved in a timely fashion in order to be effective for the 2018 municipal election.

Review Parameters

The review will include the following parameters:

1. The scope of the review will provide options for revised ward boundary structures including the status quo, reducing wards, and reducing ward councillors.

2. Respect the guiding principles.

3. An examination of other municipal ward boundary reviews conducted in Ontario, Ontario Municipal Board decisions related thereto and other applicable "best practices" to guide the City's review.

4. Conduct all steps in the work program including research, public consultation, school board consultation and review of options with the public.

5. Public notice and education practices that will effectively outline the purpose of the review and provide ample opportunity for public participation and comment.

6. A final report and recommendations to Council no later than December 31,2016. Guiding Principles

1. To the extent possible, new ward boundaries should achieve a general balancing of populations between wards (variance not to exceed 25o/o) based on population projections that will include grovrrth projections included in other City planning documents. Consideration must also be given to the non-resident population and variations in population densities. 2. Consideration will be given to established settlement patterns and existing communities of interest.

3. Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries or man-made features to establish wards that are easy to identify.

4. All options should have consideration for the overriding principle of effective representation for all electors.

Process

Proiect Lead

The City Clerk will be responsible for all aspects of the project, including research, formulation of options, public consultation and the preparation of reports and recommendations. ln particular, the City Clerk will:

o lnvolve necessary City staff and technical resources to research and prepare public consultation information, reports to Council and the completion of any other project matters in a timely and efficient manner . Lead the public consultation process o Formulate and test options with the public and members of Council o Receive and review comments and submissions from citizens, school boards, community groups and associations and members of Council o Ensure that all notices, consultation opportunities, displays and presentations, reports and by-laws are communicated effectively to City Council and the general public o Recommend a preferred alternative that will satisfy, as much as possible, the Guiding Principles outlined in this Terms of Reference o Serve as a witness at the Ontario Municipal Board, if required o Engage and oversee the assistance of a project consultant, if required. lnvolvement of Other Citv Staff

o Planning Staff (GlS section) will provide assistance with maps o Planning Staff will assist with the development and population forecasts . Communications will assist with website information, Municipal Bulletin and other general communication needs

Gonsultant Role

a Provide guidance to the City Clerk on important matters that must be addressed in all phases of the process a Review and comment on the research, public display and presentation materials and information, reports and recommendations prepared by the City Clerk throughout the project Serve as a witness at the Ontario Municipal Board, if required.

Council Role

To approve the Terms of Reference in order to define the scope of the review, confirm guiding principles and approve a process for completing the review in an open and timely manner o To consider decision units in the process as required to enable the process to continue a To consider and approve a by-law, if necessary, that will create new ward boundaries for the City

Workplan and Timetable

October 2015

o Establish internal staff team o Review background, OMB decisions, best practices, available resources . Conduct a survey with members of Council- re size, terms of reference and guiding principles . Report to Council re Terms of Reference and the Guiding Principles

November 2015

. Report to Council re Size of Council . Begin development of a communications plan . Engage the media . Analyze the survey results

December 201 5l January 201 6

a Review and determine options in accordance with the Council decision on size

January/February 2016

a lnterim Report to Council with preferred Options to be reviewed at a formal public meeting. Councilwill finalize what options will be considered for public consultation a Develop public consultation material February 2016 - September 2016 o Public consultation process October 2016 - December 2016 . Final Report with recommendation(s) presented at a Council meeting for approval . Council Decision and adoption of by-law, if required o Media engagement . Within 15 days following Council adoption of the By-law, notice will be given to the public specifying process and timelines for appeal o Late date for appeal is 45 days following passage of by-law . lf appeal received within 15 days following the last date for appeal, notice of appeal fonryarded to OMB o OMB schedules hearing and provides decision The Gorporation of the Gity of Kawartha Lakes

Council Report

Report N umber CLK2015-029

Date: December 8, 2015 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Community ldentifier:

Subject: Ward Boundary Review Project Update Author/Title: Judy Gurrins, City Glerk Signature: Recommendation(s):

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2015-029, Ward Boundary Review Project Update, be received;

THAT staff use population figures from January 1,2016;

THAT staff use non-elector population figures from the 2014 municipal election;

THAT the acceptable range in representation between wards be set al20o/o;

THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for sixteen (16) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large;

THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for eight (8) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large;

THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for twelve (12) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director / Other:

Gh ief Admin istrative Officer: Report CLK2015-029 Ward Boundary Review Project Update Page 2 of 3

Backg round:

Council adopted the Terms of Reference for the Ward Boundary Review Project on October 27,2015. The size of Council was also identified by Council to be reviewed as part of the Core Services Review. As such, the scope of this project will include a review of both the ward boundaries and the size of Council. As noted in Report CLK201 5-027, the next step of the process is to scope the options that Council wish to be developed and returned as decision units should Council wish to advance this project to the public consultation phase.

Rationale:

Since October 27th, the City Clerk along with one Deputy Clerk conducted interviews with members of Council to collect their viewpoints as one component of the intelligence gathering for the ward boundary revíew project. The purpose of the interviews was to assist with narrowing the options to be recommended to Council for inclusion in the ward boundary review, prior to staff starting the actual analysis work. The time that Council members took to provide this feedback is appreciated.

A summary of results is attached as Appendix A to this Report. These results were used to formulate the recommendations as part of this report. lt is suggested that two options for each Council composition proposed, be brought back for further consideration. At the next phase, staff will be seeking a Council decision on the four or five options they wish staff to proceed to public consultation. lt should also be noted, that at that time, Council could direct staff to supply additional scenarios or ask for the impact of revisions to any scenario. As noted in earlier reports, the public consultation process will last months with a report to Council in late fall of 2016 for deliberation.

As noted to each Council member during the interview process, staff also took the opportunity to seek their views on the consultation process so that a comprehensive plan can be developed for this project.

Other Alternatives Considered :

Council may increase or decrease the number of options for staff to provide for Council consideration, including, the number of wards, the size of Council, the acceptable range between wards or any of the other factors included within the recommendation. Report CLK2015-029 Ward Boundary Review Project Update Page 3 of 3 Financial Considerat¡ons:

There are no financial considerations relating to this report as the direction will provide staff with the direction required to complete the initial review in-house.

Relationship of Recommendation(s) To Strategy Map:

This report does not directly impact or align with a specific Strategy Map topic.

Review of Accessibility lmplications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A

Servicing Gomments:

N/A

Consultations:

Ward Boundary Review Team

Attachments:

Appendix A - Summary of Council lnterviews Elì tË[{t Appendix A Sunrnary of Interview Respons

Phone: 705-324-9411 Ext. 1295 E-Mail: [email protected] Department Head: Ron Taylor, CAO Department File: âep^^ )( A

Results

Do you feel the size of Counc¡l should be reviewed? 11 Yes 4No 2 Other

12+M(2) I + M(4) 9-'12 lf yes, what size of Council do you feel would best serve this 9-1 I municipality? l0+M B Other

5 Combination How would you like to see Councillors elected? 10 ByWard 1 At Large l Other

Do vou aoree with the use of ooDulation versus elector? 14 Population 2 Elector I Other

Do you feel that non-resident electors should be included in '15 Yes lNo 1 Other the calculation of pooulation? lf so, would you be satisf¡ed with the use of the numbers of 15 Yes 2 Other non-res¡dent electors bv ward from the 2014 election?

very lmportant (2) How important do you think equal distribution of populat¡on lmportant(10) 2 Other is wards? between all Not lmportant(3)

r 0(3) 25(4) 20(3) What is an acceptable range in representation between 25-40('.t) 3 Other wards? 10% 15ok 20o/o 25o/o 1 5-20(1 ) 30(1 ) 1s(2\ ls the current number of wards aooroor¡ate? 4 Yes 7No 6 Other ln other words, do you feel the current number of wards is Right Amount (5) 4 Other the rioht amount. too manv or not enouoh? Too Manv(8)

Should ward boundaries be designed to accommodate future growth over the next I 0 years or should they be 3 Projected 12 Review Date 2 Other designed around the review date? Explain federal boundary Grovvth review.

What do you feel are the "natural commun¡ties" of this Lindsay municioâl¡tv? lmportant if at Ti and sort of current urban areas - need to consider "Places to Grow" Rural Urban (2 where vi are Rural Urban Iture Omemee Little Br¡tain Fenelon Wherever a commu centre

What do you feel are the major'communities of interest' in Natural Features - Lindsay Rosedale Area Sturgeon Point the municipality? Coboconk Cameron Kinmount Tourism Lindsay Fenelon Falls Bobcaygeon Tourism

Different levels of interest - Lindsay Fenelon Falls Bobcaygeon Woodv¡lle L¡ttle Britain Omemee

Lindsay Bobcaygeon FF Omemee Woodville Coboconk K¡rkfleld - community hubs and some are spl¡t current urban areas - need to consider "Places to Grow''

Agriculture, tour¡sm, ethnic, ec dev, seniors, Lindsay Bobcaygeon FF Omemee and Woodville (all with Secondary Plans) plus Norland and Coboconk Lindsay Bobcaygeon Fenelon Falls Lindsay FF Bobcayoeon Omemee Woodville (2) Rural Urban Cottage Business every ward should have mix of rural/urban - different interest ¡n both

Lindsay Omemee Little Brita¡n Woodville Oakwood Fenelon Falls Bobcaygeon Coboconk Norland Kinmount Fenelon Falls Wherever there is a commu centre Equal representation; ratepayers increase number increase vo¡ce at the table; happy with how things are; city may not be giving attent¡on to small communit¡es that do not have big tax base

Do you feel that the present ward layout reflects 5 Yes 5No 7 Other commun¡ties of interest in the municiDalitv?

Do you th¡nk the Ward boundaries should be adiusted? 9 Yes I Other

Are there any major s¡gnif¡cant phys¡cal features that should be used as boundaries? Not so much

Not Lakes and Rivers Get mu 35 and or and Waters/ not munici

; Lakes/keep urban together Bobcaygeon cut in 1/2 should not be; demographics; rivers and lakes

Don't know - highway 7 splits wards; should be no street divides; current is workable Lakes Rivers and Hiqhwav 35

How do you feel the large population centres should be dealt with as far as representation? Any special considerations? No special treatment Yes - special need - if based on community - based on business need and representation of business Something to look at, cons¡deration how to restructure that is fair for Li ndsay/Bobcaygeon/FFlrest rural lmportant balance w¡th number of people representing/Lindsay l/4 should be between 1/4 and 1/3 Yes - have own Council to look after issues that arise ¡n their area Equal Rural/Urban councillors/ Reason - if all at large call Mayor More work for Counc¡llors; More retirees on Council; more could do better job Realiqnment within populat¡on centres more core urban of Lindsay - move ops to outside area should have one urban section No Everyone is Equal

Lindsay - 2 wards - divided to have easvwest division - Albert/Adelaide area; 7113;516 makes a difference more no all wards - divided to have easUwest d¡vis¡on - Albert/Adelaide area;7113;516

T makes a difference

Who else should be consulted? Boards, Town Hall Meetings, Social Media, Direct Mail to all Households, Fenelon Forward, BlAs, Business Community, Lake Ballot Question, Chambers of Commerce, Sorting Community, Farm Commun¡ty, Youth, School Boards, Legions, lmpact 32, Open Houses, Seasonal Residents, Bill, Survey, Postage Paid Response, Road Associations, One meeting per ward, ward boundary expert, volunteers, newsletter, Horticultural Societies, Serv¡ce Clubs, Billboards, Posters, Press, Libraries, trailer parks, social housing, The Gorporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Gouncil Report

Report Number CLK201 6-009

Date: May 10, 2016 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Gommunity ldentifier:

Subject: Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation

Author/Title: Judy Gurrins, City Glerk ature: oO Recommendation(s): (/

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2016-009, Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation, be received; THAT Ward Boundary Options 3 and 6 (or others as determined by Council) be selected for the public consultation process; and THAT the City Clerk be instructed to complete the public consultation process and report the results to Council for decision.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director / Other:

Ch ief Admin istrative Officer: -i"J,"'jll wa rd B o u n d a ry o pt i o n s iå 5Î3,]'Î;Î31 Page 2 ol 32 Background: ln 2013, the City Clerk was instructed to provide Council with a report on the process to review ward boundaries for the municipality in early 2015, and options for consideration to complete this task. Council decided to take an in-house approach and in October 2015, Council adopted the Terms of Reference and Guiding Principles for the ward boundary review. The team consisted of the City Clerk, two Deputy Clerks, GIS Supervisor and GIS staff. The next step in the process was to narrow down the options that Councilwished to see developed for public consultation. ln December 2015, the following resolution was adopted

Moved by Councillor Stauble, seconded by Gouncillor Martin, RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2015-029, Ward Boundary Review Project Update, be received; THAT staff use population figures from January 1,2016; THAT staff use non-resident elector population figures from the 2014 municipal election; THAT the acceptable range in representation between Wards be set at 20%; THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for sixteen (16) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large; THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for eight (8) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large; and THAT staff provide a minimum of two electoral options for twelve (12) Councillors elected by ward with a Mayor elected At Large. CARRIED CR2015-1344

This report addresses that direction

Rationale:

Over the past few months, with the guiding principles adopted by Council, work was undertaken to configure a variety of ward structure options for presentation to Council. W¡th this information, the next step is for Council to decide which options they choose to move fonrard to the public consultation process.

For reference, the guiding principles adopted are:

Guiding Principles

1. To the extent possible, new ward boundaries should achieve a general balancing of populations between Wards with a variance not to exceed Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 3 of 32 20% based on population as of January 1,2016 and the use of non- resident elector numbers from the 2014 municipal election.

2. Consideration will be given to established settlement patterns and existing communities of interest.

3. Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries or man-made features to establish Wards that are easy to identify.

4. All options should have consideration for the overriding principle of effective representation for all electors.

Evaluation Criteria

Before the individual options are presented, it is important to explain the evaluation criteria used in the process. With the established criteria, all options are evaluated fairly and without political cons¡derations.

Guidino Princiole #1 - Representation by Population

For this review, the optimal ward population is the population of a municipality divided by the number of wards with a five percent variance. The following chart was established to rate the population of each ward in relation to the optimal ward population for the option.

Representation by Population Code Label Description OR+ Outside the Range - Above Greater lhan20% above the optimal size

O+ Above Optimal 6% to 20o/o above the optimal size o Optimal Within 5% above or below the optimal size o- Below Optimal 6% to 20% below the optimal size oR- Outside the Range - Below Greater lhan 20% below the optimal size

This model was developed and has been used by Dr. Robert Williams in many ward boundary reviews. Dr Williams is a Public Affairs Consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems from Waterloo, Ontario. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary options for Public Consl,# S! Guidinq Principle #2 - Within this category such things as settlement areas and like interests such as agriculture, tourism, seasonal and commerce were considered. Guiding Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries This principle directs that watenrays, rivers, lakes and major highways be used, where possible, as boundaries.

Guidinq Princiole #4 - Effective Representation lnterests of the City as a whole are addressed rather than one area over another Does the proposal serve the larger public interest of all electors of the municipality in contrast to the interest of a small group? Does the configuration allow for a councillor to serve the ward effectively?

The goal of the team was to produce options that illustrate a variety of configurations where each support the majority of the Guiding Principles

Kawartha Lakes has its challenges due to its geography, configuration, the number of communities, the uniqueness of the municipality and the natural water boundaries. lt became evident quite early in the process, that this exercise was more difficult than drawing lines on a map.

The direction of Council for this review includes the analysis of three main components: o The ward structure o The ward boundaries r The size of Council. Each of these components creates their own challenges and need specific analysis if done on their own. By considering the applicable components with each option, the analysis may conclude in a positive result for one component that impacts on the optimal choice for another component.

Before reviewing options, Council may wish to consider what a reasonable number of Councillors (Council size) would be to support the municipality's population. To assist with comparison, the following illustrates the size of Council in several single tier municipalities. Note, these numbers, for consistency, were taken from the 2015 census or the municipal website and do not include seasonal population which have been included in the analysis of options for Kawartha Lakes.

Municipality Tvpe Population Councillors Wards Kawartha Single 76,918 16 16 Lakes Tier Kawartha lncluding 89,947 16 16 Lakes seasonal Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 5 of 32 Peterborough Single 82,665 10 5 Tier Chatham- Single 104,591 17 6 Kent Tier Hamilton Single 551,897 15 15 Tier Haldimand Single 45,715 6 6 Countv Tier Single 2,819,281 44 44 Tier London Single 388,919 14 14 Tier Norfolk Single 64,617 I 7 Tier Belleville Single 51,358 I 2 Tier Single 44,911 12 4 Tier County of Single 35,638 10 5 Brant Tier Stratford Single 32,536 10 1 Tier Prince Single 26,081 15 10 Edward Tier Countv Single 22,925 I 1 Tier Greater Single 160,274 12 12 Sudburv Tier

Source: municipalwebsites, Statistics Canada National Household Survey 2015

Area per Ward figures have not been provided with each option. lt is somewhat misleading as the north areas have large parcels of land with little population and the agricultural areas have large farmed parcels with little population. There would be no way with the size of this municipality, its configuration and population distribution that ward area is a viable measurement of effective representation.

Many of the options provided in this report suggest a multi-member ward model It should be noted that the population analysis for each option does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each Councillor but rather an lllustration if equal population were assigned to one member. Each Councillor would be accountable to all of those who reside or vote in that particular ward and not to a fraction of the ward. A multi-member ward does not necessarily translate into an even workload for councillors. Report CLK2016-009 ward Boundary options for Public Co¡sg,3lSi

The order of the opt¡ons in no way reflects a preference or recommendation.

There are seven options included in this report. There are two options for I Councillors,4 options for 12 Councillors and 5 options for 16 Councillors.

Maps have been placed with each option. Maps, for this stage in the process, have been intentionally kept at a high level for the general concept and to stay away from picking and choosing specific roads or properties. Final maps will be prepared upon the decision of Council on which options will go to public consultation.

This report will analyze seven options, including the status quo, as follows

I Councillors - Options 3 and 4 12 Councillors - Options 3, 4, 6 and 7; and

16 Councillors - Options 1,2,3,4 and 5. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation PageT of 32 Option I - Status Quo - 16 Wards/16 Gouncillors

It is an important first step to determine whether the current system is still viable Option 1 essentially retains the ward boundaries established at amalgamation.

Status Quo

t.lir!rtt

i&at l¡otls ¡M16l

r'r'a, li F¡I

¡f,r !l¡rts L4' 8ùù\tdflrr þ.r çsgl :-

¡a

.llù.'il

F,:d Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 8 of 32 Population Analysis

Ward Population/ Number Councillor

1 4322 oR- 2 3762 oR- 3 3877 oR- 4 6061 O+ 5 4813 o- þ 4390 oR- 7 51 06 o- 8 7270 OR+ I 6250 O+ 10 6278 O+ 11 8298 oR- 12 6850 oR- 13 5299 o- 14 6023 O+ 15 5996 O+ 16 5352 o

89947

Summary

Principle # 1 - Representat¡on by Population

There is: 1 Ward at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 8 Wards within the 5 - 20o/o range; and 7 Wards outside of the 5-20o/o range.

Principle # 2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Commun¡t¡es of lnterest

Several communities of interest or established urban settlement patterns are split between Wards in the current structure. For example, Bobcaygeon, Omemee, and Lindsay are all divided and the communities of Oakwood from Little Britain, and Kirkfield from the north.

Principle # 3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

The current structure relies heavily on roads as boundaries, frequently leaving people on the same road in different Wards. ward Boundary oprions tJ"J#l':b5Î3,1f;Î31 Page 9 of 32 Principle # 4 - Effective Representation

With the wide difference of population between Wards, the representation of electors varies considerably. Six of the seven Wards are below the acceptable 20o/o range of variation which give those areas more representation compared to some of the other Wards.

Assessment of Option 1 (the Status Quo)

This option splits communities and areas of common interests. Seven Wards are either well above or below the acceptable 20o/o ward population variance. !f the goal is to have a structure that supports communities of interest and equalizes representation, then status quo should not be supported.

The status quo option maintains the defects in the current system. Turning down any changes that improve the defects of the status quo model could be an appealable decision by way of a petition from ratepayers in accordance with the MunicipalAct.

This option does not adjust the ward structure, ward boundaries or the size of Council. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 10 of 32

Ootion2-16Wa - Reconfioured Option 2 proposes sixteen wards each electing one councillor per ward. The boundaries have been reconfigured from the current model.

Llnlat

t'r

t ll'

; ¡(ùtl llltHt .Ja2 Povmùl*

I

N.'¡l It 6 PT a

FéJ.'It 'il rAd l¡tttri¡f

eù!¡'t |lct'l fr,i{ilùld ,:u'$ Ê¡) ]'

t!

f,lllr,i¡l

t h t{fJùð f!,! F ár. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 11 o132 Population Analysis Ward Population/ Number Councillor 1 6331 O+ 2 4357 oR- 3 4187 oR- 4 5145 o- 5 5504 o 6 5446 o 7 5352 o I 6178 o+ I 7482 oR+ 10 7578 OR+ 11 6392 O+ 12 5521 o 13 5662 o 14 4602 o- 15 4867 o- 16 5343 o

89947 Summary

Principle #1 - Representat¡on by Population

There is: 6 Ward at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 6 Wards within the 5 - 20o/o range; and 4 Wards outside of the 5-20o/o range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of lnterest

With this option, current settlement patterns and communities of interest are protected in many cases and fewer examples exist of Wards splitting urban areas. There are still areas where communities sharing common interests - such as Oakwood/Little Britain - remain in different Wards. The boundaries between Wards 9111 and 10112 can be adjusted with more analysis to bring all four Wards closer to the acceptable range.

The ward boundaries are more linear and have fewer'Jut outs" which make the identification of wards easier. This improves the current ward structure where there has been confusion with ward identification in the past. ward Bou ndary oprions t#"ffJl':åiÍ3.]f;Î31 Page 12 o132 Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

The reconfiguration moved boundaries to ensure those living on a road are represented by the same elected official. Using roads, other than major arteries divides community interest and electoral support. Best efforts to remove these situations are reflected in the option.

Principal H - EÍlective Representation

The population between Wards is more evenly distributed with little variation between Wards. Only four Wards are outside of the acceptable 20o/o variance and, as noted above, this arrangement can be further analyzed to adjust to within this range, particularly Wards 9110111112.

Assessment of Option (16 Wards Reconfigured)

This option better reflects the population variance between Wards if the wish is to remain with 16 Wards represented by 1 Councillor per Ward. lt also supports keeping communities of interest in one Ward in more cases than the status quo option.

This option adjusts the ward boundaries but does not adjust the ward structure, or the size of Council. ward Bou nda ry o ptio ns -i"J,il, ib5Î3,] f;Î31 Page 13 of32 Option 3 - 4 Wards - 8. 12. or l6 Councillors This Option proposes four wards that can be used to elect 2, 3 or 4 councillors per ward. Note that the population/councillor ratio used in the tables does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each councillor in a multi- member ward: electoral district is the entire ward and those elected in a ward are accountable to all of those who reside or vote there, not to a fraction of the ward.

LlþJd

I

a (¡itl lrÐHs PR¡r.¡tl 1 Ò I a !r4Fs Þ!lil Prùalt¡rål Prl r\ là l¡J FüI a I 'l

!ãridlrlr

*,I':

t\

r.tlu.'l .-'"¡l , i

l Lbrldd€ F.{l I ¡r' Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 14 o'î 32 Population Analysis

Population/ Population/ Population/ Councillor Councillor Ward Councillor/ Councillor Number Total Ward I 12 16

1 21282 21314 0- 10641 7094 5320 2 23452 21314 0 11726 7817 5863 3 22279 21314 0 11139 7426 5569 4 22934 21314 0 11467 7644 5733

89947

Summary

Principle #1 - Representat¡on by Population There are: 3 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 1 Ward within the 5 -20% range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of lnterest

This option supports existing settlement patterns and communities of interest, not only physical communities but economic interests as well.

Ward 1 keeps the largest tourism area,lakes, and non-resident population with like interests together. lt keeps Fenelon Falls, Norland, Kinmount, Coboconk and Kirkfield together as they share like interests.

Ward 2 keeps Bobcaygeon, Sturgeon Point, Dunsford and Omemee together which supports both a tourism and agriculture interest.

Ward 3 keeps Woodville, Oakwood, Little Britain together and Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool together. The largest agriculture sector of the municipality is in this ward.

Ward 4 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the mun icipal ad ministrative centre.

AllWards except 4 have a combination of urban and rural communities of interest. ward Bou n d ary o ptions t*"J,"JT :å5Î3,] fü31 Page 15 of32 Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

In the north, the lake system played a large part in determining the boundaries. While this ward is a massive geographic area, one must remember that a large part of the former Longford area has one owner and it has many large parcels of land without electors.

Principle #4 - Effective Representation

This option has almost complete optimal distribution of population with the only ward outside of the optimal below by 80 electors. The ward configuration supports the interests of each community and provides a large catchment area for each ward.

Assessment of Option (4 Wards - 8, 12, or l6 Gouncillors)

This option is built on the idea of multiple-member wards, a departure from the practice in Kawartha Lakes since amalgamation. lt provides the greatest flexibility for number of Councillors to represent an area. lt also emphasizes the common interests within Wards, consolidates communities, and urban areas in allWards are supported by surrounding rural areas.

This option changes the ward structure, ward boundaries and gives the option to change the size of Council. Report CLK2Oí6-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 16 of 32 Ootion 4-4Wards-8 .12 or 16 Councillors This Option proposes four wards that can be used to elect 2,3 or 4 counci llors per ward. Note that the population/councillor ratio used in the tables does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each councillor in a multi- member ward: electoral district is the entire ward and those elected in a ward are accountable to all of those who reside or vote there, not to a fraction of the ward.

IJ I

t.fÞ-1dr a I

) i t I:

I : t X¡¡ttr ¡$Ìln FdB$1 1 a I a tr i}.4 Þ. ,d FÈtÈúl I FJÍ fi¡l ì¡¡ FJI a a I

. - l]dr,úl.D ?l r fùf,fr¡l

Sùt'¡rdPsfl FÊr¡¡ frrtcu ,r' Frl :

,ll

tllt¡,¡tl

F-f! Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page17 ol32 Population Analysis

Population/ Population/ Ward Councillors Population/ Councillor Councillor Number Total / Ward Councillor 12 16 I 1 23233 2t3t4 o 1 1616 7744 5808 2 1 9857 2t3t4 o- 9928 6619 4964 3 23357 2t314 o 11678 7785 5839 4 23500 2t3t4 o 11750 7833 5875

89947 Summary Principle #l - Representation by Population There are: 3 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 1 Ward within the 5 - 20% range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of lnterest

This option keeps the north area together to support the tourism and seasonal area in Ward 1. Fenelon Falls, Sturgeon Point, Norland, Coboconk, Kinmount and Kirkfield are included.

Ward 2 represents the area that shares tourism, seasonal and agriculture interests. Bobcaygeon is the east urban area and Woodville would be the urban area on the west.

Ward 3 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the m unicipal ad min istrative centre.

Ward 4 is the main agriculture area with urban areas of Omemee in the east and Oakwood and Little Britain in the east, Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool in the south.

All urban areas are grouped with rural communities around them with the exception of Ward 3.

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

Natural features were not used widely in this scenario; only and Pigeon River were used. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 18 of32

Effective Representation

All Wards are within the acceptable range of ward population. The Wards include urban areas that support the surrounding rural area. Ward 4 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the municipal administrative centre

Assessment of Option (4 Wards - 8, 12 or 16 Councillors)

This option is built on the idea of multiple-member wards, a departure from the practice in Kawartha Lakes since amalgamation. lt provides the greatest flexibility for number of Councillors to represent an area. lt also emphasizes the common interests within Wards, consolidates communities, and urban areas in allWards are supported by surrounding rural areas. Three of the four Wards run east to west across the entire City providing a contrast to Option 3.

This option changes the ward structure, ward boundaries and gives the option to change the size of Council. ward Boundary options ti"ff;T':å5Í3.]f;Î3i Page 19 of 32 Ootion 5 - 5 Wards - 16 Councillors This Option proposes five wards that can be used to elect 3 or 4 councillors per ward. Note that the population/councillor ratio used in the tables does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each councillor in a multi- member ward: electoral district is the entire ward and those elected in a ward are accountable to all of those who reside or vote there, not to a fraction of the ward. Also, the number of councillors in the proposed Central Ward varies from the number elected in all of the other wards.

l.lfrt.i

lr

ç Itñtü. tn0tlm þEÌfal ! NORTH a a

h|d¡n Pr rn ñ(ilnúìl Ö È* (T,r¡ I c 9rl I I rt

EAST a

- t?¡úl'll tlr SùEfdtr

I

SÞt¡i¡l¡Þrr $ t'rr o{gn

{1

ÀtlUnrl

r Ll,i,lq¡ F, al la,' Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 20 oÍ 32

Population Analysis

Ward Councillors/ Population/ Number Total Ward Councillor

South 14703 3 4901 o- Central 23141 4 5785 o West 19263 3 6421 O+ North 20050 3 6683 O+ East 12790 3 4263 oR- 89947

Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There is: 1 Ward at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 4 Wards within the 5 -20o/o range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of lnterest

This option supports existing settlement patterns and communities of interest, not only physical communities but interests as well.

North Ward is supported by keeping the largest tourism atea,lakes, and non- resident population with comparable interests together. lt keeps Fenelon Falls, Norland, Kinmount, Coboconk and Kirkfield together as they share like interests

East Ward keeps Bobcaygeon, Sturgeon Point and Dunsford together which supports both the tourism and agriculture interests.

West Ward keeps Woodville, Oakwood, Little Britain together with one of the largest agriculture areas of the municipality.

CentralWard keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the mun icipal ad ministrative centre.

South Ward contains Omemee, Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool and large agriculture parcels of the municipality. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary options for Public Co¡;T,,31'3!

AllWards except the CentralWard have a combination of urban and rural interests.

Principle #3 -Physical Features as Boundaries

Sturgeon Lake and are the major naturalfeatures used as a boundary in this option. The boundary of the Central ward follows the Lindsay urban boundary.

Principle #4 - ÊfÍective Representation

Four of five Wards are within the acceptable range of ward population. The Wards include an urban area that supports the surrounding rural areas. The north has by far the largest area, however, this is weighed against the fact that the interests of this entire area is similar which will provide a better voice for issues specific to them. Adjusting the East and North Ward boundaries is also an option to bring each closer to the Optimal population.

Assessment of Option (5 Wards - 16 Councillors)

This option provides an alternative that equalizes population while maintaining 16 Councillors This option is built on the idea of multiple-member wards, a departure from the practice in Kawartha Lakes since amalgamation. lt also emphasizes the common interests within Wards, consolidates communities, and the urban areas in allWards are supported by surrounding rural areas.

This option changes the ward structure, ward boundaries but does not change the size of Council. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page22 ol 32

Ootion 6 - 5 - l2 Councillors This Option proposes five wards that can be used to elect 2 or 3 councillors per ward. Note that the population/councillor ratio used in the tables does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each councillor in a multi- member ward: electoral district is the entire ward and those elected in a ward are accountable to all of those who reside or vote there, not to a fraction of the ward. Also, the number of councillors in the proposed Central and South Wards varies from the number elected in the other three wards.

t.thldr

a xæ¡â NORTH )¡$ld Peifltì I a ¡ a lÊtr¡ Pi. fl ññhl ¡ È¡t Tì'.l ll¡ í'r.{n p1l a a

a

EAST

0 -. l'c¡ú! tr ltrrEST a t

5ù&úit rsr¡

a

¡tlù rr¡

r ¡ t{iiJùù F i¡l Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 23 of 32 Population Analysis

Ward Councillor/ Population/ Optimal Number Total Ward Ward Range

Central 23194 3 7731 o South 20141 3 6713 o- West 14148 2 7074 o- East 17868 2 8934 O+ North 14596 2 7298 o

89947 Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There are: 2 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 3 Wards within the 5 - 20o/o range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of lnterest

This option supports existing settlement patterns and communities of interest, not only physical communities but interests as well.

North Ward is supported by keeping the largest tourism area, lakes, and non- resident population with like interests together. lt keeps Norland, Kinmount, Coboconk and Kirkfield together as they share like interests.

East Ward keeps Fenelon Falls, Sturgeon Point, Bobcaygeon, and Dunsford together which supports both the tourism and agriculture interests.

West Ward keeps Woodville, Oakwood, Little Britain together with one of the largest agriculture areas of the municipality.

CentralWard keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the municipal administrative centre.

South Ward contains Omemee, Janetville, Bethany, Pontypool and areas around Lake and supports both the agriculture and recreation parcels of the municipality.

All Wards except the CentralWard have a combination of urban and rural communities of interest. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page24 ol32

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

Balsam, Cameron and Sturgeon Lakes are the major natural features used as a natural boundary. The boundary of the Central Ward follows the Lindsay urban boundary.

Principle #4 - Effective Representation

Option six proposes wards that are larger in area than the present wards, only one of which (centred in Lindsay) is compact. The other four include territory roughly equivalent to three or four of the present wards. The representaton assigned to each ward is proportionate to the present population.

Assessment of Option (5 Wards - l2 Gouncillors)

This option provides an alternative with populations proportionate to one another to elect 12 councillors.

This option changes the ward structure, ward boundaries and the size of Council. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page25 of 32 Ootion 7 - 10 - 12 Councillors

Option 7 proposes nine wards each electing one councillor and one ward (based in Lindsay) electing three councillors. Note that the population/councillor ratio used in the table in relation to the proposed Ward I does not reflect the number of residents actually represented by each councillor in that ward: that electoral district is the entire ward and those elected in it are accountable to all of those who reside or vote there, not to a fraction of the ward.

¡.lntdt

¡,¡.1Þ []drÉþl:'slffi

F¡I

l!ér.úl -lr d¡r lrtr¡ êr

t òì¡{rd ÉÞN{

a 7

{

Ètltri'rl

f. {l Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 26 of 32 Population Analysis

Ward Councillor/ Population/ Number Total Ward Ward

1 7407 1 7407 o 2 5412 1 5412 oR- 3 7422 1 7422 o 4 1 0099 1 1 0099 OR+ 5 6333 1 6333 o- o 7119 1 7119 o 7 7173 1 7173 o I 23189 3 7729 o I 8577 1 8577 OR+ 1 0 7216 1 7216 o

89947 Summary Principle #l - Representat¡on by Population There are: 6 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 1 Ward within the 5 - 20o/o range; and 3 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Gommunities of lnterest

This option divides the north area into two Wards. Each of those Wards has at least one urban area to supporting the tourism and seasonal interests in Ward 1 and 2.

Ward 3 includes Woodville and the region south and west of Balsam, Cameron and Sturgeon Lakes. This area supports both the tourism sector and agriculture

Ward 4 includes Fenelon Falls, Sturgeon Point and Bobcaygeon which have the common interest of the waterway, locks and tourism. These areas are supported by the rural area to the north of Sturgeon Lake.

Ward 5 includes Oakwood and is associated with the agriculture community.

Ward 6 keeps Dunsford and Downeyville together and the large agriculture area below Sturgeon Lake. Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page27 oÍ32 Ward 7 has Little Britain as the major urban area that is supported by the population along Scugog Lake and the agriculture area.

Ward 8 is centred on Lindsay, the largest settlement area within the City and distinctive from the rest of the City because of its urban nature. lt is the municipal admin istration centre.

Ward I includes Omemee and the large agricultural area.

Ward 10 includes the urban areas of Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool. These areas are supported by a large agriculture area up to the edge of Ward 8.

All of the smaller urban areas are grouped with rural communities around them.

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

This option uses several lakes as the major natural feature for many of the Ward boundaries.

Principle H - Effective Representation

All Wards have a single representative except for Ward 8 that would have three representatives due to the population density. ln contrast with the present system and Option 2, Lindsay would not be divided internally into separate (artificial) wards. The north area is divided to smaller wards than in options 3, 4, 5 and 6. Assessment of Option (10 Wards - 12 Councillors)

This option allows for more Wards than Options 4 or 5 and is a viable model for a twelve member Council where representation is relatively equal and communities and interests have been protected with the exception of Ward 4. Further analysis would be undertaken to determine if Ward 4 could be adjusted to bring it closer to the optimal.

This option changes the ward structure, ward boundaries or the size of Council. ward Boundary options ti"Jf;l':å5ÍS,] f;Î31 Page 28 of 32 All of the options have been reviewed by Dr. Robert Williams, a Public Affairs Consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems from Waterloo, Ontario. Dr. Williams reviewed each option's viability and whether it could be defended if appealed.

Attached as Appendix A is a preliminary review of the options contained in this report by Dr. Williams.

1 2 3

1 6 Wards/'1 6 Councillors I 6 Wards/1 6 Councillors 4 Wards - 8112116 Councillors 9 of 16 Wards in range 12 ol16 Wards in ranqe 4 of 4 Wards in ranqe Split Comm unities/ward Fewer split communities/ Common interest supported ward Representation Varies More even distribution of Options available for oooulation representation level Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 29 of 32

l 4 tr 6 J

I I

L ! ) f{oRrH I

5Ì

EÂSÎ EÁSf

2 uiEST

:>' 't2' '.t- i 1 ! I sottfH

1

4 Wards - 8,12,16 Councillors 5 Wards - l6 Councillors 5 Wards - 12 Councillors 4 of 4 Wards in ranqe 4 of 5 Wards in range 5 of 5 Wards in ranqe Fewer split comm unitiesiward Fewer split communities/ Fewer split communitles/ EastÂlr/est Division ward ward. Quadrant division Even distribution of population Even distribution of Even distribution of population Ootions for representation population 7

4

3

5 9

7

\

1 0 Wards/l 2 Councillors 7 of 10 Wards in range Fewer split commun ities/ward Even distribution of population and smaller size Wards than other options and larger than current Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 30 of 32 Summary of Options

L Summary of Communities of Effective o U) L Population lnterest Representation o- Ø _9 o EL 'õ Criteria (E c) o = C)

1 16 16 9of16 Split Communities Representation Wards in /ward and varies ranqe interests 2 16 16 12 of 16 Fewer split More even Wards in communities/ward distribution of range population 3 4 812or16 4of4 Common interest Options Wards in supported available for ranqe representation 4 4 812or16 4of4 Fewer split Even Wards in communities/ward distribution of range EasUwest division population 5 5 16 4of5 Fewer split Even Wards in communities/ward distribution of ranqe population 6 5 12 5of5 Fewer split Even Wards in communities/ward distribution of range Quadrant division population 7 10 12 7of10 Fewer split Even Wards in communities/ward distribution of range population and smaller size Wards than other options and larger than current

Once Council has given direction on which options should remain in consideration, the next step in the process is to conduct public consultation

The plan for this includes o Web page on the City Website . Survev - on-line, at Municipal Service Centres and Town Hall Meetings . Form part of the Mayor's Spring series of meetings . Displays at all Municipal Service Centres o Contact with community groups and cottage associations o Social Media opportunities Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page 31 of32

Other Alternatives Considered :

The options have been outlined in the rationale section. lt is recommended that two scenarios be selected for public consultation at this time. Based on the analysis, it is recommended that Options 3 and 6 be put to public consultation. These options provide the public opportunity to focus comments on the number of Councillors to represent the municipality, different ward models (single- versus multiple-member wards, for example) and boundaries. By using only these two options, the public will be better informed to comment on different scenarios other than the current structure.

Once the public consultation process has concluded, a final report will come to Council for decision. That decision could be: o no action o a change in Council size and/or . a change in ward structure and/or . a change in ward boundaries

It is important that this decision is made at this time to allow for consultation over the summer months. Delaying this decision will impact on the public consultation component of the project and result in the process extending into 2017.

Financial Considerat¡ons:

There have been funds budgeted for this in-house process and the use of the expertise of Dr. Williams to provide an expert review of the material.

Relationship of Recommendation(s) To The 2016-2019 Strategic Plan:

Council, as the elected officials of the municipality, form the foundation for fair and equitable representation of the population of the City. This solid foundation supports the principles of the adopted Strategic Plan.

Review of Accessibility lmplications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A

Servicing Comments:

N/A Report CLK2016-009 Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation Page32 of32

Consultations:

Dr. Robert Williams, Expert

Attachments: Appendix A - Review Comments from Dr. Robert Williams

Phone: 705-324-941 I Ext. 1295

E-Mai I : jcu rri ns@city. kawarthalakes.on.ca Department Head: Ron Taylor, CAO Department File: This is Attachment ~to Jieport #. C'd563Pl0 -o oCJ

External Review City of Kawartha Lakes Clerk's Report CLK2016-009 "Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation"

Prepared by Robert J. Williams, Ph.D. Public Affairs Consultant Waterloo, Ontario May 6, 2016

Background Report CLK2016-009 will be presented to Kawartha Lakes City Council on May 10, 2016 as part of an in-house process to review ward boundaries. The present sixteen single-member wards have been in use since the one­ tier City was created out of the County of Victoria and its component municipalities in 2001. The City covers a large area (over 3,000 square kilometers), with extensive waterways and large areas of seasonal and sparsely populated rural districts. The largest urban settlement is Lindsay, the administrative centre of the City, with a population estimated at just under 30°/o of the entire municipality. These factors - and others - make this ward boundary review particularly challenging.

The ward boundary review commenced in October 2015 based on terms of reference and guiding principles adopted by City Council. In the interests of full disclosure, it is appropriate to acknowledge that the author of this external review met with the City Clerk and her staff team in October 2015 to assist them in determining how they would manage a sound independent ward boundary review process and to help them understand the way the guiding principles might apply in a municipality like Kawartha Lakes. There has been no contact or involvement between City staff and the consultant in any way since that time.

1 The Process Report CLK2016-009 evaluates the suitability of the existing wards and proposes a number of scenarios for electing City Councillors in Kawartha Lakes. It recommends that two scenarios be selected for public consultation ahead of a Council decision later in 2016.

Ontario legislation does not stipulate a process through which municipal representation arrangements are to be reviewed nor does it set out any principles that should be reflected in a ward system. Kawartha Lakes' review is based on locally determined provisions that were adapted from practices and principles followed in other Ontario municipalities.

This report has applied an approach to information gathering and analysis that can be judged both reasonable and legitimate. Extensive and relevant empirical population data were collected from internal and external sources and members of the team conducted interviews with municipal elected officials. The interviews were not intended to solicit preferred options from them but were designed to gather insights into how representation works in Kawartha Lakes under the present system. These are credible components of a ward boundary review.

Furthermore, despite the absence of a requirement for public consultation in legislation, the review has prudently halted its work at this point to seek direction, first from Council and then from the community. The design of ward configurations can take considerable time and resources; asking for guidance on a more limited range of alternatives at this point is fiscally and organizationally responsible. The recommendation that only certain of the manv ootions develooed out of the extensive initial investiaation be carried "' . . - forward into the final phase of the review is also reasonable.

Seeking public feedback on all seven options (plus the possible permutations arising from using one set of wards to elect different numbers of councillors) would likely delay the process- if not bring it to a standstill. The review team is on solid ground by asking Council to clear away unworkable and problematic options at this time so that it can concentrate on options that address identified shortcomings in the present system.

2 The Principles The Kawartha Lakes ward boundary review is built on four guiding principles that ensure that the representation of residents is equitable ("a general balancing of populations between Wards"), that the representation of place ("settlement patterns and existing communities of interest") is reasonable and that boundaries are based on easily identifiable features rather than artificial lines that appear only on paper. The overriding principle aims at achieving "effective representation" for the entire community, a concept widely employed in electoral redistributions in Canada to capture the on-going relationship between residents and their elected representatives, one of the principal outcomes of an election.

These principles are in step with those that I have used in electoral reviews in both large and small municipalities across Ontario; they have also been accepted as valid in other cases when an appeal has been taken to the Ontario Municipal Board. In this review the principles have been explained clearly and applied consistently to the status quo and to the series of alternatives developed so far by the staff team.

A ward boundary review is ultimately about choosing an electoral system that best delivers effective representation but only a perfect electoral design - in a perfect world - is likely to meet all of these principles literally or uniformly. Nevertheless, having principles in place to assist in evaluating the alternatives reduces the risk that an electoral review may lead to unfair, ill-conceived or politically motivated results.

Report CLK2016-009 is a successful contribution to ensuring that the electoral structure in Kawartha Lakes aligns with the geographic distribution of the inhabitants of the municipality and is constructed on a foundation of easily understood and coherent principles.

3 The Proposals The Current System: A logical starting point for a ward boundary review is to begin with basic questions: "is a change necessary?" "Why?'' and "What would work better?"

The current structure was laid out in the Victoria County Restructuring Commission Report (2000) and the subsequent Provincial Government Order that brought about amalgamation. The intention was to use a ward system so that "all parts of the new municipality share the same proportionate representation." What is interesting in Kawartha Lakes (and unusual in the context of other amalgamations at that time) is that the proposed sixteen single-member wards were drawn so that they "are not coterminous with the existing boundaries of the area municipalities", in part to provide "a greater incentive to work in the collective interests of the new municipality" rather than "concerns specifically related to the geographical area of the previous municipalities." The goal was to have a system where wards "should have approximately the same number of electors" and "should, as closely as possible, capture a community of interest." (page 50)

Report CLK2016-009 applies the guiding principles to the status quo (labeled as Option 1) and has concluded on the basis of available evidence that it fails to meet both the population and community of interest principles. Despite the relatively short time these arrangements have been in place, there is little justification for retaining the present ward configuration and a very weak case to make in its defense should the matter ever go before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Altern::ltive Systems of RepresRntRtinn: Part of the challenge for this review is to tease apart three separate but connected decisions that follow from the rejection of "Option 1" as a suitable system of representation in 2016: • How many councillors does the City need to provide effective representation to its residents? • Should the single-member ward model be retained or should the City use a multiple-member ward model in whole or in part? • How should ward boundaries be drawn to ensure more equitable representation?

4 Equitable Representation: I believe that Report CLK2016-009 shows clearly that the guiding principles can be applied successfully to Kawartha Lakes' distinctive demographic and geographic environment to address this question both creatively and sensibly. It is most impressive to find that all of the new designs (Options 2 - 7) achieve a high level of population parity, with a narrower range of variation than is commonly used in ward boundary reviews that I have conducted myself. For the overwhelming majority of proposed wards in all of the Options, the population fits well within the acceptable range of variation. It is also evident that considerable effort has been made to group identified communities of interest together and to minimize the division of settlements; this has not been entirely possible given the expanse of the City and the dispersal of some of these interests, but existing identifiable settlement areas (with the notable exception of Lindsay in Option 2) are consistently placed in a single ward.

District Magnitude: Comparative research on representation considers the number of officials elected in each electoral area to be the "district magnitude."

Kawartha Lakes has used single-member wards for fifteen years, a model of representation that has, in my view, many benefits. The new Options in Report CLK2016-009 that are built exclusively on this approach (Option 2) or principally on this basis (Option 7) are generally successful but flawed primarily in reration to how Lindsay is integrated into the overall design. In Option 2 (like the status quo), Lindsay is broken up into four quadrants, each with rural hinterland appended to the urban core; not only is the voice of urban residents artificially fragmented, but many people living on the fringe are absorbed into an otherwise urban ward. In Option 7, Lindsay is a single entity but all voters in the proposed Ward 8 would have three votes for council while residents of every other ward would have only one. This is perhaps an unfair compromise to make to retain single-member wards for the rest of the City.

If there is a strong preference to retain single-member wards in Kawartha Lakes, these two Options have some merit, despite the shortcomings just

5 noted. Option 7 has an additional advantage that may have appeal to some residents, namely a reduction in the size of Council.

In the light of these limitations, however, a system based on multiple members may be more palatable and Report CLK2016-009 has proposed some viable approaches to a model of this kind. It is important to note that in all of these other scenarios, individual Councillors will each be responsible for (and to) significantly more constituents than at present because each ward is by definition larger. This is a noteworthy change in the way the role of Councillor in Kawartha Lakes has been understood since amalgamation. There are both strengths and weaknesses to multiple­ member wards that should be considered as part of the choice of one of these models.

Composition of Council: The Ontario Municipal Act section 217 authorizes a single-tier municipality to modify the "composition of its council" (that is, the size of its council). Other than setting a minimum size ("five members, one of whom shall be the head of council") there is no leg islative or regulatory direction on how large a council should be. The Victoria County Restructuring Commission Report recommended that there be sixteen Councillors in Kawartha Lakes on the grounds that it permitted what the Report considered "effective representation" (based on reasonable access to the Councillors by residents, a manageable workload for Counci111ors and effective decision-making by the Council).

It is up to the community and Council to determine whether these goals have been met successfully with sixteen Councillors and, therefore, whether the composition of council needs to be changed. Options 6 and 7 are premised on an identified reduction in the size of Kawartha Lakes Council while Options 3 and 4 can be adapted to keep the Council the same size or to reduce it.

6 The Options While Report CLK2016-009 has included models that vary the district magnitude between a single-member and as many as four members, adopting the predominantly single-member options requires either a deliberate compromise in relation to the community of interest guiding principle (Option 2) or an disproportionate allocation of electoral power to individual residents of Lindsay (Option 7). In an ideal system, I would personally make every effort to avoid such arrangements but these choices should not be regarded as fatal flaws to implementing Options 2 and 7, so long as the deviation from the guiding principles is clearly understood as a rationale to achieve the municipality's "larger public interest."

Option 5 proposes a multi-member ward system that retains City Council at 16 members. Like Option 7, residents in the ward based on Lindsay are given more votes than other City residents (4 versus 3 for the rest). The population of the five wards is intended to be roughly proportionate; that is, the proposed Central Ward (Lindsay) is larger in absolute terms but is assigned an extra seat on Council. However, the proposed East Ward is notably smaller in population than the proposed West and North Wards, each of which are assigned three Councillors. Tweaking the boundaries between the proposed West and East Wards may address these issues. This Option is valid but not without deficiencies.

In principle, Option 4 is very similar to Option 3 in that each could be used to elect 8, 12 or 16 Councillors. The population figures are reasonably well balanced in this Option and representation is symmetrical since each ward is assigned the same number of Councillors. The unique feature of this Option is the proposed orientation for Wards 2 and 4 stretching across the entire City, basically grouping some pre-amalgamation communities that were not adjoining. This may be in keeping with one of the premises of the present ward system about the status of pre-amalgamation municipalities in the new City but the proposed wards 2 and 4 do not appear to constitute coherent communities of interest.

Option 3 also allows for flexibility in determining the overall composition of Council through an adjustment to district magnitude and is prem ised on

7 symmetry among the wards. The population estimates for the four wards are remarkably similar; if anything, however, significant population growth in the Lindsay urban area over the next decade may soon tip the present population balance in the four wards. The proposed Wards 2 and 3 offer a more reasonable grouping of settlements and interests. In terms of the guiding principles, this Option would earn a high rating as a means to address the composition of council issue, assuming a change is thought desirable.

Option 6 is a departure from the present model in that there are wards of different magnitude: two elect three members each while three elect two. However, the proposed pattern balances representation between the areas north of Lindsay and the area that includes Lindsay and the southern parts of the City. Part of the "package" is a reduction in the overall size of Council to 12, which may add to its value.

Conclusion Each of the options developed in Report CLK2016-009 offers selective improvements to the present system of representation in Kawartha Lakes. There is no single "right" solution to addressing the shortcomings of the status quo identified in this Report but the guiding principles combined with directions over the future composition of council can offer legitimate priorities for a meaningful round of public consultation.

The purpose of this external review is not to push Council into adopting certain Options but to inform Council and the community that in my professional judgment Report CLK2016-009 is a valuable guide to that next ~tAn It ~nnt~in~ ~ wnrk~hiA nl;:m fnr thA rAviAw ~nrl nl~t J~ihiA ~ltP.rn~tivP.~ ---.-· .. --· ...... ·- - .. -· ··-~·- (""·~·. ·-· .. ·- . -- ·-.- ~· -- ,.~--·-.- --·--·. ·---·--- to the present electoral structure in Kawartha Lakes.

8 A Note on the Author Dr. Robert J. Williams is an independent consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems. Since 2008 he has undertaken reviews himself for Kitchener, Markham, Milton, New Tecumseth, Oakville, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Windsor and West Lincoln. He has also worked in conjunction with Watson and Associates on reviews for Pelham, , Bradford West Gwillimbury, Clearview and Gravenhurst. They are currently collaborating on ward boundary reviews in Hamilton, Milton, Georgina and Severn.

Dr. Williams has also been an advisor to Municipal Clerks or citizens on ward boundary matters in Wilmot, , East Gwillimbury, Kingston, , Kearney, and Killarney. He has served as an expert witness before the OMB hearings on ten occasions. In 2010 he was engaged by the Nova Scotia Utilities and Review Board to prepare reports in relation to the determination of council composition in Halifax and Cape Breton Regional Municipalities.

Dr. Williams holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Waterloo.

9 The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Council Report

Report Number CLK2Oí 6-01 I

Date: October 18,2016 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Gommunity ldentifier: All

Subject: Ward Review Public Gonsultation Results

Author/Title: Judy Gurrins, Gity Clerk S¡ nature:

Recommendation(s):

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2016-011, Ward Review Public Gonsultation Results, be received;

THAT the results of the public consultation process for a ward review for the City of Kawartha Lakes, be received.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director / Other:

Chief Adm in istrative Officer: Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 2 of 13

Backg rou nd:

At the Council Meeting of May 10,2016, Council adopted the following resolutions:

10.4.2 CLK20r6-009

Judy Currins, City Clerk Core Service Review - Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation

Judy Currins, City Clerk, provided a brief overview of her report. cR20'!6-425 Moved By Councillor Dunn Seconded By Councillor James

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2016-009, Ward Boundary Options for Public Consultation, be received; THAT Ward Boundary Options 3 and 6 be selected for the public consultation process; and THAT the City Clerk be instructed to complete the public consultation process and report the results to Council for decision. CARRIED

cR2016-426 Moved By Councillor Elmslie Ètg(irt,lrqguê----J^J EyE¡.. vuuiluilrrJr,^^,.-^:il^- \,/^^rYrJ

RESOLVED THAT Ward Boundary Option 2 be added to the options to be included in the public consultation process. CARRIED

This report addresses that direction. Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 3 of 13 Rationale:

Dating back to 2015, Council has been reviewing the ward boundaries and structure of Council. This work was also included in the City's Core Services Review.

Following the direction of Council, staff prepared resource material to be used to seek the input of the general public on the three preferred options being; o Option 1 - Four Wards with 2, 3 or 4 CouncillorsA/r/ard; o Option 2 - Five Wards with a combination of 2 or 3 CouncillorsANard; . Option 3 - Sixteen Wards with 1 CouncillorANard.

Over the course of the next three months, public input was collected through

. lnformation posted on the website . lnformation available at all Municipal Service Centres and Public Libraries o Presentation at 10 Mayor Open Houses with Clerk's Office staff available to answer questions before and after the presentation o lnformation included in the Federation of Cottage Association newsletter to reach seasonal residents o Dedicated email to receive responses . Social Media posts including Facebook and Twitter o Press Releases issued. ln speaking with individuals at the Mayor's Open Houses, it was clear that some residents were very engaged, while others were interested but did not feel that they had the expert knowledge to make an informed decision and therefore were hesitant to complete the survey.

The consultation process was suitable receiving input from all wards and providing a reasonable cross section of the municipality. There was considerable use of the website and social media to encourage residents to complete surveys and let their views be known.

The ward review web page garnered consíderable interest with the following number of views over the past few months: May 84 (launched late May) June 2371 July 445 August 186. Report CLK2016-011 ward Review pubtic consu,Ë,:"åiïiiå

It is felt that the efforts were successful and provided an effective consultation on this issue. This input forms a reasonable base for Council to use to move fonruard.

As a result of the public consultation process, the following is the summary of Results of the Survey questions. A complete set of survey results have been attached as Appendix A.

Ciry of Kawartha Lakes Ward Bounrlry Revicw

Q1 Are you a full-time or seasonal resident? Anrwo¡ed:31C Sl¡Þrd:0

t¡o

Strh..

6% 1016 th 30% 40% s% 60 lo1É a09a s'!ú 1m%

1l!rTc¡þr:6 IIT"Y 9t.68ta 313

o.rna I

o.mt. o

The purpose of this question was to ensure that the results reflected the views of residents only, whether they be full-time or seasonal. The one "No" was actually a seasonal resident and therefore comments were included in the results. lt should be noted that there were a number of surveys submitted that were not complete and therefore could not be placed in the electronic surveys. Those results are included in Appendix B to the Report. There was also a formal suggestion submitted which is attached as Appendix C. Several written submissions were received which are attached as Appendix D. Also of interest, there were an equal number of electronic submissions as there were paper submissions. Report CLK2016-01'1 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 5 of 13 02 LlrÞlcf,i cutrðnt wåfit dö you restrds ¡n or votô ln?

I I I I I; I IT I!

AffiCg Èatûaa I , lt-lt*

2 lltS l2

lÉ 3 åtot

1 tilI E

12 a tttt g 1t 6

1 tË

a ¡"rof lÉ glt ¡ J? l0 a{la t?

J1 t'l¡l

{t¡l 1a û lllr 'tJ t¡ aúr tÉ tr tlt[ 21

t6 t-¡lt t;

tbôl E ù lt.tri 3.} tfl li{ This table reflects from which ward submissions were received. lnput was received from all wards providing a reasonable cross section of the municipality. It is disconcerting that the highest group of submissions came from residents that do not know what ward they reside in. This is an indication that should Council choose to change ward structure, that a public campaign will need to be conducted prior to the next election. Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 6 of l3

Q3 Tllhleh eommunþ ln CIS of Kswañåa Lakea do you HeatlfT wliñ?

The complete list of communities that respondents identify with can be found in Appendix A.

Q4 How mâ1ry Couaclllor¡ should iåryi on Goundl, exeludlng lhe llnyor?

Ál't*rd. :93 lUpf.d, ¡1

rt

It

þffirË

æ tüf g0l :Il* ,aoL !û!a ll¡f t{É g¡rt s* 1fþt

lruGÞt Eatða.¡ ¡lllJ|* ll.tlr tt.tt* L3ì*

The responses to this question indicate that the majority of respondents support a reduction in the number of members of Council. Only 20% of respondents support the current size of Council withT4o/o supporting a reduced number of Councillors. Report CLK2016-01 1 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 7 of 13

Q5 WlrÐt ñumb.r of Gounclllors pàr ward do you prrirr to rtprteent you?

A¡r¡*d. rll l¡lpdr $

Ch gðnalr

t* Cà!ra3ð

l¡ra Cõ¡îaIil

Fot¡t cqxraañ

lbÈt$c

ot tfx *L f¡¡¡ g* clt *l¡r tat¡ dl¡ cla lgf

lmCb btü t3 Ora Go.¡rdþ 4tttt ts eù¡dbt ?ta-*l 1¡r Tluh¡úlãr t¡ût 27 FÈtftr¡rdd ¡gt* l&Pr*rË É.lt* 2t t4 ila

It is clear that the respondents were equally satisfied with being represented by one or two councillors per ward but did not support any greater number of councillors per ward.

Question 6 verified a Kawartha Lakes Address as a second check on the res¡dency and ¡s therefore not included as a table in this Report as it was 100o/o Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 8 of 13

Ê7 Re*ldeïts Êhd Electors ârÊ åskËd to rånk thÊ followlng thrae (3) ward optlons ln ordÊr of prÊfiÊrÊnôô (lst, Znd, 3rd )1rt belng tha moat pr,efored, and 3rd belng tho lesst ",,.iiïïl;,,

Og¡c anrr FuËlWr.-

odaÌx: F!.i {5J lf.r-

OFåü thtr: !tl¡H{llt.-.

t 2 ,3

Ranked Ranked Ranked First Second Third Option One: Four (4) Wards (electing a 45.49o/o 36.12% 18.38% total of 8, 12 or 16 141 112 57 Councillors Option Two: (5) Wards (electing a total 35.48% 57.74o/o 6.77% of 12 Councillors plus 110 179 21 Mayor) Option Three: Sixteen(16) Wards 19.04% 6.13% 74.84% (electing a total of 16 59 19 232 Councillors plus Mavor) 310 310 310

The chart shows the raw numbers received for each choice indicating that the public ranked a four ward system as their number one choice, a five ward system as their number two choice and a sixteen ward system as their third choice.

The graph above shows the results using an average ranking formula as explained below. ln this case, with the weighting, Option 1 and 2 are even

Average Ranking Ranking questions calculate the average ranking for each answer choice so you can determine which answer choice was most preferred overall. The answer choice with the largest average ranking is the most preferred choice. The average ranking is calculated as follows, where: Report CLK2016-01 I Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 9 of 13 w = weight of ranked position x = response count for answer choice tWt + X2W2 * XgWZ ... XnWn

otal Weights are applied in reverse. ln other words, the respondent's most preferred choice (which they rank as #1) has the largest weight, and their least preferred choice (which they rank in the last position) has a weight of 1. You can't change the default weights. For example, if a Ranking question has 5 answer choices, weights are assigned as follows: . The #1 choice has a weight of 5 . The #2 choice has a weight of 4 . The #3 choice has a weight of 3 . The #4 choice has a weight of 2 . The #5 choice has a weight of 1 We apply weights in this way to ensure that when the data is presented on a chart, it's clear which answer choice is most preferred.

While public input is very important, the decision before Council needs to be made with the adopted guiding principles as the basis. lt has been noted at the Ontario Municipal Board that public opinion should not override a design that is established with good guiding principles.

Q$ Plra¡a $0 thÊ spâc€ btlow to provldo ôny åddlt¡onâl Êomnunb rslsv¡nt to ütt wsrd rÊv¡Èrv.

l:rirr¡d. ill 9i.¡:prl, tl?

As noted, there were additional comments provided by 147 respondents. Those comments can be found in Appendix A. Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 10 of 13 Next Steps

At this point, Council needs to make a decision with respect to how it wishes to proceed. lf Councilwishes to proceed with the ward review, the next step is to determine the composition of Council this municipality should have, that is the number of Councillors that will form the next municipal council. This decision is done in accordance with Section 217 of the Municipal Act which says in part:

217(11 Gomposition of council of local municipal¡ty . .. authorize a local municipality to change the composition of its council subject to the following rules: I . There shall be a minimum of five members, one of whom shall be the head of council. 2. The members of counci! sha!! be elected b¡r genera! .,,ote. 3. The head of council shall be elected by general vote. 4. The members, other than the head of council, shall be elected by general vote or wards or by any combination of general vote and wards. 5. The representation of a local municipality on the council of an upper- tier municipality shall not be affected by the by-law of the local municipality under this section.

(2) Repealed

(3) Goming into force - A by-law described in this section does not come into force until the day the new council is organized, (a) after the first regular election following the passing of the by-law; or (b) if the by-law is passed in the year of a regular election before voting day, after the second regular election following the passing of the by-law.

(4) Election - the regular election held immediately before the coming into force of a by-law described in this section shall be conducted as if the by- law was already in force.

(5) Term unaffected - Nothing in this section authorizes a change in the term of office of a member of council.

A decision relating to the composition of council cannot be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The decision is entirely that of Council.

Once this decision is made, then the number of wards must be established and the boundaries of each ward finalized.

Council has the following options at this time, if it is satisfied with the scenarios brought fonryard for an 8, 12 or 16 councillor model: Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 11 of 13

Option 1 Determine the number of Councillors Council wish for the 2018 municipal council and direct the City Clerk to provide the necessary by-law to effect this decision. Council should also provide direction to the City Clerk on how many councillors per ward and request two or three options for ward boundaries for a final decision of Council on the issue. As this final decision relates to ward boundaries, that decision can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

To effect this decision, the following direction would be required:

RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be directed to prepare and present a by-law to set the composition of Council as the Mayor and XX Councillors; THAT XX Councillors be elected in XX wards; and THAT the City Clerk be instructed to prepare and present two (three or other number) options for ward boundaries to reflect this decision.

Option 2 Determine the number of Councillors Council wish for the 2018 municipal council and the number of wards and if the decision is to accept one of the three public consultation models, direct the City Clerk to provide the necessary by-laws to set the composition of Council and the ward boundaries.

To effect this decision, the following direction would be required

RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be directed to prepare and present a by-law to set the composition of Council as the Mayor and XX Councillors; THAT XX Councillors be elected in XX wards; and THAT the City Clerk be instructed to prepare and present the by-law to change ward boundaries to reflect the XX ward scenario in accordance with Option XX that was used for the public consultation process.

Option 3 Retain 16 ward councillors, change the boundaries. lf Council wishes to retain the composition of council at 16 Councillors, it is recommended that the boundaries be adjusted to balance the number of electors per ward as outlined in Option 3 that went to public consultation.

To effect this decision, the following direction would be required

RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be directed to prepare and present the by-law to change ward boundaries to reflect a 16 ward scenario in accordance with Option 3 that was used for the public consultation process.

lf Council would like to see options with another number of councillors than what was directed previously, the following option is available. Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 12 of 13

Option 4 lnstruct staff to prepare other scenarios. The direction needs to be spec¡fic as to the number of Councillors and the number of wards. Each scenario would require a separate resolution.

RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be directed to present a ward scenario with XX Councillors within a XX wards.

Option 5 Retain 16 ward councillors and make no changes to the existing boundaries. This is not recommended as it has been proven that the current boundaries do not meet the parameters of the adopted Guiding Principles. As such, doing nothing could result in an appealto the Ontario Municipal Board. To make this decision, the report recommendations would be the only action required.

Within the Cityr Notice by-!aw, a notice is required to be published 14 days pt"iot'to the consideration of the final by-law for both council composition and ward boundary changes. ln addition, notice is required under the Municipal Act for the passing of a by-law to change the ward boundaries. These notice provisions will form part of the process and be completed by the Clerk's Office.

Other Alternatives Considered :

These were addressed under the Rationale section

Fi nancial Considerat¡ons :

There is currently an election reserve that has funds to be used for the 2018 municipal election. Funds from this reserve could be used to fund any shortfall in expenses for a further review and implementation. lt should be cautioned that the decision has not yet been made by Council as to the method that the 2018 election will be conducted. This decision will impact on the amount of funds available within this reserve or the budget request amount for 2018.

Relationship of Recommendat¡on(s) To The 2016-2019 Strategic Plan:

Council is the guiding elected body that determines the Strategic Goals of the municipality. A strong Council represents the entire municipality and ensures that all goals are met for the betterment of all residents and electors.

Review of Accessibility lmplications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A Report CLK2016-011 Ward Review Public Consultation Results Page 13 of 13

Servicing Comments:

N/A

Consultations:

Attachments:

Appendix A - Complete Survey Results El- Þ Appendix A Corplete Survey.pdf Appendix B - lncomplete Survey Submissions El- Þ App B Inconplete Survey Results.pdf

Appendix C - Option put forward from Public Respondent @l- Þ Public Subnission. pdf

Appendix D - Other written submission E- Þ Appendix D. pdf

Phone: (7051324-9411 Ext. 1295 E-Mail: [email protected] Department Head: Ron Taylor, CAO Department File: ppe.^à I X A City of Kawattha Lakes Vy'ard Boundary Review ^

Q1 Are you a full-time or seasonal resident?

Ans!.r:rodj 314 SkìpÞc(l: ü

Yos

No

l'¡èlthôr

0./. r00Á 2îrÁ 30% 4o% 50% 60% 700h 80% 90% 1Û00/"

An6trr cholcas Rsspdcer

9S.60%

0.32% 1 No

0.00% B Neiùler fotal 314

1t9 City of KawarÚra Lakes Ward Boundary Review

Q2 Whlch current ward do you rælde ¡n or vote ¡n?

AnswoEd:31ó ak¡PPrd:0

rI a I 3 t I I 3 I

7 I 8 fT l0 t fl I a2 I 't3 I l1 I t6 I tô Dont K¡il I 0* 10% 20Vo 30* 409ß 5096 ô016 ?Oy. 80% $t¿ 1009t

Arusr¡ Chot6 RcÞo¡fèr 32

3.t2U1 12

5,1070 r6

7.01% 22 4

3.82t6 12 5 I 6.tt5l6 19 1,14tt 13 7 t 5.10'¿ 16 I 3.11U, 17 17 l0 E.al,t 219 City of Kawartha Lakes ìVard Boundary Review

7.32% 23 11

4,14% 13 12

3.82./. 12 13

5,10% 14

7,64% 24 15

1? '16 s,11%

10.51y6 Don't Know

Tolal 311

3/9 City of Kawartha L¿kes \Ma¡d Boundary Review

Q3 Which community in City of Kawartha Lakes do you identifY with?

Ànswered:309 sklpped:5

* Rêtponæ8 Drtâ

Boboaygeon g1'9',1191L

PM 2 OmemEs t/8/20164:01 9/8/2016 4:00 PM J Omêmee

4 Llndsay ; 9/8/2018 3:59 PM

Bobcaygeon 9/812016 3:58 PM

9/812018 3:5? PM Þ Boboaygeon 9/8/20163:50PM 7 Omôm6e I

I L¡ndsay 918/2016 3:e4 PM PM I tsobcaygeon 918/201€ 3:51 PM 10 Bobcaygêon i 9/g/2016 o:õo

PM 11 Orlllla 9lg2o18?i47

PM 12 Cardsn 3/8/2018 3:46

PM 13 Kinmount 9/812016 3:,14

1 3:43 PM 14 S€brlght orillla 9812016

15 Orllllâ 9ßnolÛgtA2PM

9/8/2016 3:40 PM 16 Bobcaygeon

3:39 PM 17 Bobcaygeon 918/2016

PM 13 Omeme€ 9/8/2016 3:37

3:36 PM 19 Fenêlon 9/8f20t6

PM 20 Fenelon Falls 9/8201€ 3:35

PM 21 OmemeE 9/8/2016 3:33

22 Omemee 9/8/201ð 3:30 PM

PM 2! Llndeay 9/812016 3:29

3:27 PM 24 Llndsay 9/8i2016

25 Llndsay 918f2A16 3:2APM

PM 26 Lfndsây €Y812018 3:25

27 Fenelon Falls 9ßÆ;A163:24PM

28 Omemee 918/2016 0:23 PM

29 Omämê6 9/8/2016 3:21 PM

PM 30 Omeme€ 9/8/2018 3:18

PÍ¡l 31 Omemce 9/8/2016 3:17

3:16 PM 32 OYnameo 9/8/201€

PM 33 Ol'lemee 9/8/2016 3:12 Ptl 34 Omsme€ 9/8/20103:11

1t8 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

ât i Omemee 9/8120,l6 3:10 PM _ - _i._ 36 I o*em"" 9/8/2016 3:09 PM 37 Omemee ì 9/8/20163:08PM

38 i Lindsay ;9/8120163:07PM

39 Lindsay 9/8/20'1ô 3:06 PM -'t 40 Menvers I 9/8120163:05PM I

41 i Manvers 9/8i2016 3:03 PM

42 i Lindsay :9/8120163:02PM 4? I unu entan 9/8/2016 3:01 PM I u*r* - 9/8/2018 3:00 PM sl8l2o162i52PM 45 1 JsneMlle

48 I Little Britsin 9/8/2018 2:51 PM

47 Fenelon Falls 9/8/2018 2:50 PM

48 Little Bdtaln r 9/8/20162:49PM

4S Msnvera 9t8t20102:4EPM

50 Manvers 9/812016 2:46 PM

PM 51 L¡ndsay Mariposa 2:45

52 Manvers , Si8l2016 2:45 PM

53 Oakwood ! 9/8/2016 2:40 PM i gig/zoioz,ggptt_ 54 Oakwood i _ 55 1 Balsam Lake Coboconk 9/8/2016 2:37 PM

56 Kirkfield and Bolsover si8l2016 2:36 PM

9/8/20162:35 PM 57 Woodville .. _ 58 Klrkfleld Bolsover ¡ 918f20182:32PM ¡ g/0t20162:go 59 Dalrymple PM

60 Bobcâygeon i 9/8120162:28 PM

61 I Bobcayg"on 918¡2O1ã2t27 PM g2 Dalrymple 918120162t26PM tt"!tu"*P"__ 63 Llndsay _ " il OmEmee s18120162:23PM

65 Lindsay Ops t 9181fr162:,22PM

66 I oalrymple 918120162t21 PM

67 Llndsey 9/8/2016 2:17 PM

68 Woodville 9/8/2016 2:16 P[,1 , 69 Llndsay 9/8/20182:f5 PM

70 Lindsay 918!20182:14PM

71 Resboro 9/8/2016 2:13 PM

72 Leke Dalrymple 918¡2016 2:12 PM

73 Lske Dalrymde i 9i8/20162:11 PM

74 i Fenelon Falls 9/812016 2:09 PM

76 Falls Sturgêon Lake 9/8/201ô 2:07 PM 2t8 City of Kawartha Lakes TVard Boundary Review

9/8/2016 1:52 PM 76 I eob..yg"on Fenelon Fslls SiS/2016 1:49 PM 77 , Bobcâygeon NorthVerulam :9i8i20161:48PM I Bobcaygeon Fenelon Falls 9/8/2016 1:47 PM 7g Bobcaygeon j els¡2or o t :40 PM 80 : Bobcaygeon 918120161t44PM 81 lrent Lakes _t-,----.-,- ig/oieotot:43PM 82 r FêñâlOtr l-ãllS I ti- 918t20161:42PM i"nelonFalle : s/8/20161:41 PM 84 ---t i Woodvllle 9/g/2016 1:40 PM 85 FenElon Falls 9/812016 lr38 PM 86 i Feneion Falls 918t2O161:37 PM 87 Bobr8ygeon ,

88 ¡ Llndery '9/g/201€1,g6PM 9/8/2016 1:35 PM 89 L¡ndsây 9/8i2016 1:33 PM 90 Llndsay ' 9181201612:06PM 91 Lindsay 91812O1612tø2?M' 92 Ltñdsay ' , 9/8i201612:æPM 93 L¡ndEay tl,roturtjl*_ 94 L¡ndsay _ _ 9/8,2016 11:57 AM 95 i Llndsây 918t2018 1 1:56 AM 96 i LindsayOmemeeBobcaygeon s/8/2016 11:61 AM 97 Llndsay l1:50 AM 98 Lindsây 'gßmßu;qz*M 9S Lindsây

9/812018 1 1:35 AM 100 Lindsay

9/8/2016 1 l:33 AM 101 I Lindsay 918¡2016 '11:24 AM 102 Sebdght 9181201611i22 AM '103 Sebdght 918120161'l:21 NA 104 Sebtight '9/s/201611:19AM 105 Delton 918/2016 l1:'17 AM 106 Kawartha L6kes 9/8/2016 I 1:16 AM 107 Dalton

S1812016 1'1i14 AM 108 Seblght $s¡zoro 11rr AM 109 Sebright | i glgrzoiett,og¡M 110 Bêthany 5/8/201611;084M 11'l Beüany j 9/8/2016 1'l:06 AM 112 Bethâny Janewille 9/8/2016 1l:02 AM 113 Bethany 9i8l2016 11:00 AM 111 B€lhany

9/8/2016 10:58 AM 1r5 FEnelon Falls 9/8/201ô 10:57 AM 116 Kinmount 318 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

I Klnmount i 9/8/2016 l0:554M

'f 18 Klnmount ' 9/t/2016 10:524M

119 Somervllle : 9/8/2016 10:49 AM i 120 K¡nmount 9/g/2o16to:3seM 121 Norland t/8i*1t!'t 1Y Nodand Çoboconk 9/8/2016'10:32 AM I gi8l20l6 123 ' Fenolon Fâlls 10:31 AM

'lu. I to¿an¿ 9/8/2016 l0:29 AM

125 Norland : 9t812016'10:28 AM i gla/zototo:esAM 126 l-lv::r- 't27 Llndsay . r,?,rotu_ro? oy _ I 128 Lltüs Brltain VEIêntia . 9/8/2016 10:23 4M

125 Llt{e Brltaln 9/8/2016 10:21 AM

130 Ki¡kfi€ld 9/8/2016 l0:17 AM

131 Bolsovêr 9l8l20lB 10:15 AM

132 Sebdght 9/8/2016 10:14 AM

133 I s"u¡ght ,9181201610:124M I l-- 9i8l2016 10:11 AM

9/8/20J8 10:10 AM

138 Klrkf¡cld løgrrllllt_ly 9/8/2016 10:064M 137 _ _,.! Il.¡"'1 138 Xi¡meH y1'1119'o'lt ¡

''t39 Bolsover Ki.kfi old Carden , 9/812016 10i02AM

140 Klrkñeld 9/8/2018 10:01 AM _!-_-.-.--.- 141 i Bumt River 918/2016 9:õ9 AM

142 Bobcaygeon 9/8/2016 9:58 AM

143 Coboconk 9/8/2016 S:55 AM

144 Four Mils Lske ;9/8/20169:534M 145 I Fenelon Falls -:Y^! s:æ ll't 146 I Head Lake - 9i0/2010 9:48 AM I 147 Coboconk olg/2ol69:464M

,1: WoodviIe ' 9/8/2016 9:454M

149 Lindsay 9/8/2016 9:44 AM 150 I o*"*" 91812A169:42 rùÃ 151 Lindsay I 9/a/20t69:ggAil,

152 Oakwood ' 9/8/20169:384M

153 Lirys:y_ | 9/8/20169:364M t- .-- i Dunsford 812120161'l:31 AM ':1 155 Falls 71301201õ2io5PM

156 Coboconk , 713An01611:494M

157 couoconx 713012016 I 1:13 AM I I 4t8 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

158 i Woodville 7/29/20'16 4:15 PM

159 Fenelon Falls i 712S120161t01Plt

160 r coBocoNK i tnatzaßt42qM 7l28l20't61t13PM 161 I Coboconk i 162 i Llndsay i 712812o1610t13 AM 163 Omemee :':':t':"'iy_' 164 i lindsay 7127120168:45PM

165 , Lindsay 7127201ô 9:05 AM

166 I Omemeè 7127120169i03 AM '. 67 I Ltndsay znetZArcfl:32PM AM 108 Omemee 7¡261291611:13

169 7l26li¿O1611:l'l AM

170 7l28li2o1B 10:úl AM AM 171 i Woodvl[e 71261201610:37 172 Llndsay 71281201810:28 AM I I : tt 173 i Omernee 7126nO1610:164M I 174 | unosoy znenús¡o:ot avt 22612016 9:59 AM 175 0unsford I

17Ê Lindsay 726/2016 9:55 AM t"u/tjT?'j.o" 177 Lindsay - 178 I omEmee il2612Û169147 AM

175 Llndsay t 712612O168:.42 AM

180 City of Kawartha Lake8 7/28/201 I 9:38 AM I tlzstzoßa:s¿pt¡i 181 ; cobooonk j 182 Norland : 712212O163:10PM

183 Siurgeon Polnt, then Fenelon Falls 7t2212O16'12:49PM

1U I dont es I feel thls reglon isolates and descdm¡nâtes agalnst newly arived people { I hove lived herê 25 years) 71221201610i00 AM

185 Fenelon Falls/CoboconuBurnt Rlver 7121120161?,i00 PM 711gl2!ß2:0gPM 186 Bobcaygeon |

187 Coboconk 71191201610:42 AM

r88 Llndsay 71181201612:31 PM pu 189 Sebñght I zttlzotts:t't

190 Dalrymdê ; 71151201612t32PM i tnsnorc11:334M l9t Lindsay I

192 lft{e bÌitâln 711512016 9:09 AM

193 Nod¿¡rd Coboconk 711412O165:O2PM

194 Kirkf,eld 7114120169i55 Ant

t95 Omemee 7!1312O1812:,07 PM

196 Coboconk and Kinmout 7t10l20'1611:09 AM

197 Lake Ddryaple 7/1012016 8:38 AM

198 Lltüe Bdtain 7/9/201ô 1:58 PM 5/8 'Ward City of Kawartha Lakes Boundary Review

199 ' valentla 7/812016 9:39 AM ' 200 Fênelon Falls _ _lll'otut'uli" t751201610:1gPM 201 Fenelon Falls / Cameron

715120163t29 PM :o: , Fenelon ralls 203 | 7131201811:23 AM

2M none 7121201810:41 AM _ I ___ __-,__- _ -l--. 205 ' Lindsay 711120¿6 10:06 PM

ãF Lindsay 711120168:47 PM

n7 i Llnd"y 7/1/2018 6:50 PM

208 i Pontyæd : 7!1t2o'tg 4t12PM

209 :LINDSAYRR6 ; 6/30/201 6 8:14 PM

210 Omemee i aßotmlaz:zsPu ,:, y::_diP I 10:43 AM

212 Janetville 8/29/2016 9:35 PM

213 Bobcaygeon 6l2sl2o167i22PM

PM 214 none, I go to Port perry ae lhey never drarge for parking, have a great library open on Sundays all year, super 6t2512016 4:Zr watorfonutsstauants, great shopping. friondly town, Easy to get around, Pil 215 ¡ Fenelon Falls 8/29/20.{e 3:00 216 I Llndsay | 612912A1810:31 AM AM 217 I L¡ndsay 61291201610:07 lindsay 6/29120'18 7:34 AM

PM 219 Sornervllle 6/28/2016 9:08

220 Llndsay ' 6128i120168i13PM

221 r Norland 61281201821æPM

Omemee 6/281201 6 1:08 PM I I 6/28120í611:534M 223 I fanelon falle I '_ ..i_I 224 I el28l2O161Oi22AM I -y""dl1"" _ 8t2712016gi18PM 225 I Downeyviüe

226 Coboconk 6127/2A168:57 PM

AM 227 Lindeay : 612712O1811:52

228 Lindsay ' 6/26/201 I 5:09 PM

229 bumt ¡ivÊr. coboconk, four m¡le lake 612612016 8:42 ìtÃÁ

230 Fenelon Falls 6/2612016 6:32 AM t 231 Llttle Brilain 6t2stzal6atzePìú | 232 Pontypool 6124120166t15PM

- 6123/2016 8:00 PM ??, I Fendon Torvnship 2g Lindsay i aÞ¿tzorc¿¡tp¡t¡

236 i Fgn€lon Falls 612A20167225 AM I 236 unos"v 6120120161:46 PM --_ -.----t | - I 237 ; The unrepresenlad 6/2012016 8:18 AM

I I :zU rlvl r Llndsay , b/l 9/ZU1 Þ 6/8 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

O¡tgl¿Ote g:¿Z Àt,t 239 i Dunsford l-_---*" d1912016 8:05 AM 240 I LindsaY 6/1912016 7146 AM 241 Lindsay and Janetville

6/18/201ô 1f5 PM 242 Ì Boboayg€on 6/18/20'161:07 PM 243 Bobcaygeon

6/1812016 12:23 PM 2U Pontypool 11:31 AM 246 I Little Britaln , 6118/2016 6117120187:52PM 248 i Bobcaygeon ' 6/17/201ô2:04 PM 247 I Lindsay ,

6h712o18 1107 PM 248 i Lindsay 6¡fina1610:31 AM 245 Boboaygeon r 6/16/20168:43PM 250 I Lindsey 6/lBr2otsa,zapn 261 Llndsay ' 6h512A16 fi:48 Ait 252 Omemee dl5/2016 7:00 Afi¡l 253 Lltüe. Briteln

61141201612148 PM 2g Litde Brlteln i 6t't4tzt161o:o7AM 255 Dunsford ¡ 6/13/2016 8:25 AM 256 I Undeay Ah3nU67:12AM 257 i Bobcsygeon

6/13120167:11 AM 258 Llndsay

6/13/2016 6:41 AM 259 Oakwood

Llndsay 61121201611i'l2PM

6/1212016 g:53 PM 261 I lindsay 6/1212016 6:53 PM 262 I Camp Churchill, Lindsay 6fi1n016 3;28 PM 293 I LÎt8E Brltain

6/1 1/2016 1:5s PM 2U L¡ttlè Bdtå¡n -_._-_-- o¡to¡zoto io:33 PM 265 KIRXFIELD i

6/10/2016 9:25 PM 2ô6 Omemeê i thU2o1B7:27PM 267 ¡ Llndsay i,, I thil20162t14PM 268 L¡ndsây I 6/10/2016 213 PM 269 | L¡ndsay oltol2olot:5ePM 270 ; Llndsav i 8/1012016 1:28 PM 271 I Lindsey : 6110/2018 1:19 PM 272 ' lindsay 6/102016 12:59 PM 273 Emily I e/to/zo161z:sg Pf\, 274 Lindsay, Fenebn d10/2016 12:35 PM 275 Lindsay 6/10201612:31 Pllil 276 Fenelon Falls 6/9t2016 9:38 PM 277 Fenelon Falls '619,20166:35PM 278 I cambray 6:27 PM 279 I cambray 6/9¿0'16 718 City of Kawartha Lakes TVard Boundary Review

280 Llndsay i 6/9/2016 3:18 PM L is/g/zoi62:54PM Lindsay ?v 282 Reâboro 6/S/2016 1;02 PM

283 I PleasantPoint 6/9/2016 10:42 AM

2U Fenelon Falls 6/9/2016 10:02 AM

285 L¡ndsay 6/912016 9:18 AM _ 288 ' norlh area- Sêbrlght 6/8/2016 8:41 PfiI

287 Norland ø18120167i11 PM

288 Llndsey 6l8l2Û187tl7 ?¡l

289 Lind€ay t 618120I67:O2PM

2SO Fônelon Falls I ele/eotes:lePM

291 Llndsay 618120'!.612t20 PM

292 Llttle Britain 6i8,2016 11:304M

æ3 Bethany 6i8l20t6 10:37 AM

281 Coboconk r 6fl2016 5:18 PM

295 Lhdsay 6n1¿0162:61PM

2æ Bobcaygeon i 6rl/20161:06 PM g:31 257 The€rtv of Kawartåa Lakes 6fl2016 Alll

298 None...,Port P€rry 8f112016 9:18 AM

2S9 ôIll2016 9:10 AM

300 i Lindsay , 6161201A'l1i42PM

301 Lindsay 6/6/2016 10:17 PM

302 Lindsay 6/6/2016 8:23 PM

303 j tmosav 818Í20167:24PM 304 ¡ Norland , 6/61201ô $;32 Pñ, 305 Llndsay 1 618120162:52PM

308 Fenelon Fâllg 6l6l2Û1eZi4APM

307 i co¡oconr 6lõ120161t27 PM I

308 Noúh Ward, Llndsay 61512Ð1øô:43PM

3f)9 Woodvllle d5/2016 6:28 PM

8/8 City of Karrartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

Q4 How many Gounclllors should Eerve on Gouncil, excluding the Mayor?

Answercd:283 sk¡ppBd:21

12

16 I Irlo PÞfsErcg I OPA 10% 2oyo 30% 40t5 50% 60'å TOqr 80% SO% lOe¿

AmYv¡r Gholoo¡ RsÞonæE I lt,t1L 127

90 12 30.72ìi

t6 l9,t1tt ff

0,83¡¿ 20 No Prôffficâ Tot¡l zgt

5/9 City of Kawartha l¿kes rüt¡ad Bouodary Review

Q5 What number of Gouncillors per ward do r*o'"i"i::.i:o"i:".:1"""

O¡r Cou¡o¡llor

Tso counclllorr

'fh.êâ CorrcilloF I Fo0t coundloE I No P¡rfauqe r

AnsrYar Ghd6 narronsü a3.31t¡ 136 One Concllor SgAtx 124 TVro cdino¡læ 8,00* 27 Thrôa Counc¡lo¡s

2,23rt 7 Four Counofl¡oÊ

6.37jr n No PßrorÊnæ | lot ¡ 9{,1

6/9 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

Q6 Address

:ir!!ç,ìrdl ::i.i S^ f,jrrt¡ !

Answr Cholces ResFmseB

100.00% 3r.1 Name

0.00% {l ComPênY

100.00% Kawartha Lákes Civrc Address (¡nclude street number, name. towñ/village)

0.00% t, Add¡ess 2

0,00% I C¡¡y/TMn

0,00% û StalelP¡ovinæ

0,00% ! ZlPlPoslal Code

0.00.¿ ¡l Country

45.54% i-l-l Enail Address

0.00% IJ Phone Numbêr

7t9 City of Kawartlra Lakes Ward Boundary Review

Q7 Residents and Electors are asked to rank the following three (3) ward opt¡ons ¡n order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd )1st being the most preferred, and 3rd being the least

^".:":.:1:,*,"-:;,,.

Optlon onc: Fdr (41W¡ñ-

OÉlo¡fwo: FIY! {5) lltti-

oþlon Thnr: Elrteen (18),,,

2 3 a5õ 7 I 9t0

1 2 3 I 2 3 fútd Sooro

Oltlr Om: Four l¡llw¿rds ld€(tlñ! ¿ lotal of 8. l2 or 16 Cflno¡¡|ffi 25'810L ß.nu. 8:fv. to08$ 10.3t¿ ll.atl,'¡ I s,3r plus MEy$) 80 sz' 21 6l 60 38 310

Opdü Two: Flvs (5) Wâtds (€lôcdng s tol¿l of l2 couftillm Èus Mayd) l8,'fs* 28.71!/ +rct6 is.03% 29.03% 2,6tlc 5t 13 59 00 I 310 r 5,33

qf 38.3Ct6 2,26'L 36.45tt Opdm Thrs6: SMeon {l 8) Wards {61êcd¡g I totål 18 Coumlllm plug 7,1!% 3.87 '11.0'l% ¿.48 Mayor) 22 '12 119 37 7 lt3 310

8/9 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

QB Please use the space below to provide any additional eornrnents relevant to the ward review.

Answered; 147 SklPPed:'167

Rtlponrer fþb 4:03 PM put some of lhe smaller wards together €g. 6&7, 2&3, I 1&12 and please encourage each councillor to sddresg 9Æ/2016 concems of lh€¡r votgrs

2 please consldBr re!.structlng and reduoing thê amount of supe¡vlaors, men8gêr3 êtc, A city wlth such e small 9ß120164t02PM population does not need such a redic{lolsly largB upper managemênt têam PM 3 Wit üere be cost savings? 9/8/2016 3:57 PM 4 Ward populatlon and counoillo¡s need 1o bo balanced 9/8/2016 3:66

3:5,[ PM 5 For 75,000 people, I counoillo¡s are plenly but for rôpresentâl¡on by population, I think itwould b€ fait üat Llndsay ls 9/812018 glven 3 counclllors insiead of 2

3:48 PM 6 Larger counclls only slow deslciong 9/8,2016

918/2016 3:46 PM 7 ffthere are 2 or 3 councillors, would they represent the whoþ ward (i'e. epread out)

9/8/2016 3;45 PM I Thank ¡lou for asking, o Emhas¡ô on counc¡l slze reduotíon and oost reduced 9/8/2016 3:44 PM

918/20163:41 PM 10 lfyou cånnot run it right th€ way ¡t ¡s then put us back thê lrrðy w€ were, The more you ohange the wa¡d th¡ngs out ln ths out laying arêaE.

3:39 PM '11 Neéd more dale. Which optlon inoreãses or deoreases costs? What about workload per eouncillor? Any efec't on 9/8i2016 services imperalive íf not l€ad to inctEase ln taxoE?

s/8/2016 3:38 PM 12 Most lnfo ebout lhB clty ls ln Kawartha Lakes fhls Week end a number of people do not gêt lhis pâper'

918/2016 3:33 PM 13 Omemeo must bo jolned boundary ward w¡se ¡n tì¡,o by the dver. 9/8/20163:31 PM 14 I want I ¡ocal person fooused on representing my are8, not 2 or4 people represenling â lârge ares, 3:28 PM 15 Fkst choicê by fEr, opfon one with 4 wards, I counc'lllors and make the councillorJob a lull timejob. 9/8/2016

3:24 PM 10 Keep up the Good Workl S/8/2016 918120163t22PM 17 Omemee should not b€ div¡dèd, Clt of Kâw¡ths Lskes should promote Ômemee more and control tåe number oT assisted housing sent and lhe drug users you send lo usll

3:19 PM 18 Number 3 ls not en option, once ggãin splits omêmee in two via tho dver, poor rêpr€sentation. 9/812016

9/8/2016 3r16 PM 19 'I or 2 Þ9rwqrd, unfo¡lunstely one perEon always works hardor than th6 othèr. PM 20 Oplion 3 does not work. 9/8/2016 3:06

3:05 PM 21 Brexit Shows that globallzallon and up,lvard consolidation ls on tho way out, beoauge of lo83 of democratic 9/8/2016 reptesgntål¡on, Amalgnmation wa spart of loss of local control, s noted by Jane Jacobs, Oplion 3 is the future by malntâining localities. Best would be to meke no change, Afrer all, P,E.l tnd Ontario hâve different e¡eãs and populgtions, but no one suggssts there ia a need for movlng coundåÌie6. Chårîge eosls money but will ga¡n nothlng or litüe. Don't change.

3:03 PM 22 We are a smell community, yes we pay ¡nto tha city but wê don't feel part of Llndsay, We feel our erea has great 918/2016 Volunteers and communlcatlon and femlly' B6lng pushed around by the city iB unfalr.

gnd 9/8/2016 3:02 PM 23 Uselhe areas lhat made up public works at ihe beginning ofcity and have 2 oouncillore per arEa ø ward repr8sant Bntir€ city and mEyor,

9/8,2016 3:01 PM 24 Counc¡llors need to atteid functions on th€y're wârds'

9/812016 3:00 PM 25 Counclllo¡s should inttoduce lhemselves et gatherings and supply contad information,

1t6 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

9/812016 2:52 PM 26 This presentation is "rubbish" - you did not corne herewith any ¡nformat¡on on ¡evenue gathered by each area and you total annual expenditures and how many people use the fac¡lities in each ì¡/ord. Plus you only care about Lindsay, seem best al killing rural areas. l'll never vote for you again!

Falls and 9/8i2016 2:50 PM 27 It woud have been more etflc¡ent if I wards could be Bobcaygeon and Verulam, Emily and Ops, Fenelon Fenelon To',vnsh¡p, Somerville, Burnt R¡ver, and Coboconk etc. with other close viclnily and Lindsay separaie. I councillor per ward

sl8l2o16 2:47 PM 28 Oplion 3 provides councillors who ,Jvill identify with their wards and their electors.

91812016 2:46 PM 29 Optlon 3: lhe councillor works closely and identif¡es with the eleclors. 9/8/20162:41 PM 30 Opt¡on 1 equal number of Councillors per ward

us make up in the north. S1812016 2i30 PM 31 Ward #1 needs more ¡npút on council will be bigger ward but maybe two councilors can help

910/2016 2:25 PM Preference = opl¡on 1 with 12 councillors. Support pay¡ng down municipal debt. â w¡der 91812016 2:24 PM I feel I councillors will create a much more effective counciì. lncreasing the annuel salary would encourage range of knowledge and qualifìes members of the community to nrn for council'

91812016 2:21 Pl'li 34 . 12 wards 1 councillor Perward 91812016 2i12 PM 35 Option lo consid€r: I wards I Councillors

918120162:11 PM 36 I would prefer I wards with I counc¡llors 9/8/2016 2;09 PM 37 . 5 plus the Mayor. One for every ward. #2 would be my choice.

2:08 PM 38 Responde¡t provided background information and conlact ¡nformation fo¡ fulure leference. 9/8/2016

home in two 918120161:52PM 39 What happened to criteria #2 in the opt¡ons of consideration. Your options put my Father's farm and my d¡äerent warcjs. üur iamiiy moved inio N. Veruiam in i 830 - 6 generetions ago. tton't screw up ihe mêp any more ihan you can help.

grader 9/8/2016 1:51 PM 4Ð Our part of lhe city is distinct from the others south of Sturgeon Lake with a few lessons from a real man, maybe save a lot on gravel.

PI\4 Makas more sense to kêep iha oitê ,,vard north of Sturgeon Lake so that ma¡ntenancê crelvs don't hãve to travel míles 918/20161:49 . âround the Lake to sight see and find work, j ' PM CKL has too many counclllors and wards. Less of each will have money and be more eficient in many op¡nion balance 918120161:47 population per ward is âlso important. 9/8/2016 1:40 PM 43 Th¡nk in anyward changes numbers offull t¡me and partlime fesidents should be considered.

9/812019 1:34 PM 44 Less is more! 9/8/2016 12:05 PM 45 lfeel option one holds the best prospects for quality mgmt: provided councillors 3re limited to I full time counc¡llors to . paid a full time modem day wage. This would allow for "would be" c¡uncillors to step away from thê cu¡renl careers hold public office. This ¡ncreases the Pool to quality candidates 9181201612:02PM 46 Fewerthe Better

918/201612:00 Ph.4 +7 Less is mo¡e! 9/8/2016 11:59 AM 48 We hâve loo many councillors for the tax.bls:

9/8/201 6 1 1:58 AN,t 49 Opt¡on 3 does little exæpt reìnforcing the parochialism lhat is cunently by the state of affairs in the City of Kawartha Lakes. Only substantive changes will move the res¡d€nts toward the goâl of of the city as a tunct¡oning on behalf of all

we def¡ìitely wou,1 **er than 16 9i8l201611:36AM 50 ?_:T11". ::rn1!ofs heard. 9/8/2016 11:34 AM 51 ln my opinion, opt¡on Z p¡ov¡des a balanced structure whBre every elector can feel their voice can be equally Also, it should lead to greater cohesiveness in lhe municipalily.

9/8/2016 1 1:23 AM 52 : leave things alone and slop wasting monêY 9181201611:20 AM 53 I wish you would have provided a current ward map along wllh the rest of youl ¡nformation

54 Thank you. 9/8/2016f1:184M

9/8/20'16 1 1:'10 AM 55 Survey is flawed - choices of number of councillors page '1 €ffectively picks page 2 choices'

will 9/8/2016 11:07 AM 56 You gave no description of existing wards lo changes you want to make, lf you close Bethany Town Hall, the bank probably teave, lgzving no facilities !n lhis town-

2t6 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

9/8/2016 l1:04 AIV 57 R6-aligning the boundar¡es around Lindsay is needed, but the rural areas need and desewe the same job representatives, espècially since losing rural community ident¡ties. Fewer councillors will mean full time sala¡ies' no savings. Better adveilising of lh¡s ¡såu€ wilh better exdanation of how it could affact the citizens ¡s NB rather than ' on line or Service Cent¡e. This is a crucial item sffeotlng rural City of Kawanha Lakes 9/8/2016 11:01 AM 5B I prefer the Wards to stay the same. Larger wards and fewer councillors means that our community will have less voice in lhe City of Kawartha Lakes What 9/8/2016 10:54 AM 59 We would require more information for an important decision like th¡s. Cost ¡s âlways a factor for conside¡ation. are the needs? What duties can they pelorm on a part-t¡me basislon ã full-time basis? What about edd¡tional administration costs? Please c¡rculste mo¡e ¡nformation

9/8/2016 10:504M 60 Make ¡t Fa8yet to get houses purments cut out all the red tape

is 9/8/201 6 10:40 AM 61 I found this survey very difficult to fill in as there was tittle information about lhe pros and cons of each choice' What lhe total cost of any change? W¡ll less Gouncillols translate to less adminlstrat¡on Costs? Can a smaller number of Councillors be effective? 10:31 AM Maximum I Councillors and Mayor, or fewer would be besl. 918/2016

918/2016 10:30 AM 63 Optìon 2

91812016 1A:29 AM 64 I was insùlted a Sunday (July 17) was our meeting at 1 1am ¡n Coboconk. We sü¡l have some Christians in the Norlh who',',ill bc :íì Chi.iich al ih!5 tine. AM 65 Hav¡ng different needs in d¡fferent areas a more diverse representation ofthe peoplê w¡ll be preferable' . 9t81201610:21 ,9/8/201610:164M 66 Go for the flexibilil,v offered by Option 1

0:03 AM 87 With Option two only 2 councillors in centrâ ãnd south wards. The same in each ward and lhe job should be full time, . 918120181 not e second profession for the counciflol, 9/8201610:01 AM 68 Optlon 1 ¡s terrible

9/E/2016 '10:00 AM 69 How are we supposed to know what will work best?

9/812016 9:56 AM save lhe tax payer. Llmit your oveúead,

9/8/2016 9:54 AM 71 I prefer option 2, but w¡th 2 councillore, not 3 per ward.

1 wârd and s/8/2016 9:52 AM 72 I am opposed to dividing the ward of Fenelon ¡nto two areas, eg: Pârt of Sturgeon Glen Road being in ânother part be¡ng in ânotheiwârd. I support 12 + ô Councillors otheMise it just results in more , less councillors, I $elet 1-2 Counc¡llors per ward 9/8/2016 9:40 AM t3 Option 3 ¡s loo many, too costly and very hard to get concise dêsicions. Option 2, South does not need 3 Couno¡llors

9/8/2016 9:38 AM 74 why would the south need to have 3 councillors ìn oplion 2? ls it because of the population? AM 75 where can a resident find infomât¡on as to the total assessment and expense fol each ward? 71301201611;,l5

geographic. 16 7p8t2vß 1'.46PM 70 I dìdnt see detail on how 2 counc¡llors would split duties within each Ward.,.....l Fust ìt would be The ôhê, milct ctonll ^^',ÁÀll^' 'ri¡¡¡ 71281201610:25 AM 77 I balieve that the number of councillors should be cut in half and the pay for those Positions doubled. Perhaps by paying a councillor a decént wâg€ we could entice more educated, innovative and dedicaled people to tun for those pos¡lions, Lets br¡ng in some new ideas and move thls City forward ratherlh8n dwell¡ng on the past

ward 712612016't?:40 PM 78 Since amalgamation there has been on more than one occasion a councilor(s) make decision (s) based on the¡e and not the city as a whole, Less councilors ,less wards hopefully brings the bigget picturs ¡nto play when dacisions are,to be made,

them 712612016 11:22 AM 79 I feel that lve shoüld have an I person council, pay them a fair wage for the hard wo¡k lhat they do, and expect to gêt things done, I feel thls will inspire younger people to look at serving on council.

712â1201610:30 AM 80 I think one Councillor per ward with 4 vtards is plenty ol bureaucracy to f¡lter through, then maybe we could move fon¡vard.

7f2612A1610i20 AM 81 option one with eight councillorsl

Th¡s is a conJus¡ng ' 7126!291610:12 AM 82 ln question one it asked if I am a full time resident or a seasonal...the answer was Yes or No. ouestiol, lt sfould be two questions' permanênt and no I am not sgasonal l.: l "t 1l'l¡T totalling 10 71261201610:01 AM 83 Not sure where 12 councilors would 6!me from 5 wards, I belleve thet 2 Per ward should be suff¡cient, councilors,

316 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

84 The per capita ratio of council to residents is way too low. 4500 residents per council member vs. 59,000 (44 wards) 712612016s:52 AM per council member ìn the C¡ly of Toronto. We are much too fat.

85 I really don't support any of the options provided;hence: not an emperical study. I prefer to see reduced wards, wilh 712512016 4:39 PM one councilor per ward,

ðb Option 2 is my preference. Have the electlon of the Coúnc¡llors be located at d¡fferênt êreas, not from the same area 712212t16 3:16 PM

87 We need true representat¡on by councillors that interact and represent everyone not just their supporters we will best 71221201610:06 AM ache¡ve that by ¡ncreasing âreas ând eljminating lhe ol boy local yokal mental¡ty thãt we especially have in ward 14. lf you hevèn't lived here since the ice age you don't belong or won't receive any consideralion

PM 8B First question is confusing. lt ãsks whether we arg a full-time or seasonal ¡esident? Two answers are yes or no. To me, 71211201612:04 thê logical choices should be full-lime or seasonal,

89 OÞtion one is too vague about the # of councillors per ward 7/19/2016 2:13 PM

90 Ti]e currerii ¡lur1rìrer of counc¡llors is ridiculûus. El¡m¡nat¡ng council sÈàts w¡l¡ rÊsult ¡n significani savings and allow 7!19í2016.10:48 AM some of the core services which are on the choppinq block lo be cont¡nued. Core services are more ¡mportant to the ratepayers than lheir councillor,

PM 91 I do nol favour the last 2 oplions âl all but must l¡ll in a number 711812016 12:34

92 Dô it right the first time ,gel it done and do not back pedal 7115120'16 9:12 AM

Tax mc,ney shouid be spe¡ti pi¡nìar¡ii iti o¡i¿'s cwrr i'vard. ¡ t iql¿U lO O,Oí ñt\t s4 I would like to see the results published and fìrst quest¡on was nol presentêd correctly. 71131201612:08 PM oà The ward co!ncillor should have to res¡de with¡n the ward that they are representing, 71912A16 2:00 PM

96 I actually like Option 2 EXCEPT for the designaUon of lhe south rvard. I believe that the mix of communit¡es in this 718lz016 9:4? AM option would not be compatible.

97 Option 2, wìth l2 councillors, seems most effìcient economìcally. Also, it provides a geograPhic as well as populat¡on- 71512016 10:20 PM retated equalization of'size'. Third, it is simple ând doesn'tfluctuate ¡n sizê, therelore cosl ofcouncillors and wards and budgets will be mote stralght-forward and hopefully effìcient

AM s8 I would like to understand the lìnancial Ìmplications of each of these opt¡ons. I don't see that in the reports. 7131201611:25

99 'youcan'tevendesignaquestionaire.iwouldliketohavelindsayd¡videdinto4byLindseySt,andKentSt,¡neachof4 6/291201 6 4:36 PM wards, so councillors have to deal with both urban & rurul. it v/ould make sense to divide KL into the same areas as lhe roâds/works dept. so councilloß would have to deel with only 1 manager ¡f an ¡ssue in that ward cannot be '12 poP. resolved. ¡ would l¡ke to see 4 wêrds with I or councillors only if each ward has a seclion of L¡ndsey in it as our . has gone up 1000 since 2000 and ¡f wè grow the number will be good for at least 10 years. We have a great many : absentes landlords/farmers who are depressing our land tax revenue & undeclared 2,3,4, housing units. 2015 census is being done now. we will see the new numbe.s in a few years.

100 : I do not like they way you present the ward option ranking. You should also provide a choice for "no 2nd or 3rd choice" Al29l2o16 2:02PM Your form ¡s not truly democratíc & similar lo a Rusian

AM 101 . lt is time the city Makes its own areas this is very close to lhe already works dept. areas so lhe boundary Iines are set õ129120167:43

PM 102 I don't sêe the beef it of having more thân 1 councillor per ward. A decrease in th number ofwards dilutes the 612812016 9:12 attention of specifìc local issues that need lo be addressed

PM 103 Please ensure all rural areas are appropriately represanted . 612812016 2.29

104 We have low many counciltors making to much money. Max lerm should be two break ¡nto lour areas with max eight 61281201611:58 AM councillors. You need to change council meeling times to evening like most municipal areas in Onlêrio. We are not Toronto. Peterborough is in the black and much largerthan us and meet¡ngs are at night So our business leaders can be on council or atlend meel¡ngs.

105 We have one of the highest tax increases in the Province so ¡ hope whatever option ¡s chosen that il will lead to cost 6127PA1g 9103 PM

savings .

AM 106 Represenlation by population works for me. 612712a161'1:54

107 I dôn't want more than B Councillors. 6/2312016 8:03 PM

108 Council should also look into changing Council Meetlng times so that they are after 4pm to allow residents who heve 6122120167:27 AM an ocçupation ¡n ihe daytime 10 run in Municipal Elect¡ons. Also, after 4pm meetings would ailow more citizens lhe opportun¡ly to attend councii meet¡ngs.

416 City of Kawartha Lakes'Ward Boundary Review

6120/2016 8:19 AM 109 I always prefer proporlional represeniation abovB first-pasþthe{ost

pay, at1sl2o16 11t23 PM 110 Suggest reducing number of councillors, but make each council position a full-t¡me job, w¡th full't¡me to entice younger members of the City to be engâged in council. As is, being part-time pay and full-lime work, lt preven'ls anyone wilh a family at home to provide for their famify f¡nanc¡ally and time'wise.

6/1 9/201 6 8:06 AM 111 I would also inctease lhe salary of councilors to reflect lhe additional responsib¡lit¡es and to attract thê most talented people to run for offìce. 6/18/2016 12:25PM 112 Asking whât ward I live in and not including a map so I can find out is foolish, Who goos around know¡ng that? Also you should have asked us to rale each oplion l-10. You can't iell if I feet two oplions are neck and neck and one is AWFUL, o¡ one opt¡on is GREAT and the other two are AWFUL. Ranking doesn't aggregate accurately from a statist¡cal po¡ni 0f v¡ew.

6117120167i54 PM 113 Bobcaygeon has been split between 2 wards 7 & 1 3 for years, ils time to make it one

6h712016 1i10 PM '114 The 3rd option slatus quo is not an option in my mind. I very strongly prefer option 1

5t17 i2'J1é 1 Ùr;4 .^.ii 't 15 5 wards captures how the commun¡lies ope.ate wiriie oiíering sím¡riificaiiur r. Fxisiir rg úuürlüii iredú cúüni iS excesivc

6/1 6/201 6 8:33 PM 1tÐ I feel that too many wards and councillors causes too much division. lt becomes too hard lo find solutìons that everyone will accepl. Too few councillors cåuses too much work for them and they may not be able to understand all pay the areas they serve. Fewer councillors would perhaps work if the job wãs made full time with a conesponding søie-

6/1 5/2016 7;03 AM 1'17 I prefgr the layout of option 2 withÌhe soulhem end extend;ng all the way to peterborough

12:54 PM 118 It is my belief lhat eouncil w¡ll bê more effêct¡ve with lewer numbers 611412016

6112120166:54PM 119 I would like to see full time wages for council bec¿use ¡ want better candidates

6h112o16 3:28 PM 120 Full time councillors

6111120162:07 PM 121 Do not stay with lhe status quo. You must reduce the size oi council, Profened size would be option 2 wilh seven counselors South and Central get to eleci 2 counselors The North West and East wards get one counselor each.

even 6/10/2016 10;47 PM 122 SÕ many of Us ¡n Ward t have shopping and medieal/dental services done out of , that I feel we shouldnt be pârt of Kawãrtha Lakes. Gèogrâph;cally, Lindsay is only a part ofour lives because it's forced upon us. For example, the closur€ of St, John school in Kìrklield has resulted in student transfers OU'f of the CKL and ¡nlo Brechin' The old Viclo¡¡a County dividing línes are inelevant and bear NO relat¡onship to REAL LIFE in Ward 1. I would l¡ke 1o sâe a plebiscite on Ward 1 leavi¡g the CKL Enli¡ely. l'd be happier subsidizing Orillia where all my business takes place, than the seemingly unapprec¡alive Town of Llndsay. "city' of Kawartha Lakes, my Aunt Fanny.

ô 1 :20 PM Its about time we ¡ight sized our municípality for Councillors and get some building going on. 6/1 0/201

6/10/2016 12:53 PM 124 thanks

people | 12i37 PM 125 Thank you fo¡ looking at thís - difficult decisíons Tor sure but I know that Counclllors ì¡/¡H always represent the - 611012016 bel¡eve thal the oplion of more than one Councillor per ward will serve Þeople bêtter.

9:43 PM 126 The divisions seem ¡ncongruent with communily culture, business markels and municipal function, I don't care for any 6/9/2016 of the súggestions Should be 5 Wards as such; 1, North West (North of County Rd I including communities of Bolsover, Ki¡kfield, Dalrympte, Norland and Coboconk) 2. North Easl (using Baseline Road as the North-South boundary and including commun¡ties of Kinmount, Bumt River, Bobcaygeon, Sturgeon Point, Rosedale and Fênelon Falls) 3. South West (South of County Road I and ¡nctud¡ng Woodville, Cambtay, Cameron, Oakwood, L¡tBe Br¡tain)4. Llridsây 5. South Eâst (Downeyv¡lle, Dunsford, Omemee, Bethany, Ponty Pool, Janelville, etc)

6/s/2016 6:29 PM 127 I do not like the idea of opting for four wårds. Tho rurat areas already feel neglected, the ideã of having large areas only represented by one person does not 9¡t well.

1:03 PM 128 We need less councillors and more aetion done. Let's run il llke a business not the gravey tra¡n we have now. 6/912016

of 6/912016 9:20 AM 129 I believe that we should have a smaller number of councillors, le. $'6, but have them working full-time on behalf their constituents. lt is diff¡cultfor councillors to spend the Trne required to properly review all information providad in order to make well-informed decisions ãnd best reprès€nt lheir constituents'jnterests'

618|2016 8:44 PM 130 Things are not work¡ng the way lhey are end trankly great work to the mayor for supPorl¡ng the review. I hope the changes are about fxing what broken ãnd not about flling the pockets of council's with more pay. Let's embrace change so we can support â prospefous future where our k¡ds want to stay and can afford,

and 618120167:13PM 131 please make the changes so we can put oua resources ¡nto programs that help our k¡ds l¡ke Boys and G¡rls Club other supporl services.

s/6 City of Kawartha Lakes Ward Boundary Review

7:10 PM 132 please consider changing the modef for thô best interest of our community members, I hope th¡s means no salary 618/2016 increases for council il would be a hard pill to swallow and all Councillors will lose ¡n the end as members w:ll not vote you back ¡n, Thank you for lettíng our vo¡ce be heard. füayor Le'lhum thank you- for sây¡ng what no one else has the coulage lo say,

7:05 PM 133 please decrease the boundaries so we can get on with conl¡nuous impfovement and building a sustainable commun¡ty 6/8/2016 for the future. This is really a no question decision, mov¡ng 10 a more effective ând efüclent model is somethlng we can,t afford snd people with change issues are going to have to be mindful that its for thô bo6t. PM 1U It would be nice to have Councillor reach out. Don't even know who it is here. I atlend community events and never 61812016 12i24 have seen representatives. We don't need more Councillors if they are only reâcflve.

5:23 PM 135 I would agree to 1 and 3 ward bounties, but thê reprêsentatjon (qty of counc¡llors) must be kept for all area' We don't 61712016 want to loose our voice in the North.

PM 136 Too many wards and councillors. Less will sale money and be more efficient, in my opinion. Also, a balanced 6fl20161:08 population por ward is very important.

9:46 AM 137 Appreciale thal you're looking at this. 6nl2016 AM 138 Wlth a number of councillors representing a ward, the oppottunity for getling attention and h€lp would improve' 617120169''27 just Services must be thB same ¡n all Wards, Councillors have to begin thinking about the ent¡re mun¡clpality not their own ter¡tory. The Reg¡on is târ too big and likely split inlo two. Services are not effective or cost êtrecüve.

11:50 PM 139 The fact that I have lived at lhis address for 7 years (lived in Lindsay 14 years total) and have no idea what ward I l¡ve ô/6/2016 ¡n despite the fâct lhat I have an interest in munic¡pal govt, shows that someth¡ng ne€ds to bB done with lhe way the wards are assigned. Every election I look at a map to try to determine my ward, and I still €an't figure it out. Way too complicated, especially in the town of Lindsay when you live near/on a ward boundary line. A ward reviêw is way overdue,

6812O1t' 10'22PM Should 1 o¡ 2 be adoptêd, comp¿ilsätio¡ì foi ûou'icilors should be incrcased to etlracl bettei quailfied folks io seek ihe position

8:25 PM 141 Decrease number of councillors - increase the pay per counclllor and have them 'full-t¡me" ¡nstead of part-time with 61612016 responslbililies including havlng them attend community commltlee meetings etc lrher t. aßlzo16z:z5pu 142 Necessary R-e.vie.w. Council is cãpable of do¡ng more with lêss. Good luck

6/6/2016 5:40 PM 143 My concern is the larger wards would not allow for area concems to be åddressed speciflcally. The northe¡n wards can not effec,tively be represented by by 2 councillors

2:42 PM 144 Reduc¡ng the # of councillors, and ¡ncreas¡ng their salary and expectation is lhe best way to ensure a more smooth 61612016 and engaged process

6/6/2016 1:30 PM 145 I thìnk one councillor per ward is sutficient, w¡th the mayor voling only as a t¡e-breaker. i

6/5/2016 6:45 PM 't46 I feel that I councillors should be paid at a full time, rate thereby allowing a greater diversity to Council. They could , have offices in thoir respective wards-

6/5/2016 6:33 PM 147 I llke the suggestroñ of nâming lhe wards N,,8,,S.,W., C€ntl'al bùt feel I counoillo¡s would be suñic¡ent' The boundaries in Oplion One appear to del¡ne th€ area by s¡ze and population density well.

6/6 Pruf..nd r oi coì*ï¡'oä Othar

.,Y.'e:---....--.--..., 14 Other ðll electron¡< aommuñic¿tion dwices why åre ¿ll the p¡

Fou.Councilloß 16 One No the present system is deaned up (dism¡ss the mayorând present counc¡l) bring

6 Rosed¿le None oñe Counc¡llor new th¿t will listen to the bx u Omeñee one counc¡llor óàyorand councillori theydon'tligten, mayor ramrods and bùllies 6 None No Prefelence Yes 16 12 &3 Centi power g@ernment, however in lhe long we m!5t be one Kawañha Regioñ. Eåst end West to guar¿ntee our overåll finânc¡al gowth business toudsm, lewer counc¡llors ãndjoínt âdwdi9¡n9 at lo@r overall (ost. A suc

-y,gs..,. -,.-.--.., ..P,¡$teF-*....* .. Doñ't NÓ 2 1 with 16

Coboconk

v^ç.:......

none as councilloß perward me¿ns no oæ knows who actu¿lly Coboconk Other None 4 None . .. ..y.it...... i

Þ \) - \-J ) >- F b Êgpa^âìv-C Q6j*fr*¿¡^ Ç^zl-""-.-

fltøw.^-

Lc¿ tt- t*funf*u

l-> -r#;" +--) 't , '7 ^-- .é'ì* ,t*f €?.""/-L e"f .z gtJÅ--*) ',,/*o,"{n è7/4/

RECEIVED

JUL 05 2016

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAWARTHA L"AKES

v c_r Õ*r-\

,611fi'Á ./j T f ;vtû¡: "f s b .L.:; L/ TL' a I "J\¡ €- Highways Ll,JL {l e à ì^å Arterial Roads ¡f Catch rheKwætha spirit sffi\l $ '1Sû=r z ----- Victoria Rail Trail www.explorekawarthalakes,com : I 1.866-397.6673 a Trail Access û E n /'q.-. Kawarha Trans Canada Traih ü I 5 Ç\*rr^.6o' r-; -'L't''u<-( I I PROVINCIAL FARK I u,lr I Scale:

úc Kilómèlres .ùt tao

SEBRIGHT

fpm Otila --

KfNMOUNT ._ fíom Hatlbudon t at ç

frswLoclß?) > fm Hwy. 12-r

¿321

MNILU

{þm

LTTTLE BRITAIN

I I ¡ €"*d I lSW

.9ud a f t from I I 2 "see reverse for detailed maps L 'tr-//- nds

from 4ol (fññlo) 16) Dovsloomo¡l S€N¡æs-Plandno olvlsbn - ClùotKewårthå Lâk€6.2010 s ! L ! ,) È $1,"t €,a¿:l*,",,/ \-t¿t ¿ t R íI I I ffi .4 Csæh tfuKaaarthø s$t .d4.v) ûr (¡::/ wurw.explorekawarthalakes.com arC I {.866.397-6673 I I T !

ì¡ . OUEE¡I ELIZÀBETH II ! Sn- I wruu¡os pnovtxcr¡¡. þq Sæle: ()-t,¡r1,

ff ['t rt

cL ffiofilb è - ê g * f6m Ha¡ibudoi .LF F

DALRYMPLE I ct/tf ó1

CAñDEN PLÂIT (frMfNT A|RO Mq) ffiLlñbck Lock #3€)

frSW Læk #37) I 6¿¡¡¡sy_'a 12 - I I

It ¡ I¡ t I /,Á- 7

I.IANILI.A M ?.L "t (TSW Loc* #S3) f¡om ¿7 ,L¿. LITTLE êzüt--+-- lA4, f{

stDv Rt@

_s ¡ q0 : (_. ¡ I "s ! 4

I ¡¡6Ed ¡ nûÉi e {1-- I t uñtu'n I ¡ M ! I /6 ¡ I i ¡ Course ! I *see reverse for deta¡led maps I ú I

froú 401 ftoroñto) (e) Oeveloomentsed¿€s - Plennlna Сv¡siôn - CituolKaw¿ñâ Lâk*.2010 âfp a-..,Å,ìxD Judy Currins

From: johnbyrnffi Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 20L6I2:LL PM To: Ward Review Subject: Comment

While there is no requirement I would recommend the boundaries being the same/similar to the current School Board. Currently Trillium Lakelands District School Board has 5 Trustees from CKL. lf your boundaries were similar that would equate to 5 Councillors and 1 Mayor.

Please be advised my comments are my own and in no part should be assumed that I'm acting as a School Trustee. I am just aware that the two electoral structures are different and the School Board is based on student population and municipal is residential. lt might or might not work.

John Byrne Sent from my iPhone

1 Judy Currins

From: DonAdamsffi Sent: Thursday, July 07 ,201-6 8:20 PM To: Ward Review Cc: John Pollard Subject: Ward Review

Sent from Mail for Windows 10 I am a resident of Mariposa Estates since November of 1976. (Hard to believe that we have lived here for 40 years this November)

Before addresing the survey, I would like to state that Change for the Betterment is what we should all strive for. Anything in life can always be improved somewhat. HOWEVER, I would like to stress that Change for the sake of Change is WRONG. Evaluating a system that has been in place for numerous years should be done. Yes. PLEASE, don't make the Federal Liberal slogan - TIME FOR A CHANGE - an acceptable option. That change is taking the leader of the G7 nations (Canada) in growth, national debt, etc., to becoming one of the worst performers within the first year of taking office. In any business, ACCOUNTABILITY is Key. With our current system of 16 wards, if I have a concern within Ward 8 - I have one person to contact - John Pollard. It's on his shoulders. By allowing more than one councillor for the same ward, Accountabilty will suffer drastically.

Modifring the ward boundaries to account for population changes is a change for the better, Go for it. But I see no reasonable explanation for changing the overall existing structure. It works, and accountability for me is there. MY VOTE IS FOR OPTION 3.

Thankyou, I remain, Donald D. Adams

1 Judy Currins

From: YHHemsolffi Sent: Monday, August 01,20L612:l-0 PM To: Ward Review Subject: FW:ward boundaries and communites

rromffi To: [email protected] Subject: ward boundaries and communites Date: Mon, L Aug 20L6I2:O7:33 -0400

Dear Mayor,

I am concerned that some of the options such as option one, seems to divide existing communities, e..g Fenelon Falls and even per the interactive map on option one divides Sturgeon Glenn Road--given that Sturgeon Glen Road ends, there should be no need to divide part of it off in a new ward proposal. Everything should be done to keep communities as united as possible and it is illogical for a councilor to try to service an arbitrary boundary spilt in the community. WAs this not taken into account in the review for potential boundaries. I am actually concerned these new boundary options again tend to emphasize Lindsay vs the rest of the municipality. Of course, we are all smaller and this again ends up with less say. Maybe you should have even just had an option of two wards---one for Lindsay and one for the rest of Kawartha Lakes. Regardless, please do not implement a boundary that divides the communities such as Fenelon Falls,

Sincerely,

Yvon Helen and Juanne Hemsol tsturgeon Glen Road Fenelon Falls

Sent from Mail for Windows L0

1 Judy Currins

From: Jan&chrisGuittard'ffi Sent: Monday, August L5,201,6 6:02 PM To: Ward Review Subject: Ward Boundary and Council Structure Options survey lmportance: High

We regret to inform you that the website given on line to provide public input to the survey (www.survevmonkev.com/r/ck/wardreviewsurvev) re: the above subject is out of order or does not exist. Moreover the paper survey deadline given was July 31, 2016 and the website survey's deadline is August l"5th todav.... ls council seriously interested in receiving public opinion?

For the record. We would like to answer the survey as follows: -We are full-time residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes -The current ward we reside in is Ward 9 -We identify with the city of Lindsay. -We wish to have a maximum of 8 Councillors to serve on Council, excluding the mayor -Our preferred option is for option 1, four wards, no more.

This input is submitted for your consideration today August L5 at 5.45pm

Christian and Janet Guillard

1 Judy Currins

From: Judy Currins Sent: Friday, August 19,2016 LL:30 AM To: Ward Review Subject: Fw:Ward Boundary Core Review

From: Charles Scheffel Sent: Friday, August 19,2OL610:19 AM To: Rob Macklem; Judy Currins; Ron Taylor; Core Review Cc: Charles Scheffel Subject: Ward Boundary Core Review

The ward areamay be relevant when comparing municipalities with similar populations and provide guidance and to see what works.

Option 1 - Ward 11 and 12 are OR+ not OR- but still out2}o/o range see below.

Population ward options - how are the populations calculated for the different options and by whom?

tler Greater Single 16A,274 12 12 Sudbury Tier

Source: municipal websites, Stratistics Canada National l-lousehold Survey 2015

Area per Ward figures have not been prov¡ded with each option. lt i misleading as the noilh areas have large percels of land with little I the agrisultural areas have large fanned parcËls with little populatic wÐuld be no wey with the size of this municipälity, its configuration population distributisn that ward ereä is a viable measurernÊnt of e reprÊ$entatisn.

1 5 Greãter SudMry Ontario tity 3,227.38

6 Kan¡artha Lakes Ontario üry 3,083.06

7 ïmmins Ontario cîry 2,979,15 I ûttarva Ontario City 2,790_22

g Gillam Manitoba Town 1,996.34

to Sept-iles Quebec Vil¡e 1,764"13

t1 N+rfolk County Ontario city 1,607.6

I Ãd nÃ^¡dà I ta-i+-L ^

Option 1 Ward 11 and 12 are OR+ not OR- but still out2}Yo range 3 3877 0R- 4 6061 O+ \¿tr -Tì'dn4â It n_\/- 6 43s0 0R- 7 5106 0- 8 7270 OR+ g 6250 O+ 1û O?78 Q+ 1'1 8298 0R- 12 6850 0R- 13 52gs O- 14 6023 O+ 15 5996 O+ 16 5352 0

89947

Summary

Prlnciple # I - Representetion by Population

2 ROBERT \ry. BARCLAY

Clerk's Department City of Kawartha Lakes Lindsay, Ontario

Dear Mesdames and Sir:

RE: WARD REVIEW

As a home-owner in Lindsay and a seasonal resident of Cameron Lake, I wish to comment upon the ward review proposals. I hold a Bachelor of Arts in political science specializing in Canadian political systems. In the past, I have frequently submitted briefs tõ various federal and provincial Redistribution Commissions. I have often found that some of my suggestions have made it into the Commissions' final reports.

It seems to me that the overwhelming focus of this ward review is to ensure that there is no change in the voting balance between the Lindsay urban areaandthe remainder of the cþ. Evidence of this is shown in the fact that all proposals put forth are based on a divisor of four (ie 16, 12 or 8 councilors). In my opinion, this totally ignores the elephant in the room, which is that the Lindsay urban area is going to grow at a much more rapid rate than the balance of the city. The opening of the northwest corner of Lindsay to development ensures that.

Before long it will be necessary to again review the ward boundaries. If Council ignores the voting discrepancies between the Lindsay ward(s) and the remaining areas of the City,itmay prompt someone to bring an application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to have it redraw the boundaries. This would be unfortunate, as it would mean that, once again,local politicians are allowing people from outside Victoria County / Kawartha Lakes to determine the municipality's internal structure. In my opinion, the only reason that asingle tier local government exists here is that local politicians refused to do the restructuring task themselves and the Ontario government brought in an outsider to do it. This is an effor that ought not to be repeated.

The idea of someone bringing an application to the OMB is not a fanciful one. The ward boundary review presently underway in Toronto was prompted by a group applying to the OMB. That application was withdrawn when the city coÍrmenced its review. A group inthe Township of Centre Wellington (Elora, Fergus et al) threatened an OMB application causing it to redraw its boundaries. These things can and do occur. The initial report presented to Council recommended that two of the proposals be placed before residents both of which involved multi-member wards. Council added a third option, involving sixteen single member wards. It seems clear to me that by adding this Councii is expressing its preference for smaller locai wards.

The problem is that option #3 (Proposal#2 inthe report) creates wards that are well outside the goal of 20Yo population variation. Both wards2 and 3 are significantly more than2}Yo below the average and wards 9 and 10 are massively over the variation goal at 33.1% and34.8ato --- that exceeds the maximum variation by more than one half. V/ith respect to ward 9, this appears to have been done to lessen the population in ward 1 1, but merely shifts the problem to ward 9, rvhich contains the north.¡,.est area of Lindsay.,vhere significant growth will occur. V/ard 9 starts out exceeding the maximum variation by more than one half and will only gain population from there. It seems to me that this is the equivalent of inviting someone to make an OMB application.

Another nrohlem with ontion #3 is fhat the -Str¡rseon Glen area on the west side of Sturgeon Lake is joined with ward 5 on the east side of the lake. There is no direct transportation connection between these two areas. The only access to Sturgeon Gien is from Fenelon Falls, so that the ward councilor would have to pass through another ward to access the area. in addition, Sturgecn Gien is criented to.¡/ards Feneion Fails and not to the balance of ward 5.

A similar problem to the above exists in option #2 (Proposal#6 inthe report) in that the fha Qnr¡cno Eut,iiiiçiii.^"+1'-* iYiûiiijijù.¡l\ía¡innoa 6¡içéo.oo iic¿öLoo ¡ivnn \¡iiVvú¡lira¡f vuiúivvl¡Ui¡¡nnnonfinn øvrUJùâ^r^cc l¡¡w uwuõvÞ ¡uPir¡or v vr fnLv tharrrv halanceusrsrlvv of the South ward. One has to pass through the West ward to access the two sides of the South ward. I, also, have to question whether a natural community of interest exists between the two halves of the South ward. It seems to me that the southern Mariposa area fits more logically in the West ward.

Moving the north shore of into the West ward then raises the question of how councilors should be allotted to the various wards. Even with the southern Mariposa area, the South ward with three councilors would be l0.4Yo below the average population per councilor. Removing the southern Mariposa area, should result in reducing the South ward to two councilors. Where should the third councilor be assigned? There are two possible solutions.

One invoives transferring Fenelon Faiis an

The second solution involves transferring more land to the west and south of Fenelon Falls into the East ward from the West ward. The East ward would then have sufficient population to warrant the third councilor. The loss of population by the West ward in its northeast comer would be compensated by the addition of the southem Mariposa area. It would remain at two councilors.

Option #1 (ProposaI#3 inthe report) best balances the population between the wards, but is not without its faults. The fact that only four wards are used creates very large rural wards which may make the public feel more isolated from local government. This problem could be made worse if all the councilors ended up being elected from one area of the ward. If my reading of Council adding Option #3 is correct, the members likely foresee the problem of overly large wards. Also, the boundaries of the Centre ward in this option would be extremely difficult for the public to follow.

My suggestion to accommodate what I perceive as Council's preference for smaller wards with the principle of staying within a20o/o maximum variance is a modified version of Proposal #7 fromthe initial report. It would be modified in the sense that it would be an eleven ward - thirteen or fourteen councilor model. This would mean abandoning the use of four as a divisor, which I would submit is going to have to be dropped before long anyways due to population growth in the urban Lindsay area.

The eleventh ward would be created in the Bobcaygeoî area. As it stands in Proposal # 7, the proposed ward 4 is fully 34.7% above the average population per councilor, while the proposed ward 9 isl4.4Yo above the average. If one moves the boundary between wards 6 and 9 south to either Tracy's Hill Road or Peace Road it lessens the excess in ward 9 and adds population to ward 6. Similarly, ward 4 can be extended westward from Fenelon Falls to encompass more land on the south side of Cameron Lake. This could be done by following the line between lots 20 and 21 in concessions VIII and IX of to Highway 35 and then following the highway northward to Pearn's Creek.

The existing high population of the proposed ward 4 plus the additional population added to it and to proposed ward 6 would allow these wards to then be subdivided into three wards thereby creating an additional ward. Basically, ward 4 would run from Cameron Lake eastward far enough to give it suffrcient population. The new ward, centred on Bobcaygeon, would include the balance of the enlarged ward 4 and the northeastem corner of the enlarged proposed ward 6. The proposed ward 3 loses some population in this scheme; however, it is close to the average to begin with so it can lose some and still stay within the maximum variance. Additionally, with thirteen or fourteen councilors the average population per councilor will become lower.

If an eleven ward - thirteen councilor model is adopted, the thirteenth councilor obviously fits into the new ward proposed above. A fourteenth councilor comes into play if Council becomes proactive and gives the Lindsay urban area þroposed ward 8 in Proposal # 7) four councilors instead of three. Ultimately, population growth in Lindsay, particularly its northwest corner, is going to dictate an additional councilor.

If Council decided to stick with just three councilors in the proposed ward 8, then, in my opinion, it is very important that the enacting by-law contain a provision that the average population per councilor in that ward be reviewed every eiection cycle. The provision should further state that once the average population per councilor in ward 8 exceeds 20o/o above the city average that anadditional councilor is to be awarded to the ward. One of the things that I like about a modif,red Proposal # 7 is that using a multi-member ward for the Lindsay urban area allows the adding of an additional councilor in the future without having to redraw boundary lines.

The City of Toronto is currently revising its ward boundaries and is proposing below average populations fbr its downtown wards with the knowledge that the populations wiii increase going ahead due to future residential construction. The City of Kawartha Lakes could take this proactive step as well. In Toronto, they are hoping that the revised wards will last for four election cycles and Council here should take a similar view.

The one remaining matter to be addressed in modified Proposal #7 is the population of the proposed ward 2 which is fully 27.8% below the average population per councilor or ,,,^ll +L^ *^-i*',- -,o.io-^^ '|-ho .rrar.:l '! hqe almnsf ?ôl'ìlì rn¿rra t'itii UUiSi\¡ü^.,+-i't^ ii¡ü iiiaÃii¡¡i¿iii VaÍiia¿iiwç, i ¡iç PiUPVÕVL¡^-^^^Eo¡l vîú'iu i ¡¡qo øü¡¡voú ¿vvv r¡¡vrv lJvuii¡v-ortnle than proposed ward 2. Some shifting of population could occur between them; possibly, by moving the boundary westward or by adding the Head Lake area to ward 2, as it is oriented towards Norland. Another solution would be to include all of the Rosedale area, L^!--^^- /-a^-^-^- I Ufafrci/a-^-) isian(¡,l-l^-l anu^.^l ¿Llfrc Afç¿t UútWt çIl \-

In my opinion, a modif,red form of Proposal # 7 from the initial report best allows for the -r-¡----^ +^ +L^ r :^Å-^-,,.-L^- ,,,L:1^ *-:-+-:*:-^ gasy^-.---- l-r¡iuÍg acigiüOn-lli¿-'^-. OI^f tepfesen-ùAtl(jn-^--^^^-t^t]^- i,U Ulç LIIiUSay uruall aIç¡¿,^-^^ wl¡l¡ç rllarütiarrr[rË rrrrarr^*^ll ward sizes elsewhere in the city.

I trust that you willfind my comments of interest.

Yours truly,

Robert'W. Barclay

Note: Throughout I use the term "propsal" rather than option for the options contained in the initial report to Council to avoid confusion with the options presented to the public. The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Council Report

Report Number CLK2017-002

Date: February 21 , 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Ward Community Identifier:

Subject: Ward Boundary Update

Author/Title: Judy Currins, City Clerk

Recom mendation(s):

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2017-002, Ward Boundary Update, be referred to the March 7, 2017 meeting of Council for decision on the future ward boundaries for the City of Kawartha Lakes; and

THAT the expense of mapping for the ward boundary review options be funded from the Elections Reserve.

Department Head:

Corporate Services Director I Other:

Chief Administrative Officer: Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 2of18 Background:

Council started the council composition review in 2015 and adopted the following Guiding Principles for this project:

Guiding Principles

1. To the extent possible, new ward boundaries should achieve a general balancing of populations between Wards with a variance not to exceed 20% based on population as of January 1, 2016 and the use of non­ resident elector numbers from the 2014 municipal election.

2. Consideration will be given to established settlement patterns and existing communities of interest.

3. Consideration of physical features as natural boundaries or man-made features to establish Wards that are easy to identify.

4. All options should have consideration for the overriding principle of effective representation for all electors.

Staff presented seven options for consideration and Council made three ward configurations available for public consultation. During the public consultation process, the following question was asked, that relates to the decision in this Report:

What number of Councillors per ward do you prefer to represent you?

The results of the survey indicated that 136 of the 314 respondents preferred one ( 1) Councillor/ward while 124 of the 314 respondents preferred two (2) Councillors/ ward. The balance preferred another option.

Following public consultation, Council made the decision to reduce the number of Councillors to 8 and instructed the City Clerk to bring forward various options as noted in the resolution below that was adopted at the Council Meeting of October 18, 2016:

CR2016-902 Moved By Councillor Veale Seconded By Councillor Breadner

RESOLVED THAT Report CLK2016-011, Ward Review Public Consultation Results, be received; THAT the results of the public consultation process for a ward review for the City of Kawartha Lakes, be received; Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 3of18 THAT the City Clerk be directed to prepare and present a by-law to set the composition of Council as the Mayor and 8 Councillors effective for the 2018 election; THAT the City Clerk be instructed to prepare and present two options each for ward boundaries for both a 4 and an 8 ward structure; THAT the report be brought back to Council by the end of January 2017.

This report addresses that direction.

Rationale:

The initial map options were at a high level, meaning the boundary lines were not exact. The next step was to determine what the exact lines would be and to calculate the population numbers. Internal city GIS staff members were not able to assist with this as their time was ded icated to the implementation of the City ERP system so external resources were required to complete this work. This has resulted in additional funds being required that will be noted in financial considerations and a slight delay in presenting the information to Council.

Following the direction of Council, staff reviewed the work that had been done previously for the four ward options and developed as well two new eight ward configurations. The work was challenging due in part to the lack of experience in developing a new ward structure and the lack of internal resources to complete the job.

This municipality is unique which is both positive and negative. The City's unique individual communities are a wonderful asset for tourism, however, they create a huge challenge when trying to create boundaries that will support communities of interest and or lines that run in the same direction. It is virtually impossible to have entirely straight boundary lines when working with the lots and concessions laid out in grids and the irregular nature of waterway shorelines.

The maps included in this report are at a high level. More detailed maps will be available for council and public review from February 15th to March e th. Due to the size of map required to provide the detail for boundary lines, it was not practical to include with the report.

As approved by Council, the population numbers included the seasonal population from the last election as well as the latest census data available to the City. The census information is provided to the City by Census Dissemination Areas (Statistics Canada) and ward boundary lines may cut through them. In these cases, the GIS software used reallocates population automatically. This may create some population discrepancies(+/- 5% maximum) but it represents the best estimate that can be derived from the base information. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 4of18 Four options will be presented below as directed by Council. All options were evaluated fairly and without political considerations. The Evaluation Criteria used is the same as used when the seven scenarios were presented and is explained as follows:

Guiding Principle #1 - Representation by Population

For this review, the optimal ward population is the population of a municipality divided by the number of wards with a five percent variance. The following chart was established to rate the population of each ward in relation to the optimal ward population for the option.

Representation bv Population Code Label Description OR+ Outside the Range - Above Greater than 20% above the optimal size O+ Above Optimal 6% to 20% above the optimal size 0 Optimal Within 5% above or below the optimal size 0- Below Optimal 6% to 20% below the optimal size OR- Outside the Range - Below Greater than 20% below the optimal size

This model was developed and has been used by Dr. Robert Williams in many ward boundary reviews. Dr. Williams is a Public Affairs Consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems from Waterloo, Ontario.

Guiding Principle #2 -Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest Within this category such things as settlement areas and like interests such as agriculture, tourism, seasonal and commerce were considered.

Guiding Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries This principle directs that waterways, rivers, lakes and major highways be used, where possible, as boundaries.

Guiding Principle #4 - Effective Representation Interests of the City as a whole are addressed rather than one area over another. Does the proposal serve the larger public interest of all electors of the municipality in contrast to the interest of a small group? Does the configuration allow for a councillor to serve the ward effectively? Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 5of18 The four options that are being presented will be reviewed. No one option will be perfect. Dr. Williams will provide the technical review of each option and make an assessment of each model.

Option #1 - Four Wards - Two Councillors per Ward

The option proposes four wards with two councillors per ward built around one central ward surrounded by a north, east and west ward. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 6of18

Population Analysis

Ward Population Councillor/ Number Total Ward

1 21487 2 0 2 21538 2 0 3 22683 2 0 4 22361 2 0

88069

Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There are: 4 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 0 Ward within the 5 - 20% range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest

This option supports existing settlement patterns and communities of interest, not only physical communities but economic interests as well.

Ward 1 keeps Woodville, Oakwood, Little Britain together and Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool together. The largest agriculture sector of the municipality is in this ward.

Ward 2 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the municipal administrative centre.

Ward 3 keeps Bobcaygeon, Dunsford and Omemee together which supports both a tourism and agriculture interest.

Ward 4 keeps the largest tourism area, lakes, and non-resident population with like interests together. It keeps Fenelon Falls, Sturgeon Point, Norland, Kinmount, Coboconk and Kirkfield together as they share like interests.

All Wards except 2 have a combination of urban and rural communities of interest. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 7of18

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

In the north, the lake system played a large part in determining the boundaries. While this ward is a massive geographic area, one must remember that a large part of the former Longford area has one owner and it has many large parcels of land without electors.

Principle #4 - Effective Representation

This option has optimal distribution of population with all wards. The ward configuration supports the interests of each community and provides a large catchment area for each ward. The previously split urban areas of Bobcaygeon, Lindsay and Omemee have not been separated in this scenario. Report CLK.2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 8of18 Option #2 - Four Wards - Two Councillors per Ward

This option proposes four wards that balances population per ward, retain one central ward and each ward outside of the central ward contains electors from east to west. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 9of18 Population Analysis

Ward Population Councillors/ Number Total Ward

1 21473 2 0 2 21538 2 0 3 20283 2 0- 4 24775 2 O+

88069 Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There are: 2 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 2 Ward within the 5 - 20% range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest

Ward 1 is the main agriculture area with urban areas of Omemee in the east and Oakwood and Little Britain in the east, Janetville, Bethany and Pontypool in the south.

Ward 2 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the municipal administrative centre.

Ward 3 represents the area that shares tourism, seasonal and agriculture interests. Bobcaygeon is the east urban area and Woodville would be the urban area on the west.

Ward 4 keeps the north area together to support the tourism and seasonal interests and includes Fenelon Falls, Sturgeon Point, Norland, Coboconk, Kinmount and Kirkfield are included.

All urban areas are grouped with rural communities around them with the exception of Ward 2.

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

Natural features were not used widely in this scenario; only Sturgeon Lake and Pigeon River were used. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 10of18 Principle #4 - Effective Representation

All Wards are within the acceptable range of ward population. The Wards include urban areas that support the surrounding rural area. Ward 2 keeps Lindsay as one unit since it is the largest urban area and the municipal administrative centre. The previously split urban areas of Bobcaygeon, Lindsay and Omemee have not been separated in this scenario. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 11 of18

Option #3 - Eight Wards - One Councillor per Ward

This option proposes eight wards that balance population per ward. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 12of18 For reference to the current ward structure, it combines, with adjustments -

Current Wards or portions included New Ward 1, 2, 4 1 3,7and13 2 5, 6 and 7 3 4and 8 4 9, 10 5 10, 13, 14 6 11, 12 7 15, 16 8

Population Analysis

Ward Number Population Total

1 9865 0- 2 9450 0- 3 10782 0 4 10850 0 5 12852 O+ 6 11002 0 7 12158 O+ 8 11110 0

88069

Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There are: 4 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 4 Ward within the 5 - 20% range; and 0 Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 - Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest

Ward 1 keeps the north area together to support the tourism and seasonal interests and includes Norland, Coboconk, and Kirkfield.

Ward 2 encompasses the north east section of the municipality and includes the entire Bobcaygeon area and Kinmount.

Ward 3 keeps Fenelon Falls and Sturgeon Point together and the central lakes. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 13 of18 Ward 4 is the mainly agricultural with urban areas of Oakwood, Little Britain and Woodville.

Ward 5 includes the north part of Lindsay and surrounding rural area.

Ward 6 encompasses the south east section of the municipality with the main urban area being the entire Omemee area.

Ward 7 includes the south part of Lindsay and the surrounding rural area .

Ward 8 includes the most southerly portion of the City south of the Pigeon River and includes Janetville, Pontypool and Bethany supported by rural areas.

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

Physical Features were used in this scenario including Balsam Lake, Sturgeon Lake, Pigeon Lakes and Pigeon River.

Principle #4 - Effective Representation

All Wards are within the acceptable range of ward population. The Wards include urban areas that support the surrounding rural area. The previously split urban areas of Bobcaygeon and Omemee have not been separated in this scenario. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 14of18 Option #4 - Eight Wards - One Councillor per Ward

This option proposes eight wards that balance population per ward. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 15of18 For reference to the current ward structure, it combines, with adjustments -

Current Wards or portions included New Ward 1, 2 1 3,7and13 2 5, 6 and 7 3 4 and 8 4 10, 12, 13 5 12, 13, 14, 15 6 8, 9, 11, 12 7 12, 16 8

Population Analysis

Ward Number Population Total

1 9865 0- 2 9450 0- 3 10782 0 4 10850 0 5 13109 O+ 6 10971 0 7 12690 O+ 8 10352 0-

88069

Summary

Principle #1 - Representation by Population There are: 3 Wards at the Optimal Size (within 5%); 5 Ward within the 5 - 20% range; and O Wards outside of the 5-20% range.

Principle #2 • Established Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest

Ward 1 keeps the north area together to support the tourism and seasonal interests and includes Norland, Coboconk, and Kirkfield.

Ward 2 encompasses the north east section of the municipality and includes the entire Bobcaygeon area and Kinmount. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 16of18

Ward 3 keeps Fenelon Falls and Sturgeon Point together and the central lakes.

Ward 4 is the mainly agricultural with urban areas of Oakwood, Little Britain and Woodville.

Ward 5 includes the east part of Lindsay and surrounding rural area.

Ward 6 encompasses the south east section of the municipality with the main urban area being the entire Omemee area.

Ward 7 includes the west part of Lindsay and the surrounding rural area.

Ward 8 includes the most southerly portion of Lindsay south to the city limit south of the Pigeon River and includes Janetville, Pontypool and Bethany supported by rural areas.

Principle #3 - Physical Features as Boundaries

Physical Features were used in this scenario including Balsam Lake, Sturgeon Lake, Pigeon Lakes and Pigeon River.

Principle #4 ·Effective Representation

All Wards are within the acceptable range of ward population. The Wards include urban areas that support the surrounding rural area. The previously split urban areas of Bobcaygeon and Omemee have not been separated in this option.

Staff has provided the four options to Dr. Williams who will review them from a professional expert position and will present his assessment to Council at the February 21st Council Meeting.

Large scale maps will be available for public viewing at City Hall from February 15th to March 61h. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 17of18

Other Alternatives Considered:

On March 7, 2017, if Council chooses one of the options presented with this report, the following decisions should be made by adopting the following resolution as one or as separate resolutions:

a) RESOLVED THAT a XX (insert Number) ward structure for the City of Kawartha Lakes, be adopted;

b) THAT Option XX (insert Number), be adopted; THAT the by-law to effect this decision be presented; and THAT the City Clerk be instructed to prepare the required notification upon by-law adoption.

Council could choose to have other options developed. If this is the decision then it is recommended that ward boundary experts be hired to complete this task in a timely manner, as city resources, are at their capacity. This project would not be the priority for GIS staff until such time as the ERP, CityWorks PLL systems are fully operational. It is anticipated that it would cost up to $20,000.00 to have this completed.

Once the decision is made on the ward structure, ward names should be determined whether they are numbered or named. This should be completed by the end of April. Instruction would be required as to how to proceed with this issue.

Council may wish to consider establishing a fixed time frame for ward boundary reviews. It is suggested that a twelve year time frame would be appropriate which equates to every three terms of Council. Should Council wish to establish this at the time ward boundaries are decided, the resolution would be

RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk be instructed to initiate a ward boundary review every twelve years commencing in 2030.

Financial Considerations:

Due to the lack of internal resources, funds have been spent on the required resources to provide the four options that were requested in an amount of close to $10,000.00. As recommended, the funds should come from the Election Reserve as this expenditure relates to the ward established for representation purposes. The current balance within the Election Reserve is $203,680.84. Report CLK2017-002 Ward Boundary Update Page 18of18

Relationship of Recommendation(s) To The 2016-2019 Strategic Plan:

Representation of the elected officials should be equalized as much as possible. Those elected officials form the foundation of the municipality to move forward to develop a strategic plan for the municipality.

Review of Accessibility Implications of Any Development or Policy:

N/A

Servicing Comments:

N/A

Consultations:

Attachments:

Assessment of Options - Dr. Robert Williams, Public Affairs consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems ~ 2017-02-13 CKL Final Report Review.docx

Phone: 705-324-9411 Ext. 1295 E-Mail: [email protected] Department Head: Ron Taylor, CAO Department File: External Review City of Kawartha Lakes Clerk's Report CLK2017-002 "Ward Boundary Update"

Prepared by Robert J. Williams, Ph.D. Public Affairs Consultant Waterloo, Ontario February 13, 2017

1) Background I was retained in early 2016 to provide an external review of Report CLK2016-009 presented to Kawartha Lakes City Council on May 10, 2016 as part of an in~house process to review the City's ward boundaries. Council directed that three options outlined in that report be taken to the community during the summer in a multifaceted pubic consultation process. In October 2016, a further report (CKL2016-011) summarized the results of the public consultation and led to Council's decision to reduce the number of Councillors from sixteen to eight and to instruct the Clerk to ''to bring forward various options" to elect the eight Councillors in either four or eight wards.

I have now been retained to provide an external review of the options developed to fulfill that direction (found in Report CKL2017-002): two options are four-ward systems (1 and 2) and two options are eight-ward options (3 and 4). My task, as I see it, is to determine whether these options can provide for effective and equitable representation to the residents of Kawartha Lakes and what the implications of each option might be for representation on future City Councils. Some of the language used here will parallel observations made on certain of the initial scenarios but each option included in Report CKL2017-002 is considered as a fresh solution to providing effective representation in Kawartha Lakes.

Since I am not a local resident who is familiar with the various settlements

1 and physical features of the City - nor have I been retained to recommend ward boundaries per se - my evaluation will rest primarily on the application of the guiding principles adopted by City Council for this review.

In the interests of full disclosure (as stated in my previous report), it is appropriate to acknowledge that the author of this external review met with the City Clerk and her staff team in October 2015 to assist them in determining how they would manage a sound independent ward boundary review process and to help them understand the way the guiding principles might apply in a municipality like Kawartha Lakes. There has been no contact or involvement between City staff and the consultant in any way since that time other than in the preparation of the May 2016 external review. In other words, I have played no role in the development of the options now before Council.

a The Process I am satisfied that the process used to reach this point in the ward boundary review has been credible, reasonable and legitimate (as I wrote in May 2016) and does not undermine the effectiveness of the options presented here. There is thus no need to comment further on this aspect of the review.

b The Principles The Kawartha Lakes ward boundary review is built on four easily understood and coherent guiding principles aimed at ensuring that the representation of residents is equitable ("a general balancing of populations between Wards"), that the representation of place ("settlement patterns and existing communities of interest") is reasonable and that boundaries are based on easily identifiable f eatu res rather than artificial lines. The overriding principle seeks to achieve "effective representation" for the entire community, a concept widely employed in electoral redistributions in Canada to capture the on-going relationship between residents and their elected representatives, one of the principal outcomes of an election.

These principles are in step with those that I have used in electoral reviews in both large and small municipalities across Ontario; they have also been

2 accepted as valid in other cases when an appeal has been taken to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A ward boundary review is ultimately about choosing an electoral system that best delivers effective representation but only a perfect electoral design - in a perfect world - is likely to meet all of these principles literally or uniformly. Nevertheless, having principles in place to assist in evaluating the alternatives reduces the risk that an electoral review may lead to unfair, ill-conceived or politically motivated results. While there is no doubt that the adoption of a new electoral system in Kawartha Lakes will have an impact on the political careers of some individual elected officials, I am confident that the guiding principles for this review have been of paramount concern in the development of these proposals. c The Methodology The goal of "balancing" the population of wards in Kawartha Lakes must be based on population estimates rather than precise population numbers. As explained in Report CKL2017-002, the figures used for the review combine permanent residents with the non-permanent population captured from the 2014 list of electors. The two sources reflect different populations with information gathered in different ways, but together offer a reasonable basis for this purpose.

The most recent independent source for data on the permanent population is the 2011 Census of Canada, which is a flawed foundation for a number of reasons, not the least being the accuracy of data that can be attached authoritatively to small (and especially rural) geographic areas. It was necessary to work with what are called Dissemination Blocks 1 to come up with an estimate of the population in 2016 and these Blocks do not conform to present or proposed wards. It was therefore necessary to use GIS

1 Dissemination Blocks are geographic areas used by Statistics Canada to collect population and dwelling counts in the Census that are then aggregated for other purposes. An explanation of Dissemination Blocks is provided at https:/lwww12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011 /ref/dict/geo014-eng.cfm

3 software to reallocate the Census population figures to use in this review with the acknowledged understanding that there would likely be some minor discrepancies. Given that the goal is wards with a population within a range of variation, these population estimates can be considered acceptable for this purpose.

The 2016 Census took place while this review was underway but fresh population data is only being released as this report is being prepared. In any case, it is highly unlikely that the new Census will reveal significant changes to the population patterns used in this review.

I have worked on ward boundary reviews that have been constrained in this way and can confirm that this methodology is justified for the Kawartha Lakes ward boundary review.

d The "District Magnitude" Question Kawartha Lakes City Councit made two important choices in responding to report CKL2016-011 in October 2106: it changed the composition of Council from sixteen to eight Councillors and thereby determined that the present sixteen single-member wards would not be applicable in the next municipal election.

However, two further inter-connected issues need to be addressed and they are implicit in the four options addressed in Report CKL2017-002: • Should the single-member ward model be retained or should the City use a two-member ward model? Some Ontario municipalities use a combination of single- and multiple-member wards (as did some of the options presented in Report CKL2016-009) but each alternative presented to Council at this time provides for a single district magnitude. This symmetrical approach ensures a less confusing and more equitable system. • How should ward boundaries actually be drawn to meet the guiding principles for the review?

The primary consideration for Council is whether to retain single-member wards in Kawartha Lakes (and therefore an eight ward configuration) or

4 whether to adopt two-member wards (and therefore a four ward configuration). The former system (with a "district magnitude" of one) has been the arrangement since amalgamation but the latter (with a "district magnitude" of two) is also used in some municipalities across Ontario. The two systems each have benefits and weaknesses but neither one is definitively "better" than the other. It is interesting that those who responded to the survey during the public consultations over the summer of 2016 were fairly evenly divided on this question: 136 people preferred one Councillor per ward and 124 preferred two Councillors per ward.

In the assessment that follows, brief observations on the implications for this choice will be added to evaluations based on the set of four guiding principles noted above.

5 2) The Options

Option #1 - Four Wards - Two Councillors per Ward This configuration includes a central ward surrounded by wards to the north, east and west.

Population Balance This design offers an exceptional level of population parity since the estimated population for the four wards varies by less than 1,200 people. This Option meets the "population balance" principle.

Ward Pooulation Variance2 1 21,487 0.98 0 2 21,538 0.98 0 3 22,683 1.03 0 4 22,361 1.02 0 Total Population Optimal 88,069 22017

Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest It is challenge to design four wards that are coherent groupings of interests in a municipality that covers a large and diverse geographic area. On the other hand, it is possible to keep the main population centre within a single ward and to include wards that are built around broadly defined communities of interest (such as agriculture and tourism). Three of the wards in this design are large geographic areas that are intended to reflect natural "connections" between identifiable settlements and their surrounding areas. The proposed Ward 3 is less coherent than the other wards since it appears to consist of three distinct areas that are not readily connected to one another: the northern part of the proposed ward (north of Sturgeon Lake) is only connected to the central part at the extreme east end of the ward (at Bobcaygeon) while that central portion is only connected to the southern part (south of ) at the extreme west

2 This code is explained in Report CKL2017-002 page 4.

6 end of the ward. This configuration weakens the coherence of the proposed Ward.

This Option is largely successful at meeting the "communities of interest" principle.

Natural Boundaries There are actually very few boundary lines used in this Option that rely on readily identifiable natural or man-made features. A small part of the southern boundary of the proposed Ward 4 between Sturgeon Lake and Fenelon Falls is an exception. On the other hand, the proposed boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 3 follows a significant marker - Highway 7 - but moves to a secondary roadway between the Lindsay urban area and Reaboro. Most other boundaries do not appear to rely on existing identifiable features but seem to be artificial lines imposed on the landscape.

To an outsider, this Option appears to be only partially successful at meeting the "natural boundaries" principle. Given the complexity of the geography of the City of Kawartha Lakes, however, such arrangements may be necessary.

Effective Representation The remarkable population balance among the proposed four wards ensures that the residents of each ward will have an equitable and effective voice in decision-making. Councillors elected in the proposed Ward 3 will face some challenges travelling around the three distinct parts of the ward to meet with constituents but, on the whole, this Option meets the "effective representation" principle.

Impact of Two-member Wards A two-member ward may be appealing to residents who would have a choice of two Councillors to contact on matters of importance and two voices to speak on their behalf in conducting the business of the City. However, having two Councillors does not mean that they each have one half of the ward (or one half of the residents) to represent. Each Councillor

7 is responsible to the entire (larger) ward at election time and for the entire (more populated) ward during her or his term of office. In other words, compared to the present single-member system, the challenges of campaigning and the workload may be more-or-less doubled for every candidate and elected Councillor.

Principle Evaluation Comment Population Balance Yes All wards within optimal range. Communities of Interest Largely successful Proposed Ward 3 contains three poorly connected parts; other wards good. Natural Boundaries Partially successful Many boundaries not based on perceptible features. Effective Yes Residents of each ward will Representation have comparable voice in Council deliberations. Impact of Two-Member Area and population to be Wards represented by a Councillor more-or-less doubled.

8 Option #2 - Four Wards - Two Councillors per Ward Th is Option includes a central ward and three wards that run east to west across the City.

Population Balance All of the wards proposed in this Option fall well within the accepted range of variation (20% above or below Optimal) although the estimated population in the wards varies by just over 4,000 people. This Option meets the "population balance" principle.

Ward Population Variance 1 21,473 0.98 0 2 21,538 0.98 0 3 20,283 0.92 0- 4 24,775 1.13 O+ Total Population Optimal Population 88,069 22,017

Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest It is challenge to design four wards that are coherent groupings of interests in a municipality that covers a large and diverse geographic area. On the other hand, it is possible to keep the main population centre within a single ward and to include wards that are built around broadly defined communities of interest (such as agriculture and tourism).

In this design, three of the wards include settlement areas that are a 3 considerable distance from one another ; for example it is approximately 50 kms from Bobcaygeon to Woodville (both in the proposed Ward 3) or 45 kms from Seagrave to Cowan's Bay (both in the proposed Ward 1). Although the present system of representation in Kawartha Lakes was deliberately designed so that ward boundaries did not adhere to pre­ amalgamation · municipal boundaries, the existing sixteen wards are

3 For obvious reasons, proposed wards in the northern areas of the City (Ward 4 in both Options #1 and #2) will inevitably cover large territories with widely dispersed sett Iem e nts.

9 composed of areas in proximity to one another. In this Option, however, many settlements that do not - on the face of it - have "natural" connections or historic linkages are placed together in the proposed Wards 1 and 3.

As noted in my May 2106 external report, this approach to representation was a priority in relation to achieving what Harry Kitchen called "a greater incentive to work in the collective interests of the new municipality." If that laudable goal is still a priority, some wards that do not constitute conventional communities of interest may be the price to pay.

In my assessment, this Option is only partially successful at meeting the "communities of interest" principle.

Natural Boundaries Most of the boundary lines used in this Option rely on readily identifiable natural or man-made features. The southern boundary of the proposed Ward 4 running west from Sturgeon Lake is an exception since it does not appear to follow a roadway or other evident demarcation nor does the boundary line north of Sturgeon Lake towards Bobcaygeon. The boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 3, though, follows identifiable features for most of its length.

This Option appears to successful meet the "natural boundaries" principle despite the complexity of the geography of the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Effective Representation The population balance among the proposed four wards ensures that the residents of each ward will have an equitable and effective voice in decision-making. The requirement that Councillors represent widely dispersed settlements and communities in the proposed Wards 1 and 3 weakens the overall evaluation of this Option. Furthermore if, by chance, the two Councillors live in the same part of the ward, residents of the remaining par:ts of the ward my feel that they do not have "one of their own" at the Council table. On this basis, Option #2 is only partially successful at meeting the "effective representation" principle.

10 Impact of Two-member Wards A two-member ward may be appealing to residents who would have a choice of two Councillors to contact on matters of importance and two voices to speak on their behalf in conducting the business of the City. However, having two Councillors does not mean that they each have one half of the ward (or one half of the residents) to represent. Each Councillor is responsible to the entire (larger) ward at election time and for the entire (more populated) ward during her or his term of office. In other words, compared to the present single-member system, the challenges of campaigning and the workload may be more-or-less doubled. Moreover, in this Option two of the wards will be an unwieldy assortment of communities.

Principle Evaluation Comment Population Balance Yes All wards well within acceptable range of variation. Settlement Patterns Partially successful Three wards include and Communities of widely distributed Interest settlements Natural Boundaries Yes Most boundaries based on identifiable features. Effective Partially successful Residents of each ward Representation will have comparable voice in Council deliberations but two wards are composed of disconnected communities. Impact of Two-Member Area and population to Wards be represented by a Councillor more-or-less doubled. Two wards include non-customary connections.

11 General Observations on Options # 1 and #2 The two four-ward Options outlined in Report CKL2017-002 are both plausible alternatives for the City of Kawartha Lakes should Council prefer to implement two-member wards.

One important benefit of both Options is the provision of a single ward for Lindsay. The major implication of selecting one of these Options is the dramatic change in the capacity of individual Councillors to serve as effective representatives.

The strength of Option #1 is clearly the exceptional level of population parity among the four wards; the principal weakness is the internal fragmentation of the proposed Ward 3

The strength of Option #2 lies in a more than acceptable population balance and clearer boundary lines; the principal shortcoming is the somewhat unconventional grouping of settlement areas in the proposed Wards 1 and 3.

12 Option #3 - Eight Wards - One Councillor per Ward

The distinctive feature of this configuration is the placement of two relatively compact wards around Lindsay and two wards in the southeast quadrant of the City.

Population Balance All of the wards proposed in this Option fall within the accepted range of variation (20°/o above or below Optimal) although one ward is approaching the upper limit. Half of the wards are at or within two percentage points of the optimal population. This Option meets the "population balance" principle.

Ward Population Variance 1 9,865 0.90 0- 2 9,450 0.86 0- 3 10,782 0.98 0 4 10,850 0.99 0 5 12,852 1.17 O+ 6 11,002 1.00 0 7 12,158 1.10 O+ 8 11,110 1.01 0 Total Population Optimal Population 88,069 11,008

Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest It is comparatively easier in an eight-ward system to design wards that are coherent groupings of interests despite the large and diverse geographic area of the municipality. On the other hand, it becomes necessary to divide the main population centre, in this Option into two parts (both of which are above the optimal population level). Although data are not available, it is likely the case that a significant number of rural residents live in the proposed Ward 7; they will constitute a permanent minority in that urban­ dominated ward. The remainder of the proposed wards appear to respect established settlement areas and their traditional communities of interest and also appear to incorporate many boundaries used for the present

13 sixteen wards, therefore making the transition to a new ward system easier for electors to understand. The proposed Ward 8 is nevertheless unconventional since it is composed of two distinct areas with restricted access between the parts.

Option #3 is largely successful at meeting the "communities of interest" principle.

Natural Boundaries The majority of the boundary lines replicates existing ward boundaries and would be familiar to residents on that basis. A few lines are new (for example the boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 4). The boundary between the proposed Wards 5 and 7 divides Lindsay but uses a clear and identifiable marker: Colborne Street. This Option successfully meets the "natural boundaries" principle.

Effective Representation The population balance among the proposed eight wards is reasonably equitable and ensures that the residents of each ward will have an effective voice in decision-making. The awkward geography of the proposed Ward 8 weakens the coherence of that ward but is not significant enough to weaken the overall evaluation of this Option. Option #3 successfully meets the "effective representation" principle.

Impact of One-member Wards Residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes have been represented in one­ member wards since amalgamation, although in these four Options there would be half as many Councillors as at present. This model provides for direct accountability and ensures that all parts of the City will have an identified representative on Council (which may not happen in the larger two-member wards). It is quite likely that the Councillor elected in the proposed Ward 7 will be required to represent both urban and rural interests. There will be some additional challenges campaigning in the eight larger wards but these would not be as great as in the four-ward Options.

14 Principle Evaluation Comment Population Balance Yes All wards well within acceptable range of variation. Half at optimal. Settlement Patterns Largely successful Lindsay divided into two and Communities of parts; one ward contains Interest two discrete sections with restricted lines of communication between them. Natural Boundaries Yes Most boundaries use identifiable features. Effective Yes Residents of each ward Representation will have comparable voice in Council deliberations. Impact of One-Member More direct Wards accountability; recognized representative for all parts of the City.

15 Option #4 - Eight Wards - One Councillor per Ward In this design residents of Lindsay are placed in three wards, including one that extends to the City's southern boundary.

Population Balance All of the wards proposed in this Option fall within the accepted range of variation (20°/o above or below Optimal) although one ward is virtually at the upper limit. Three wards are at or within two percentage points of the optimal population. This Option meets the "population balance" principle but will not continue to do so as residential development occurs in Lindsay. If the population of the proposed Ward 5 included an additional 100 people, the overall design could be judged unsuccessful because a single ward exceeded the acceptable range of variance.

Ward Population Variance 1 9,865 0.90 0- 2 9,450 0.86 0- 3 10,782 0.98 0 4 10,850 0.99 0 5 13, 109 1.19 O+ 6 10,971 1.00 0 7 12,690 1.15 O+ 8 10,352 0.94 0- Total Population Optimal Population 88,069 11,008

Settlement Patterns and Communities of Interest It is comparatively easier in an eight-ward system to design wards that are coherent groupings of interests despite the large and diverse geographic area of the municipality. On the other hand, in this Option the main population centre is divided into three parts (two of which are above the optimal population level, including one at the upper end of the acceptable population range). Four wards (1, 2, 3 and 4) are identical to the wards proposed in Option #3 and appear to constitute coherent and sound collections of communities of interest. The ward covering the southeastern corner of the City (proposed Ward 6) is a much more plausible design than

16 the configuration for this area in Option #3.

Local residents would be much more qualified than I am to judge whether the neighbourhoods of Lindsay assigned to Wards 5, 7 and 8 reflect meaningful - and distinguishable - communities of interest that warrant being placed in different wards. Perhaps more importantly, however, these three groups of urban residents are allocated to wards that also include extensive non-urban areas thereby creating wards with potentially divergent communities of interest. Given that a similar arrangement exists in the present Wards 9, 10, 11 and 12, experience may suggest that this reservation is not been an issue in Kawartha Lakes.

Primarily because of the nature of Wards 5, 7 and 8, Option #4 is only partially successful at meeting the "communities of interest'1 principle.

Natural Boundaries The boundary lines for Wards 1 - 4 replicate those in Option # 3 and are effective. The boundaries for the proposed Ward 6 are also clear. The boundary lines running through Lindsay appear to be less meaningful markers although a portion of the Ward 7-8 boundary is carried over from the present ward map.

Primarily because of the nature of the boundaries within the Lindsay urban area, this Option is judged to be largely successful at meeting the "natural boundaries" principle.

Effective Representation The population balance among the proposed eight wards is reasonably equitable and ensures that the residents of each ward will have an effective voice in decision-making. The inclusion of non-urban residents in wards based in Lindsay weakens the impact of that non-urban community of interest in Council deliberations. Option #4 is largely successful at meeting the "effective representation" principle.

Impact of One-member Wards The City of Kawartha Lakes Council has been elected in one-member

17 wards since amalgamation, although in these Options with half as many Councillors. This model provides for direct accountability and ensures that all parts of the City will have an identified representative on Council (which may not happen in the larger two-member wards). Councillors elected in the proposed Wards 5, 7 and 8 will be required to represent both urban and rural interests. There will be some additional challenges campaigning in eight larger wards but the wards are not as large as in the four-ward Options.

Principle Evaluation Comment Population Balance Yes All wards well within acceptable range of variation. Three at optimal but one virtually at upper limit. Settlement Patterns Partially successful Lindsay divided into three and Communities of parts, each ward a Interest combination of urban and extensive non-urban territories. Natural Boundaries Largely successful Most boundaries use identifiable features. Boundaries proposed in urban Lindsay less satisfactory. Effective Largely successful Residents of each ward will Representation have comparable voice in Council deliberations. Three wards include urban and extensive non-urban communities. Impact of One- More direct accountability; Member Wards recognized representative for all parts of the Citv.

18 General Observations on Options # 3 and #4 The two eight-ward Options outlined in Report CKL2017-002 are both plausible alternatives for the City of Kawartha Lakes should Council prefer to retain one-member wards.

One important benefit of these Options is the continuation of the one­ member model of representation that has been in place since amalgamation. The major implication of selecting one of these Options is the requirement to divide Lindsay into either two or three parts to meet the "population balance" principle. The allocation of those residents to two wards or to three wards is one of the main differences between Options #3 and #4.

The strength of Option #3 is the achievement of population parity among the eight wards and the use of clear boundary lines; the principal weaknesses are the awkward geography of the proposed Ward 8 and the anticipated permanent minority status of rural residents in the proposed Ward 7.

The strength of Option #4 lies in the acceptable population balance among the eight wards and clear boundary lines; the principal shortcoming is the inclusion of sizeable numbers non-rural residents in the three wards based in Lindsay.

19 3) Conclusion

Summary Comparison of the Four Options Meets the Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Principle Yes " Population " Population " Population " Population Balance Balance Balance Balance "Effective "Natural " Natural Representation Boundaries Boundaries * Effective Representation Largely * Communities * Communities *Natural successful of Interest of Interest Boundaries • Effective Representation Partially • Natural * Effective * Communities of successful Boundaries Representation Interest * Communities of Interest No

The critical comments provided in this Review do not mean that the Options presented in Report CKL2107-002 are unworkable or inappropriate for Kawartha Lakes. Far from it. Each Opti.on is deemed successful in its own way; none includes features that can be judged unacceptable or indefensible. Each has strengths and - not surprisingly - weaknesses. It is necessary in an External Review to probe into the attributes of the alternatives to assist Council in understanding what is achieved - or may not be achieved - in the Options presented.

As the table above clearly demonstrates, each Option addresses the same challenges but incorporates the four principles with different degrees of success. This is to be expected. Ward boundary designs almost always require trade-offs: for example, a high degree of population parity might mean wards of markedly different geographic sizes or irregular topographical features may mean setting aside clean lines.

20 Three important factors should, in my opinion, shape Council's decision: • What system of representation (one-member or two-member wards) is best for Kawartha Lakes in 2017 and beyond? • How much representation should be assigned to the residents of Lindsay within the larger representation picture? • What is the most appropriate way to group communities of interest in the wards?

The four Options included in Report CKL2017-002 have each successfully addressed these and other challenges in their own way. In making a selection, Council should remember that there is no single "right answer" and that inevitably some people may prefer something other than what is implemented. That is the nature of a political decision and the selection of a new ward system is ultimately a political decision.

I am confident that whichever Option Council selects from the four included in Report CKL2017-002, it will deliver effective representation to the residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes.

21 A Note on the Author Dr. Robert J. Williams is an independent consultant specializing in municipal electoral systems. Since 2008 he has undertaken reviews himself for Kitchener, Markham, Milton, New Tecumseth, Oakville, Whitchurch~Stouffville, Windsor and West Lincoln. He has also worked in conjunction with Watson and Associates on reviews for Pelham, Barrie, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Clearview, Gravenhurst, Severn, Milton and Hamilton. They are currently collaborating on ward boundary reviews in Oshawa, Scugog, Georgina, Essex and Orillia.

Dr. Williams has also been an advisor to Municipal Clerks or to citizens on ward boundary matters in Wilmot, Brantford, East Gwillimbury, Kingston, Georgian Bay, Kearney, and Killarney. He has served as an expert witness before the OMB hearings on ten occasions. In 2010 he was engaged by the Nova Scotia Utilities and Review Board to prepare reports in relation to the determination of council composition in Halifax and Cape Breton Regional Municipalities.

Dr. Williams holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Toronto and is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Waterloo.

22

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

ISSUE DATE: October 11, 2017 CASE NO.(S): MM170038

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 222(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended Appellant: Charles Scheffel Subject: By-law No. BL 2017-053 (Ward Boundary) to revise the boundaries to eight wards and a mayor Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OMB Case No.: MM170038 OMB File No.: MM170038 OMB Case Name: Scheffel v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

Heard: August 24, 2017 in Lindsay, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Charles Scheffel (“Appellant”) Self-Represented

City of Kawartha Lakes (“City”) Stephen D’Agostino

DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

[1] This appeal comes before the Board as a result of the enactment of By-law No. 2017-053 by Council for the City of Kawartha Lakes on March 21, 2017 (the “Ward Boundaries By-law”). The passage of the Ward Boundaries By-law followed an extended review and consultation process, and effected a reconfiguration of the wards and ward boundaries in the municipality, (“Wards” and “Ward Boundaries”) reducing the 2 MM170038

number of Wards to 8, from 16. The Ward Boundaries By-law, in its preamble made reference to the fact that the Council had, under a different By-law “reduced the size of Council to a Mayor and Eight Councillors on December 13, 2016”.

[2] The Appellant appealed the Wards By-law on May 2, 2017 and accordingly the appeal comes before the Board pursuant to section 222(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, (“Municipal Act”).

[3] The Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Appointment for Hearing was filed as Exhibit 1 to the hearing. At the hearing of this appeal, in addition to the Appellant, and the City, the Board recognized two Participants, Afe Helleman, and Kathy Morton (the “Participants”) who also voiced opposition to the Ward Boundaries By-law.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

The Appellant’s Position—Grounds for Appeal

[4] It is the position of the Appellant that no change of ward boundaries is warranted and that the existing ward structure, and composition of council, should remain as is.

[5] There were multiple grounds set out in the Appellant’s appeal of the Ward Boundaries By-law but the Appellant’s primary objections on the appeal relate to the nature of the information relied on by the City to examine relative equality of representation. The primary objections, as stated by the Appellant are, two-fold.

[6] First, the Appellant asserts that the population figures use by the City were unreliable and inaccurate as a basis for the Ward Boundaries review. The Appellant submits that the City should not have used estimates of current and future population and non-resident electors in the City to assess options, or “guesses” as to the size and distribution of population.

[7] The second aspect of the Appellant’s grounds is his objection to the use of population numbers instead of voter numbers. The Appellant submits that the City 3 MM170038

should have used the 2014 electoral/voter numbers (which was 65,278 persons) because the case law directs that the City should strive for a fair and equitable balance in electoral representation, as opposed to a fair and equitable balance in representation of the population/residents of the City. On that premise, the Appellant provides his allocation table of the electors in the 16 wards, as they were in the 2014 election, and asserts that if this data is used, the variances in population distribution among the 16 wards are well within the range of tolerance under the case law, with only one ward, Ward 8, exceeding a 25% deviation, at 27% higher than average. The existing Ward Boundaries (and the number of Councillors) should thus be retained without change.

[8] Upon inquiry by the Board, the Appellant confirms that the other reasons for the appeal are as set out in his Notice Letter of May 2, 2017: that the revised Ward Boundaries will isolate rural areas of the municipality; and will not represent the geographic regions of the wards.

[9] Finally, the Appellant contends that the Ward Boundaries By-law will “consolidate control and power in fewer hands” as a result of the reduction in the number of Councillors in each ward from two, to one. The Appellant’s position is that the number of Councillors also should not be altered and should remain as it is.

The City’s Position

[10] The City’s position is that it followed a rigorous and comprehensive path through its Ward Boundary review process (“WB Review”) guided by proper Terms of Reference reflecting the applicable principles determined by the Courts and the Board. Those processes were responsive to the circumstances of the City’s structure and characteristics, properly inclusive of all of its population and property-owners, with open and extensive public consultation processes. The City also enlisted the services of an expert in ward boundaries to review the WB Review and provide advice and guidance to Council. Option 3, the option eventually approved from the WB Review represents effective representation in accordance with the principles set out in the case law. 4 MM170038

[11] In specific response to the Appellant’s grounds for appeal, the City asserts that its data collection processes and methodology resulted in a reliable combined total of population numbers based on the most recent Federal Census Data and seasonal non- resident property owners. This information was then properly allocated and mapped for distribution in the possible options for revised Wards in the City. As such the City submits that the information and data was correct and well within an acceptable margin of error. The numbers were also eventually validated by the 2016 census information received after the Review was completed. The City submits that it quite properly sought the relative equality of representation in the Ward Boundaries of the City based upon the total estimated resident population and also considered other factors necessary to achieve the goal of effective representation, as required.

[12] The City maintains that the other grounds for appeal have no merit and that the Ward Boundaries By-law reducing the wards from 16 to 8 should be confirmed by the Board. Finally, the City submits that the Appellants challenge to the number of Councillors is not within the jurisdiction of the Board and should also be dismissed.

[13] As a minor matter, the Board is advised that in the course of subsequent review of the Ward Boundaries By-law, the City discovered that there was an inadvertent error in the descriptive reference to Ward 7 whereby the description should have referred to the lands “north of Lot 1 to 18 Concession 12 Manvers” and instead referred to the “north of Lot 1 to 25” in the description. The City requests that this minor amendment be addressed by the Board in its ruling on the appeal.

THE LAW

[14] Leaving aside those more narrow issues that may arise in this appeal or other Ward Boundary appeals, the legislative provisions and the body of law that has developed in relation to Ward Boundaries, are relatively settled and established in the Province of Ontario. It is helpful to first review this background. 5 MM170038

[15] Section 222(1) of the Municipal Act grants jurisdiction to municipalities to enact a Ward Boundaries By-law to divide or subdivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve existing wards. Any person may appeal to the Board objecting to the Ward Boundaries By-law and provide reasons in support of such objectives.

[16] No further guidance, tests, criteria, restrictions or obligations relating to Ward Boundary disputes is contained within the legislation or any regulation. The Board is instead guided by a body of law, and at the “apex” of the cases dealing with the determination of Ward Boundaries, is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, (or the “Carter Decision” or “Carter” as it is often referred to, based on the name of one of the Respondents) which set out a number of principles to apply when determining whether the Ward Boundaries provide the “effective representation” required. Both the City and the Appellant have referred to this decision in support of their positions before the Board.

[17] In the Carter Decision, the Court expressed the often-repeated, and overriding principle that the purpose of the right to vote, as contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), “is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to “effective representation””. As to exactly how a Ward Boundary system should achieve the goal of effective representation, was enunciated through the identified principles to be considered in appeals such as the one before the Board. They can be summarized as follows:

(a) The process begins with the recognition that the first condition of effective representation is “relative parity of voting power”. The Court, in Carter, was being asked to consider the right to vote as contained in s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) as it related to provincial electoral distribution and electoral boundaries. The Court’s conclusion, based on the Charter, was that “the right to vote should be defined as guaranteeing the right to effective representation” and not the expectation of absolute voter parity. 6 MM170038

(b) The Court stated that the first condition of effective representation is nevertheless the relative parity of voting power, acknowledging that if the fundamental equality of voting power is diluted, the representation will be uneven and unfair, and thus ineffective. Referring to “dilution”, this approach recognizes a quantitative or numerical aspect of equitable voting power. However, for the reasons discussed later in this Decision, relating to “population numbers vs. voter numbers” it is important to recognize that the relative parity of voting power is not the same as the phrase “voter parity” which is often used, and represents something different.

(c) “Voter parity” might possibly suggest an equality of the number of voters in each ward and not the concept of an equality of voting power amongst wards referred to by Madam Justice McLachlin. Although the Court refers to the premise of “one person, one vote” and “voter parity” in the decision, the Court’s discussion of effective representation is based squarely upon the recognition of the parity of voting power and that there are factors that permit deviation from the “one person – one vote” rule. This gives rise to the issue relating to the difference between population numbers versus voter numbers.

(d) The qualification of the Court as to the first condition of relative parity of voting power by the Court was that “parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring effective representation … Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen’s vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors.”

(e) There were two reasons that other factors and criteria impact upon effective representation. First, the Court noted that absolute parity of voting power cannot always be achieved because of constant changes that occur in any jurisdiction. The Court stated: 7 MM170038

53. First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible”

Accordingly, the Court warned that: “….deviations from absolute voter parity may sometimes be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility.

(f) The second reason that relative parity may be undesirable is because it may detract from the primary goal of effective representation. This is where the Court recognized that there may be other factors that are necessary to achieve what is required to ensure that the representation is effective. The Court emphasized:

54 …Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.

(g) As to when such factors of community interests, location, and local differences should be considered in determining effective representation, the Court again reiterated that “dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced”, and there must be justifiable reasons to deviate from that principle:

55. … only those deviations should be admitted which can be justified on the ground that they contribute to better government of the populace as a whole, giving due weight to regional issues within the populace and geographic factors within the territory governed.

(h) The practical implications of differences in geography and community interests is most easily seen in the differences between rural areas and urban areas where higher population densities in urban areas may numerically result in inequality of voting power over that of lower population densities in rural areas. The Court addressed this challenge where there are differences in density of population and said: 8 MM170038

61. … The problems of representing vast, sparsely populated territories, for example, may dictate somewhat lower voter populations in these districts; to insist on voter parity might deprive citizens with distinct interests of an effective voice in the legislative process as well as of effective assistance from the representatives in their “ombudsman” role. This is only one of a number of factors which may necessitate deviation from the “one person – one vote” rule in the interests of effective representation.

(i) The Court stated: “In the end, it is the broader concept of effective representation which best serves the interests of a free and democratic society.” The Board has fully adopted this principle in the adjudication of ward boundary appeals.

The Carter principles have subsequently been reviewed, analyzed, expanded upon, and applied in many Board decisions based upon the fact specific circumstances of each appeal based upon the clear direction of the court that the list of factors that may justify a departure from absolute voter parity is not a closed list.

[18] The City has drawn the Board’s attention to decisions demonstrating the approach of the Board in reviewing the decisions of council in passing a Wards Boundary by-law, and the particular regard generally given to the decisions of municipal council, when there is no clear and compelling reason that would cause the Board to interfere in Council’s decision. Although it is similarly provided for in a number of decisions before the Board, a review of the applicable principles by the Board in Niagara Falls (City) By-law No. 2002-097, Savage v. Niagara Falls (City), 2002 CarswellOnt 5430 (“Savage”) succinctly summarized the Board’s approach to appeals such as this one. In considering the Ward Boundaries By-law passed by the City of Niagara Falls, the Board stated that the preference is always for a locally driven solution to the type of electoral representation that is imposed on a municipality, rather than a Board dictated one:

43 The matter before the Board does not involve dividing a local municipality into wards. The matter before the Board involves the duly elected members of Niagara Falls council reaching a decision to change, by by-law, its electoral system. 9 MM170038

44 This Board should not lightly interfere with that decision unless there are very clear and compelling reasons to do so. The Board should be satisfied that city council acted fairly and reasonably. If the Board is so satisfied, deference should be accorded to Niagara Falls council, who are in a better position than the Board to determine what is the appropriate electoral system to provide fair and effective representation to its constituents.

45 The Minister has chosen not to prescribe regulations governing the criteria a municipal council must follow when deciding to divide, redivide or dissolve its ward boundaries. The applicable legislation has been in effect since 1996 and the Board can only assume an intention on the part of the province to confer broad discretion on municipal councils to decide the type of electoral systems it wishes, provided council acts fairly and responsibly.

[19] This approach has been similarly explained by the Board as being connected to the test of reasonableness. The City referred the Board to the decision in Teno v. Lakeshore (Town), 2005 CarswellOnt 6386 where the Board endorsed the approach in Savage stating:

36 Thus, this Board accepts that there must be clear and compelling reasons for the Board to interfere in a municipal council’s decision on these matters, and that it may have to be demonstrated that a municipal council has acted unfairly or unreasonably in making a decision on these issues. However, if the evidence demonstrates that the decision of the municipality operates to diverge from the overriding principle of voter equity and effective representation, then the Board can only conclude that the Council has acted unreasonably. Where however the issues are not so clear cut, then it may be that the Board may accord deference to the decision of the municipal council.

ISSUES, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

The Witnesses and The Evidence

[20] The Appellant’s evidence was limited to his own testimony and the presentation of his Document Book (Exhibit 2). The testimony of the two Participants also appeared to challenge the City’s decision in support of the Appellant.

[21] The City responded to the proffered grounds for the Appeal, and provided a comprehensive overview of the processes that led to the decision of Council and the passage of the Ward Boundaries By-law, through the testimony of two witnesses, Ms. 10 MM170038

Judy Currins, the Clerk of the City, and Dr. Robert Williams, a faculty member with the Department of Political Science at the University of Waterloo. The evidence included a series of documents, primarily those contained in the City’s Document Book (Exhibit 3).

[22] Dr. Williams was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of ward boundary reviews based upon his extensive academic background and experience in municipal government and electoral systems and his work in assisting numerous Ontario municipalities with the review and development of electoral processes including ward boundary reviews. Dr. Williams has testified before the Board in Ward Boundary disputes on many occasions.

[23] Ms. Currins, the Clerk of the City, has been employed with the municipality since amalgamation, when the existing Wards system was enacted. Ms. Currins testified that she had been the primary City staff member responsible for overseeing the consultation and review processes leading up to the passage of the Ward Boundaries By-law. In fact, the passage and implementation of the new Ward Boundaries under the Ward Boundaries By-law is to be Ms. Currins’ final “swan song” as it were, representing one of the last major projects undertaken by her before her retirement. Ms. Currins testified that as such, she personally, and quite rightly, accorded the Ward Boundaries By-law to be a significant accomplishment on her part, and one which she “would like to see through” as she departs.

[24] Ms. Currins’ personal commitment to completing the Ward Boundaries review process is recounted because it is, in the Board’s view, relevant to the matter of Ms. Currins’ qualification as an expert witness before the Board in the area of municipal processes relating to municipal elections, upon which the City has sought to have her qualified in this hearing. Ms. Currins’ preliminary evidence indicates that her experience in municipal elections is restricted to the City and she has had no prior experience with other municipalities or non-employment related expertise relating to the specific issues arising in ward boundary matters, save and except for some limited professional development courses. Dr. Williams, in his evidence, confirmed that Ms. Currins had 11 MM170038

sought out his assistance on behalf of the City, because of his expertise and the absence of anyone at the City experienced in such tasks, including Ms. Currins.

[25] While Ms. Currins has no doubt accumulated significant experience in the area of municipal elections, given that such experience is limited to this municipality only, and that she has been forthright in expressing a strong interest in seeing the Ward Boundaries By-law enacted, as a final successful effort on her part, the Board also has some concern that Ms. Currins’ does not possess sufficient disassociation and impartiality from the issues before the Board.

[26] It is noted that the City has produced Dr. Williams as an expert consultant on ward boundaries who has been qualified. On the evidence before me, the Board cannot qualify Ms. Currins as an expert as requested. The City was advised that certainly it would be appropriate, as Ms. Currins testified as to the background giving rise to the Ward Boundaries By-law, that she provide her relevant comments as to the sufficiency and appropriateness of the processes that had been followed by the City, to collect the data and information provided to Dr. Williams, and to enact the Ward Boundaries By- law.

Appellant’s Objection to “Power in Fewer Hands”—The Number of Councillors

[27] The Board can summarily deal with this issue as raised in the Appellants Notice of Appeal before turning to the primary grounds for the appeal.

[28] As indicated, the Appellant’s formal appeal, and submission to the Board, includes his opposition to “consolidating control and power in fewer hands” by reducing the number of councillors set for each of the Ward Boundaries. The City takes the position that the Board is unable to deal with the issue of the number of councillors as this is not appealable.

[29] The City is correct. The Board, and the Court, have fully addressed the ability of the Board, in adjudicating appeals of Ward Boundary dispute, to make orders relating to 12 MM170038

the composition of the Council. In the decision of Wagar v. London (City), [2006] O.J. No. 769, (“Wagar”) the Divisional Court affirmed that the Board has no power to directly change the composition of a council or determine the number of councilors in the wards because that power is exclusively granted to the local municipality under s. 217(1) of the Municipal Act. There is no right of appeal to the Board of any by-law of a council changing the composition of the council.

[30] The Divisional Court in Wagar did confirm that the Board’s exercise of its powers, pursuant to s. 223(5) of the Municipal Act, to divide, re-divide or dissolve existing ward boundaries might, in some cases, have the incidental effect of changing the composition of a Council. As an example given, if the order of the Board were to set the number of wards in a municipality to 20 wards, where there are 14 councillors, and the municipality’s by-laws provide for one councilor per ward, then the Board’s decision may incidentally result in a change in the composition of the council.

[31] In this case, there are no complex, or unusual, circumstances giving rise to an interplay between the determination of the Ward Boundaries by the Board in this Appeal and the determination of the number of councillors. Under By-law No. 2016-230, the City Council reduced the size of Council to a Mayor and eight Councillors on December 13, 2016. The Board has no ability to alter this By-law. Given the disposition of this appeal, the Board accordingly finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider that aspect of the Appeal that questions the decision of Council to reduce the number of councillors by half to eight. That ground of the Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Accuracy of Data—“Estimates” and “Guesses”

[32] The first of the Appellant’s two primary grounds for the Appeal relate to the Appellants objection to the City’s unreliable “guess of current and future population” and the use of estimated population information in with WB Review.

[33] Ms. Currins explained that Council had determined that for the purpose of examining the population distribution in the WB Review, they would use the most 13 MM170038

accurate population figures available as of January 2016. A review of the data collection options, by the City staff, and Dr. Williams, lead to the conclusion that the most reliable information on population distribution was the geographically tagged data obtained for population figures collected from the prior census, and as supplied by Statistics Canada. This is because the federally collected data is connected to “Census Dissemination Areas” which allows for the use of software to place, and then reallocate, population automatically as ward boundaries are set and the options considered. Dr. Williams testifies that the use of the census data allowed for a margin of error by not more than 5%, and in his opinion represented the most reliable data available.

[34] Dr. Williams and Ms. Currins further explained that the use of the population data from the Census provided only part of the needed information. Dr. Williams states that because the Federal Census Records do not show seasonal residents, it was then necessary to look to the municipal rolls to determine all non-resident owners in the municipality. The reason for this is that census data records, by their nature, count persons only once – in the jurisdiction where they permanently reside. For municipal purposes however, a seasonal resident owning property and paying taxes is regarded as a resident of the City’s population, is entitled to vote, and therefore must be added to the census population figures.

[35] The evidence indicates that concurrently with the assembly of the population data and the non-resident voter information, the City tendered services for a consultant to assist in mapping with allocation of population data to assist and frame the options for the Ward Boundaries and to ensure that accurate delineations of the optional boundaries, and the distribution of population figures as obtained, were correct. The specialized Geographic Information System software (“GIS”), and experienced manpower were not available internally, and the access to the data for the spatial distribution was crucial to fulfilling the primary objective in the Terms of Reference.

[36] Although the 2016 census data was not available during the WB Review, the data received after the WB Review eventually revealed a limited 3% increase in the permanent population of the City from the figures used, or 2,204 persons in the whole of 14 MM170038

the City. Dr. Williams opines that, based on his experience, this limited increase in population revealed by the Census, however it may have been distributed through the municipality, was a low and acceptable margin of error and does not represent a significant enough change to invalidate the population patterns used by staff, and considered by Council, and which led to the passage of the Ward Boundaries By-law.

[37] Dr. Williams states that based on his experience in Ward Boundary reviews, other municipalities have encountered similar challenges in assembling the required population information and indicates that the methodology used by the City to collect the population data, inclusive of the seasonal resident component, was appropriate and justified in response to such challenges.

[38] The Appellant has provided no evidence to contradict or challenge the accuracy of this aspect of the WB Review.

[39] Based on the evidence, including the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Williams, the Board finds that the manner in which the City determined the population numbers, by combining the most recent census data with collected data for non-residents from the tax rolls was appropriate. So too was the City’s effective use of the GIS plotting software. This, in Dr. Williams’ view, resulted in a reliable estimate of both the total population in the City as of January 2016 in accordance with the Terms of Reference, and an accurate mapping of the spatial patterns of the population. In turn, this was effectively used by the City to determine the impacts of various options for ward boundary placements proffered for the different variables which was eventually presented for review and consideration by the public, staff, and eventually, municipal Council. The Board finds that this entire process was a valid one and led to an estimate of population numbers that was as reliable, and as accurate, as possible.

[40] In summary, the Board accordingly accepts the City’s evidence as to the reliability of the population data, and agrees with the City’s submission that it is misguided for the Appellant to refer to the population information relied upon in the WB 15 MM170038

Review as a “guess”. Upon all the evidence, the Board therefore finds that this facet of the Appellant’s grounds for the appeal fails.

Population Numbers v. Electoral Numbers

[41] The second aspect of the Appellant’s primary grounds for Appeal is that the City improperly used population figures instead of “proper electoral numbers” for the purposes of examining the distribution of numbers in the City’s wards, and determining how best to establish relative parity and provide effective representation. How then, should a municipality achieve the goal of relative parity of voting power such that there is effective representation in the Ward Boundary framework? Should the consideration of Ward Boundaries be based on population numbers (inclusive of seasonal recreational property owners) spatially distributed in the municipality or alternatively the number of electors that are spread throughout the City?

[42] The Appellant argues that the City should have used electoral numbers because that approach would be correctly based upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Carter Decision. The Appellant argues that electoral numbers must be used to assess and determine a fair and equitable balance in electoral representation and therefore the City should have used the electoral numbers from the 2014 election – i.e. 65,278 electors.

[43] The City fully acknowledges the principles set out in Carter, but interprets them differently. The City submits that the manner in which the “relative parity of voting power” is achieved in the City’s Wards is not by relying on the number of voters accounted for in the 2014 election but rather by determining, as accurately as possible, the total population of the City as of January 2016 based on the best data available, inclusive of seasonal “non-resident” property owners in the rural recreational areas within the City’s jurisdiction. That was the methodology used.

[44] While it may be understandable that the Appellant’s reliance upon the language used by the Supreme Court in the Carter Decision, which includes references to “voter 16 MM170038

parity”, might lead to an assumption that voter parity requires parity of electors, this is nevertheless not the case.

[45] For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the methodology and data utilized by the City, and identified in the City’s Terms of Reference for the purposes of the WB Review, and the Ward Boundaries By-law that ultimately resulted from that process, represents the correct approach and contributes to effective representation. Conversely the Board does not accept the Appellant’s argument that electoral numbers from the 2014 election would provide a more effective form of representation and the Board finds that the appeal fails on that ground.

[46] These findings of the Board are based upon the particular facts of this case as disclosed in the evidence, the expert opinion of Dr. Williams, the Board precedent for this approach and the analysis that follows.

[47] As Dr. Williams correctly points out, Madam Justice McLachlin’s statement that “…the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to effective representation” is an important statement. The court, here, clearly distinguishes between “voting power” and the goal of effective representation, which can, and should, be achieved in every ward boundary system. The Appellant, in this case, is incorrectly assuming that references to “voting power”, and “voter parity”, translate precisely into a parity of “electoral numbers”. That is not the case. Relative parity of voting power and effective representation are not necessarily achieved solely on the distribution of voter numbers but rather, and most effectively in these circumstances, based upon the distribution of population (inclusive of seasonal and non-resident voters that may not appear in the permanent population figures from the census), and also those other factors, like communities of interest, identified by the Court.

[48] The City relies, in part, upon Dr. Williams’ opinions on this issue, as an expert in ward boundaries. It is Dr. Williams’ view that the Carter decision confirms that the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is an equality, or parity, of voting power and not 17 MM170038

an equality or parity of simple voter numbers in the manner interpreted by the Appellant. Dr. Williams is of the opinion that achieving relative parity of voting power, as that first condition of effective representation, is, in the City’s circumstances, best served by examining population numbers, and seeking to achieve, to the extent possible, the relatively equal distribution of population within the Wards, inclusive of seasonal non- resident property owners.

[49] Dr. Williams testifies that the concept of achieving relative parity of voting power, based upon population figures, requires recognition of the relationship that exists between the electors, and the people who the electors represent. The electors in a Ward vote and elect a Councillor (or Councillors) in that Ward on behalf of all the residents and property owners who live in that Ward – not just themselves.

[50] As Dr. Williams’ stated, once voting is then completed, the representation by the Ward Councillor is, from that moment forward, the representation of all the residents in the Ward. Considering that the decisions made by councilors of a municipality affect everyone and not just the “voters”, effective representation requires a determination of how the parity of voting power will best achieve effective representation of all persons in the Ward.

[51] In furtherance of this objective, Dr. Williams’ opinion is that if the goal of our electoral system is to provide representation to the entirety of those in a community, and not just the voters, this must guide us in determining the measure of effective representation and by looking at all of the population in the City, both voting and non- voting. The Board agrees.

[52] The community for whom voters vote, and who councilors later represent, is not limited to the number of voters that exist; it is inclusive of others who may not vote, such as the elderly, youth and children, persons with disabilities, or social groups whose circumstances cause them to withdraw from the municipal voting process. Dr. Williams, as an example, points out that the 2016 census data eventually revealed that 40% of the City’s population was comprised of children and youth. The Board finds this 18 MM170038

inclusive approach to be correct and would agree that the relative parity of voting power” must be based upon the relative parity of the number of all residents, including those who may not vote but who are distributed throughout the wards of the City.

[53] The Board further accepts that the community may also be composed of other individuals whose circumstances of residency means they may not vote through choice or circumstance of location, such as students attending post-secondary education, short-term renters, or seasonal residents and cottage-owners who are absent from the municipal electoral processes where their cottage may be located, but who own property and are affected by decisions made by council. As such, they too must realistically be counted in the resident population distributed throughout the wards of the City whom the Councillors also represent.

[54] Dr. Williams’ opinion is that the City’s councillors who are voting on the business of the municipality are, for these reasons, representing not only those electors that permanently reside in their ward or who voted for them. They represent all the people who are resident in their ward who can’t vote or don’t vote. More to the point, a councillor in certain rural wards in municipalities such as the City, pointedly represents those seasonal property owners who very likely did not vote in the municipal election in which the councillor was elected. Achieving a relative parity of voting power thus requires inclusion of those property owners in the population numbers if those population numbers were based upon census data.

[55] As to the presence of recreational property owners there are many municipalities in Ontario “” with a sizeable component of their tax rolls listing persons whose permanent residence results in them being recorded in the census statistics as part of a segment of the population living elsewhere. Where a municipality such as the City is thus collecting data on population numbers from the Census it must, by necessity, supplement the process with additional information such as that gleaned from the tax rolls by the City in its WB Review. Only by adding the non-resident owners in each of the Wards to the working data will the “numbers” represented in each Ward by complete. 19 MM170038

[56] The Board would note that the City’s Terms of Reference, in this regard, stand up well to scrutiny in that they have been devised and approved to recognize the specific circumstances of its residents and property owners and the specific data collection methodology required for the WB Review.

[57] In his evidence, Dr. Williams testified that he was satisfied that the use of population data for the Wards, with the addition of the non-resident electors, to determine population distribution and patterns in the City, rather than just the number of electors, met the test of effective representation through “Option 3” as referred to herein. It is the Board’s view that this evidence is uncontradicted and accords with the adopted approach of the Board.

[58] The Board has found, in other circumstances, that different Terms of Reference, or criteria and principles, may be required due to the nature of specific characteristics of the municipality. A municipality regarded as a “university town” or “college community”, due the presence of a sizeable post-secondary student population, may, for example, be required to adjust its population summaries by drawing information from enrollment records of student numbers. Supplementing census population data, in order to count those student residents, and using such total population counts in apportioning numbers to set ward boundaries, achieves the goal of relative parity of voting power as a condition of effective representation.

[59] The Board has previously adopted this exact approach to effective representation and was referred by the City to the decision of Wiener v. Kingston (City), [2013] O.M.B.D. No. 931 (“City of Kingston”) which related to an appeal of a Ward Boundary by-law passed by the City of Kingston. In that decision the Board assessed the propriety of the City’s adjustment of the ward boundaries in the central Sydenham ward in which Queen’s University is situate, based on population counts that excluded the large body of post-secondary students that reside in the ward during the eight to nine months of the year that they attended school. The City took the position that since the University’s students did not generally register to vote, although entitled to vote, they should be excluded from the counts used to set the Ward Boundaries. 20 MM170038

[60] The Board determined that the exclusion of the students, who did not, in meaningful numbers, avail themselves of the right to participate in municipal elections, was unreasonable and did not provide effective representation. The Board considered the City’s argument that relying on the statistics for the number of voting residents in the ward, as opposed to the population in the ward, was a fundamentally flawed approach:

21 But, is parity in voting power "the principle test" to determine a municipal electoral system? Carter puts considerable weight on "effective representation" which maintains that "each citizen is entitled to be represented in government."

22 The City argues that post-secondary students can still vote if they register to vote. The [Municipal] Act does give them this right. But, if they are not counted as residents of the City, does this send the message that their vote doesn't count? Or is somehow less important?

23 And what about other residents of Kingston who do not or cannot vote, including children who cannot, and the poor, who tend not to? Why are they counted when post-secondary students are not? This was a question raised by more than one witness and participant at the hearing.

24 Students are usually away from their post-secondary institutions when the census is taken. In fact, as was pointed out at the hearing, they are often the census takers. That does not mean that they do not live, study, work and contribute to the community for the nine months of the year that they are there. It does not mean that they do not use City services, have no issues to bring to their local government, and do not create issues for others to bring to their local government. The elected representative is not simply the representative of those who voted, or of those who voted for him or her, but of all the residents of his or her ward. All of this, too, the Board heard from witnesses and participants. It was, as well, implied in the evidence of the expert witnesses.

[61] In the course of his evidence Dr. Williams himself referred to a further example where the Board has embraced the use of population figures to determine relative parity rather than the number of electors. Referring to the decision relating to a Ward Review in the Township of Georgian Bay, Dr. Williams had similarly testified as an expert and had addressed essentially the same argument advanced by the Appellant in this case. The Board, in that case (Hodson, Re 2013 CarswellOnt 17030), acknowledged that parity in numbers was itself not absolutely determinative of fair representation, and 21 MM170038

upheld the use of population figures rather than voters to examine parity of voting power, and found that this approach was the correct one, as supported by Dr. Williams.

[62] Finally, as Dr. Williams as noted in his evidence, and as submitted by the City, the Federal Parliament allocates its seats based upon population figures obtained through the Federal Census and not the number of electors. As the legislation indicates, representation of the provinces is adjusted at such time as the census population data warrants such change. No reliance is placed upon voter numbers. The Board does not consider it insignificant that its approach, and the analysis set out herein in response to the Appellant’s grounds for appeal of the Wards Boundary By-law, accords with the same “numbers” format used for the Federal Parliament to determine an equity of representation.

[63] Accordingly, for these reasons, and having carefully considered upon all the evidence before it, the Board finds that the Appellants stated grounds in his appeal, that electoral numbers should have been used instead of population numbers, are not supportable and fail. For this reason, the Board finds that the City’s data collection methods are not only accurate and reliable, as indicated earlier, but also are reasonable and proper in that they support the proper analysis required to ensure that the goal of effective representation is achieved when setting its Ward Boundaries based upon resident populations and not just electoral numbers.

[64] The Board has reviewed the Tables submitted by the Appellant as part of his evidence, demonstrating the manner in which the relative distribution of electoral numbers would appear, and showing only one ward exceeding the variance tolerance of 25% referred to by the Appellant. Given the findings made, that this approach is not the correct approach, the Board must instead consider the appropriateness of the relative distribution of population arising from the City’s selected Ward Boundaries under Option 3 (and such other considerations as might be determined necessary). 22 MM170038

Does The Ward Boundaries By-law Achieve Effective Representation?

[65] As to the balance of the Appellant’s grounds for the Appeal, the Appellant submits that the change in the Ward Boundaries does not benefit the electors, isolates rural areas of the City, does not provide representation of the geographic regions of the City and that the status quo should remain. Save and except for the Appellant’s numerical distribution calculations based on electoral numbers, he provides no specific reasons or evidence as to the manner in which the status quo achieves a more effective representation than what is proposed, or how the changes under the Ward Boundaries By-law fail to provide effective representation to any identified rural areas or other geographic regions of the City.

[66] It remains then for the Board to determine whether the City has, through its WB Review, fairly and reasonably enacted a By-law that provides fair and effective representation for its resident population and conversely whether the Council has acted unfairly or unreasonably in its decision to enact the Ward Boundaries By-law.

The Decision To Consider Restructuring of Ward Boundaries

[67] The process to revisit the issue of Ward Boundaries in the City began in November of 2013 when Council directed staff to begin preparation of a preliminary review and report to assist the next council by 2015 so that there would be ample time before the election in 2018. This was the first time that the issue of Ward Boundaries was examined since the Wards were established at the time of amalgamation in the City in 2001. The Ward Boundaries then had been based on a Restructuring Committee Report prepared in 2000. As Dr. Williams confirmed the sixteen wards that were created had been deliberately drawn so as not to align with the pre-amalgamation municipalities and instead was based on the goals of equalizing the number of electors in each ward and capturing a community of interest. 23 MM170038

The Status Quo

[68] In his evidence, Dr. Williams provided his opinion as to the acceptability of the status quo, which is supported by the Appellant. Dr. Williams undertook his review after the WB Review was already underway but he indicates that ordinarily, when he is retained by a municipality to assist in a ward boundary review as a consultant to review, assist and advise Council, he will always begin with an analysis of the existing ward structure to determine whether or not the status quo is acceptable and whether change is even required. This review is also relevant where the preservation of the status quo remains one of the options for Council.

[69] Dr. Williams explained his analysis and took the Board through the methodology and evaluation criteria applied to assess the acceptability of the options and to balance the considerations and criteria. He then applied it to an assessment of the status quo. The first evaluation required a fair balancing of populations between wards based on a set of criteria which determines the variance from a determined optimal ward population. In this case it was Dr. Williams’ opinion that the de facto ward composition with 16 wards had a distribution of population that was unacceptable because seven of the 16 wards were outside the acceptable range of variation. Only one ward was within the optimal ward population and the remaining eight were between 5% and 20% of optimal.

[70] Applying the other principles set out in the Terms of Reference to the status quo, Dr. Williams concluded that under the status quo there were a number of communities of interest and areas with established settlement patterns that were divided between different wards under the existing ward boundaries, which he found puzzling. This had resulted from the original analysis at the time of amalgamation, and it was Dr. William’s view that applying the new Terms of Reference after the passage of approximately 16 years, the system warranted examination, and the recognition of those principles developed by the Board and the Courts as incorporated within the Terms of Reference. These principles included the objective of allowing for communities of interest, including active agricultural areas, seasonal recreational areas and long-established population 24 MM170038

clusters around the former individual settlements to be properly considered in the WB Review. It was Dr. Williams’ opinion that he could not recommend maintaining the status quo as a system when applying the Terms of Reference, and pursuing effective representation for the City’s population. Dr. Williams expressed the opinion that the status quo in 2017 would not be defensible.

The Components and Steps in the WB Review

[71] The evidence introduced by the City confirms that the staff and Council, with the assistance of its retained consultant Dr. Williams, undertook a detailed, thorough, and, in the Board’s view, comprehensive study that included: an extended data collection and information gathering process; multiple staff reports which continually assembled, updated, and revised information to narrow the focus of the review and the presented options; an extended multiple public consultation process with numerous, and staggered opportunities for residents of the municipality to provide input and receive information; and a final focused examination of the narrowed options to secure a Ward Boundary configuration that resulted in the selection of the option that the Council considered to be the best means of achieving effective representation for the municipality.

[72] As discussed, the WB Review also involved a very labour intensive exercise involving external specialists to determine population figures gleaned from Statistics Canada data collected by the City, and to map the distribution patterns for that population, which ultimately formed the basis for the various options and then assessed by Council.

[73] An examination of the chronological steps of the City’s WB Review demonstrates that the City staff, and Council, exercised caution and patience in arriving at conclusions only once adequate information and data had been gathered, and only when carefully considered options had been assembled, and presented. The options, at the outset, included the option of retaining the existing 16 ward structure and boundaries. 25 MM170038

Terms of Reference

[74] The staff created Terms of Reference for the WB Review which were relied upon by Dr. Williams. The Board would note that the Terms of Reference (Exhibit 3, Tab 5) adopted by Council (Exhibit 3, Tab 7) accurately reflected the Carter principles and adopted the primary principle that, to the extent possible, any new ward boundaries should achieve a general balancing of populations between wards with variances not to exceed 25% based on population projections that will include growth projections, and with consideration for the non-resident population (relating to seasonal “cottage country” dynamics) and variations in population densities.

[75] Council then went so far as to consider the reports of staff and the consultant, and decided to reduce the acceptable range for numerical representation variances in the wards to be limited to 20%. The Board has noted that the Appellant has critically questioned Council’s decision to reduce the tolerable variance ceiling down to 20% and suggests that Council reduced the variance to 20% with the ulterior motive of justifying the ward reduction. There is absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. It is the Board’s view that Council’s actions in minimizing and reducing the tolerance level in variances of population representation is more accurately a further credit to the efforts of Ms. Currins, Council and the City to make every effort to achieve an equality of effective representation.

Public Consultation

[76] The evidence reveals that the public consultation was more than adequate as there were multiple opportunities extended, through public meetings, including 10 Open Houses with the Mayor, web information, newsletters to reach seasonal residents, a dedicated email link and multiple press releases. The public consultation process also included access to Dr. William’s reports.

[77] Surveys were conducted to determine public opinion, and as steps progressed, public meetings were held and input was obtained and analyzed by staff. 26 MM170038

Consideration of Other Factors under the Terms of Reference

[78] Ms. Currins explained the interplay of the various factors considered by the City and Council in reviewing the various options during the WB Review, always considering the Terms of Reference determined at the outset of the Process.

[79] In accordance with the principles and factors outlined by the Court in Carter, the City correctly went beyond the primary goal of balancing populations and gave pointed consideration to established settlement patterns and existing communities of interest as well as natural or man-made boundaries.

[80] Without reviewing all of the evidence in this regard, the Board is of the view that Staff and Council went to great lengths to consider such different factors, and certainly considered the concerns and comments provided through the public consultation process. As indicated, when considering the status quo, Dr. Williams considered the fact that the existing Ward Boundaries were deficient in this regard in dissecting some settlement areas and failing to consider the rural/regional geographic areas. The reports, minutes and documentary evidence have been carefully reviewed by the Board and it is readily apparent that in examining the options that led to the selection of Option 3, Council examined the relative distribution of the population but also carefully assessed options against the other criteria such as geographic and road boundaries, the limits of settlement areas as they had altered over the years, the character of the central urban area in Lindsay relative to its immediate surrounding area, and most importantly, the various communities of Interest.

[81] The evidence demonstrates to the Board that as the analysis of the options continued in the WB Review, Staff and Council, with Dr. Williams, pointedly considered the various characteristics specific to the City of Kawartha Lakes. Consideration was given to the outlying and smaller urban areas such as Omemee and Little Britain in the eastern area of the City, Bobcaygeon, Woodville, and the communities in the north area such as Fenelon Falls, Kinmount, Sturgeon Point and other smaller centres. 27 MM170038

Examination was directed to the community of interests and areas that share tourism or seasonal recreational areas, and importantly, agricultural areas.

[82] Ms. Currins responded directly to some of the comments raised by the Participants regarding the “jog” in the north boundary of Ward 8 for the option ultimately selected and the reasons for the boundary determination in the area around Bobcaygeon the eastern perimeter. Ms. Currins’ evidence confirms that the City was squarely addressing various issues relating to these areas. In the south, the City plainly recognized what was referred to as the “awkward geography” of what was proposed for Ward 8, and the narrow connection point between the west and east sections of that Ward, but attempts were made to allow the residents in Ward 8, and their elected councillor, to deal with shared issues in this southern-most ward with the adjacent municipality to the southeast (County of Peterborough).

[83] Ms. Currins explained that the proposed configuration brought Omemee’s urban area in the ward to the north, (Ward 6) together, instead of being divided as it was under the de facto Wards. Similarly, in Bobcaygeon the City attempted to include the entire Bobcaygeon area (again, previously divided) and Kinmount, into one Ward taking into account road linkages. Attempts were made to retain as much of the existing boundaries and follow natural boundaries. The City also wrestled with the way in which Lindsay was to be divided acknowledging that a significant number of rural residents to the south of Lindsay would be included in a ward that would be combined with the southern part of the urban component of Lindsay, but balancing this with the attempt to balance the overall population numbers.

[84] It is the Board’s view that the City adhered to the Terms of Reference and considered all of the specific and important factors relating to matters other than the relative parity of numbers thoughtfully, pragmatically, with a view to ensuring that other communities of interest and geographic factors were considered in setting the ward boundaries in a manner that would provide effective representation. 28 MM170038

Final Processes and Narrowing of Options

[85] Ms. Currins and Dr. Williams recounted the manner in which the options were eventually narrowed to four options for Council. Notably, Dr. Williams explained that it has always been his approach, in providing consultation services to a municipality in Ward Boundary reviews, not to provide directives or recommendations for any one or more options, as the process nears the end of the “weaning” of the options. Instead, Council is provided with lists of the relative strengths and weakness for each of the option and no directive as to a single right answer is provided.

[86] By March of 2017, Council wished to move forward to meet the established timelines. Despite the public consultation that had already occurred, the evidence indicates that Council nevertheless entertained one further and final public consultation session on March 6, 2017 and received additional written comments on the narrowed four options. After considering these additional comments, and deliberating with the assistance of reports from staff and Dr. Williams, Council passed its resolutions and enacted the Ward Boundaries By-law now appealed on March 21, 2017.

By-Law No. 2017-053 - The Final Ward Boundary Structure

[87] Based upon the options that had been presented, the Council adopted Option 3. Both Ms. Currins and Dr. Williams reviewed the details of Option 3 and the general considerations and rationale that resulted in the selection of the eight Ward boundary plan provided for in Option 3. In the course of Ms. Currins’ and Dr. Williams’ testimony the Board was referred to the final reports prepared by staff, and the External Review report which provided the comparative analysis of the final four options.

[88] As Dr. Williams noted, at this final stage there was no one final answer since no one option was perfect in regards to population distribution and there were pros and cons to consider for each of the last four options. Ultimately, he said, it was a political decision to be made by Council as to which of the four options represented the most effect means of achieving a relative parity of population, inclusive of all property owners, 29 MM170038

and ensuring that each Ward, and the community as a whole, had the benefit of effective representation.

[89] Dr. Williams testified that the final analysis of the population balance for Option 3, followed the same methodology that had been consistently applied throughout the WB Review. Based upon the total estimated population of 80,069 (which thus meant that the City was considering, by numbers alone, the representation of a population significantly larger than the 65,278 electors considered by the Appellant in his calculations) Dr. Williams confirmed that Option 3 adhered to Council’s adopted Terms of Reference variance set at 20%. Although the population number for Ward 1 was low, when considering all figures, and all of the criteria and principles guiding the City, Dr. Williams was of the view that the lower population in Ward 1 did not represent a deficiency that impacted the overall effectiveness in representation.

[90] At its meeting of regular Council on March 21, 2017, Council accordingly voted to approve Option 3 and the Ward Boundaries By-law was prepared and passed to reflect that final decision.

[91] Dr. Williams’s professional opinion, with his background in political science, and as an expert in Ward Boundary reviews, was that the configuration of ward boundaries reflected in the City’s Ward Boundaries By-law was based upon reliable estimates of population from census data and which properly added seasonal non-resident electors. Dr. Williams was of the opinion that Option 3 provided for an appropriate distribution of that population within the Ward structure. Dr. Williams opined that the WB Process, and Council’s final decision was also based upon a thorough consideration of settlement patterns and communities of interest in the City in a manner consistent with other municipalities, the Carter Case, and other decisions of the Board. Dr. Williams accordingly concluded that the Ward Boundaries By-law thus met all of the guiding principles and provided effective representation. For these reasons, it was Dr. Williams considered opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. 30 MM170038

THE PARTICIPANTS TESTIMONY

[92] The Participants provided their comments to the Board. Ms. Kathy Morton supported the Appellant’s submission that no change was warranted, stating “Why fix what is not broken?” In support of this Ms. Morton questioned the accuracy of the population numbers, and thought that non-resident electors should not be included in voter numbers. The Board has considered and rejected both these arguments.

[93] Ms. Morton also referred to some matters not before the Board or relevant to the issues to be considered, referring to things such as preferred areas for growth in the City, the cost of the ward boundaries review, and criticisms as to the effective provision of community services, responses to 911 emergency calls, and civic building closings. Ms. Morton did testify as to the awkward and narrow “jog” in Ward 8 and the confusion that would occur in dissecting lots and confusing by-law officers.

[94] Mr. Helleman recounted frustrations stemming back to the original amalgamation, the erosion of trust with the political processes, the general lack of accountability of City politicians, and the cost of the ward boundaries change, again matters that might be well-founded, but which are irrelevant to the issues before the Board. Mr. Helleman generally believed that there were issues as to the communication of information to residents and the consultation process during the WB Review. He also provided general comments regarding the mix of urban and rural areas in wards in the city but provided no specifics as to alternatives to the proposed ward boundaries.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

[95] The Board has carefully considered all of the evidence presented by the parties, including the comments provided by the Participants, and the uncontradicted expert evidence provided by Dr. Williams. The Board has also thoroughly reviewed the chronology of the WB Review and the various reports and reviewed occurring throughout the process and supporting the various options. Specifically the Board has 31 MM170038

considered the analysis of both the status quo which the Appellant submits should remain and Option 3, as adopted through the City’s WB Review.

[96] Although the Appellant has been forthright in his belief that the analysis of representation based upon parity of voter numbers is the preferred approach and adheres to the principles set out in the Carter Decision, the Board cannot accept this position based on the stated findings regarding the methodology and population data analysis, and the recognition that population numbers are the fundamental consideration when examining equality of representation and relative parity of voting power. Voter numbers are not of assistance in considering equality of representation. The Appellant has also provided no supporting evidence or persuasive reasons to suggest that there are factors relating to communities of interest, geography, or other concerns that would persuasively challenge the analysis and determinations made by Council under the WB Review.

[97] In the Board’s view the entirety of the WB Review undertaken by the City, under the direction of Ms. Currins, aided by the external consultants, including Dr. Williams was thorough, methodical, complete, transparent and consistent in adhering to the Terms of Reference and the established methodology. As such, the Board concludes that from the point of commencement of the WB Review through to the final decision of Council adopting Option 3 and implementing it through the Ward Boundaries By-law, the City properly adhered to the guiding principles and arrived at a conclusion that was fair and reasonable.

[98] For these reasons, the Appellant has not established that Council acted unfairly or unreasonably in coming to its conclusion and the Board can find no clear and compelling reason that would cause the Board to interfere in Council’s decision as expressed through the Ward Boundaries By-law on these matters. In the absence of any concern, City Council determined the ward boundary structure that was appropriate and the Board must defer to Council’s decision. 32 MM170038

[99] The Board accordingly finds that the appeal should be dismissed, and the Ward Boundaries By-law affirmed subject to the amendment requested by the City.

[100] The Board additionally finds that the amendment necessary to correct the inadvertent error in the description of Ward 7 in Schedule B to the Ward Boundaries By- law is a minor one and should be made to reflect the corresponding Map in Schedule A, and to reflect the decision of Council.

ORDER

[101] The Board orders that the Appeal is dismissed.

[102] The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes Zoning By-law No. 2017-053, is accordingly affirmed in the form presented to the Board as Exhibit 8(b) inclusive of the minor amendment to the description of Ward 7 as contained in Schedule B to the said By-law.

“David L. Lanthier”

DAVID L. LANTHIER MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Ontario Municipal Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248