The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes 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.