Report to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
8 August 2004 / le 8 août 2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : Greg Geddes, Chief Corporate Services Officer /
Chef
des Services généraux
Corporate Services Department/Services
généraux
Contact Person/Personne
ressource : Pierre Pagé, City Clerk / Greffier
Secretariat Services/Services de secrétariat
(613) 580-2424 x22408, Pierre.Page@Ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
CITY OF OTTAWA WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW
(2004-2006) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
examen des
limites de quartiers de la Ville d'ottawa |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive
this report and refer it to Council for its consideration.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services organisationnels et
du développement économique reçoive ce rapport et le soumette à l’examen du
Conseil.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
At its meeting of 12 May 2004 Council approved a Motion directing staff to bring forward a report to present options by which ward boundaries could be reviewed, building on lessons learned from the Ward Boundaries Review of 2001-2003. The Motion reflects representation pressures being experienced in the suburban growth wards and would, among other things, examine the longer-term implications of an increased number of wards. The objective is to have any ward boundary changes implemented for the 2006-2009 term of Council.
Following a thorough analysis of the previous review and associated Ontario Municipal Board decisions, staff has developed three options for Council’s consideration to serve as a basis for moving forward with reform of the current system of representation. These options cover a wide range of possible action: from budgetary adjustments only; through a ward boundary review that would focus primarily on the suburban growth wards; to a full scope comprehensive review of all of the ward boundaries. The options are compared against each other for efficiency, effectiveness and objectivity. No staff recommendation is provided as to a preferred option – there are strengths and weaknesses in all three approaches.
Financial Implications:
Cost estimates for the studies associated with the review options range
from $25,000 to $100,000. Estimates are
also provided for the potential cost of implementation of the various
options. There are significant
longer-term costs associated with increasing the number of wards. However, the principles of equitable
representation and effective representation are not easily reconciled one with
the other in the Ottawa context and any resolution will likely require an
expansion to the budgetary envelope for the Councillors’ area.
No funds were allocated in the 2004 budget for conducting a ward
boundaries review. Implementation costs
will form a financial pressure for the 2006 budget and beyond.
Public Consultation/Input:
Due to the nature of this report, public consultation was not
required. However, it is emphasized as
being an essential component for all of the options proposed for Council’s
consideration.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
À sa réunion du 12 mai 2004, le
Conseil approuvait une motion qui chargeait le personnel de soumettre un
rapport sur les options pour la nouvelle délimitation des quartiers,
s’inspirant des leçons tirées de l’examen des limites de quartiers réalisé
entre 2001 et 2003. La motion découle des difficultés de représentation
éprouvées dans les quartiers suburbains en développement et vise notamment à
examiner les incidences à long terme de la hausse du nombre de quartiers.
L’objectif est de modifier les limites des quartiers en prévision du mandat du
Conseil pour la période de 2006 à 2009.
Après une analyse approfondie de l’examen
précédent et des décisions connexes de la Commission des affaires municipales
de l'Ontario, le personnel a élaboré à l’intention du Conseil trois options qui
serviront de fondement à la réforme du système de représentation actuel. Elles
englobent des mesures très variées, allant de simples rajustements budgétaires
à un examen exhaustif des limites de tous les quartiers, en passant par un
examen des limites visant principalement les quartiers suburbains en
développement. Les options sont comparées entre elles sur le plan de
l’efficience, de l’efficacité et de l’objectivité. Aucune option n’est
privilégiée par le personnel – les trois présentent des avantages et des
inconvénients.
Répercussions financières :
Les coûts des études associées aux options
examinées oscillent, selon nos estimations, entre 25 000$ et
100 000 $. Les coûts de mise en œuvre des diverses options ont
également été estimés. L’augmentation du nombre de quartiers entraînera des
coûts importants à long terme. Par ailleurs, comme il n’est pas facile de
concilier représentation équitable et représentation efficace dans le contexte
d’Ottawa, toute résolution risque de nécessiter une augmentation de l’enveloppe
budgétaire des conseillers municipaux.
Le budget de 2004 ne prévoyait aucun montant
pour l’examen des limites de quartiers.
Les coûts de mise en œuvre devront être résorbés par les budgets de 2006
et des années suivantes.
Consultation publique / commentaires :
Étant
donné la nature de ce rapport, la consultation du public n'est pas
nécessaire. Cependant, cette dernière
constitue un volet essentiel de toutes les options soumises à l’examen du Conseil.
Further to the Ward Boundary Review undertaken during the first term of the amalgamated City of Ottawa, Council approved the following Motion, at its meeting on May 12, 2004, directing staff to bring back a report on a possible future review of the municipal ward boundaries:
Moved by Councillor J. Harder
Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, as
amended, established 21 electoral wards;
AND WHEREAS the 2001-2003 City Council undertook
a process pursuant to the Municipal Act with respect to reviewing those 21
wards by establishing a Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries;
AND WHEREAS City Council adopted a by-law on
July 24, 2002 with respect to a revised ward structure based on the findings of
the Task Force;
AND WHEREAS that by-law was appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.), which refused to approve it and emphasized
the need to balance the principles of “representation by population” with
others, including “effective representation” and the protection of “communities
of interest”;
AND WHEREAS there remain three growth wards,
being Wards 3 (Bell-South Nepean), 4 (Kanata) and 10 (Gloucester-Southgate),
which continue to face considerable pressures due to increased development and
the service demands associated with their large populations;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Staff
report back to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and
Council on the most effective, efficient and objective process to review the
ward boundaries with an emphasis on applying the lessons recently learned in
both the O.M.B. and court decisions on the previous ward boundary review; and
2. Staff
include, within the review process, an examination of the longer-term implications
associated with an increased number of wards; and
3. Staff
make recommendations with respect to a timetable to have this review process
completed within 2004.
CARRIED with Councillor P. Hume dissenting on
Recommendation 2.
DISCUSSION
In order to help set the context for consideration of new proposals for examining the electoral representation system in the City, the following summary has been prepared to serve as a brief history of the most recent ward boundary review undertaken in the City of Ottawa.
On June 13, 2001, City Council directed staff to prepare a report which would address the legal requirements to effect changes to the boundaries of the City’s existing 21 wards. In addition, staff were directed to identify the preferred options available, the proposed public consultation process, the projected timelines to complete the ward boundaries review, as well as the estimated costs associated with such a project. On July 11, 2001, City Council endorsed a recommendation from the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee that sought to initiate the process for the ward boundaries review in time for the November 2003 municipal elections. The staff option accepted by the Committee and Council recommended that the City continue to employ the existing 21 ward structure as a basis on which the boundaries would be reviewed and to identify revised boundary options, where appropriate. On November 21, 2001, City Council approved the Terms of Reference for the Ward Boundary Review and appointed an arms-length, Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries (“Task Force”) to report back to Council the following year.
At its meeting of June 26, 2002, City Council considered a number of motions for electoral boundary adjustments, in addition to those recommended in the Task Force Report. Subsequently, on July 24, 2002, City Council enacted By-law 2002-316, to revise the ward boundaries in time for the 2003 municipal election. The Task Force Report and associated materials are on file with the City Clerk. This By-law was appealed by a number of rural associations to the Ontario Municipal Board (the “O.M.B.”). At the commencement of a pre-hearing conference on October 17, 2002, the O.M.B. was served with a Notice of Deferral executed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in accordance with the former Municipal Act. The effect of the Notice was to stay all proceedings and the appeals before the Board and the matter was adjourned indefinitely. On November 13, 2002, the City of Ottawa brought a motion to continue the hearing, thus challenging the validity of the Minister’s Notice of Deferral. Although this application was dismissed by the O.M.B., the City sought to judicially review the Board’s ruling and was ultimately successful. On December 13, 2002, Madame Justice Macdonald quashed the Notice of Deferral as being ultra vires the authority of the Minister. As a result, the appeals of the City’s by-law were referred back to the O.M.B. for consideration
After a complete hearing on the City’s ward boundaries by-law, the O.M.B. issued its decision on May 8, 2003, allowing the appeals and ordering the repeal of By-law 2002-316. Briefly, the O.M.B. was critical of the Terms of Reference that had been utilized for the review of ward boundaries. In particular, the Board was of the view that insufficient weight had been given to communities of interest and, in particular, rural communities of interest. In addition, O.M.B. reiterated the Supreme Court of Canada’s earlier ruling that the principle of “effective representation” was “the common law standard for electoral boundaries in Canada” and not “representation by population”. Finally, the Board provided its opinion that Council should give consideration to increasing the number of wards and the overall number of City Councillors.
Reference Document 1 for a more detailed chronological listing of the activities associated with the 2001-2003 Ward Boundary Review process, including the relevant O.M.B. and court decisions.
In response to Direction No. 1 in the May 12, 2004 Council Motion, the following section identifies nine “lessons learned” arising from the Ward Boundary Review (2001-2003), as well as the associated Board decisions and judicial rulings.
The O.M.B. was critical of the approach taken in the Ward Boundary Review for failing to provide adequate opportunity for public consultation. It stated in its decision that “the Task Force did not want to present options to the public for debate but rather preferred to proceed to the public meetings without maps showing the different scenarios for new wards”. In any new review, it will therefore be essential to provide opportunities to the public to consider and respond to any proposed changes to the existing wards before the proposals are brought forward for Council approval. In effect, it is important that the Ward Boundary Review process seek to “engage citizens” in the process of community development, as has been identified in previous exercises such as the Ottawa 20/20 Growth Management Strategy.
In addition, there is a further need for public consultation on the options being proposed in the final report before they are considered by Council. Therefore, it is suggested that the report, with the final proposal(s), be tabled with the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for two weeks in order to ensure the public has a sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the final report prior to Committee or Council’s consideration.
In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed various constitutional issues surrounding proposed changes to the provincial electoral boundaries in Saskatchewan and, in particular, the principle referred to as “effective representation”. In light of the high Court’s ruling in Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), known generally as the Carter case, the O.M.B. described the importance of that principle, at pp. 19-20, as follows:
The Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case reviewed the extent to which variance from strict representation by population was permissible. The decision establishes that “effective representation” not representation by population, is the common law standard for electoral boundaries in Canada.
The Court held that the right to vote in Canada means that each citizen is entitled to be represented in government. Representation means having a voice in the deliberation of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one’s grievances and concerns to the attention of one’s representative. Effective representation is premised upon relative parity of voting power. A system, which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizen’s vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. This results in uneven and unfair representation. It is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. First, absolute parity is impossible as voters die, voters move. Secondly, such relative parity, as may be possible to achieve, may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure representation of the diversity of interests. These factors are examples of considerations, which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation, but the list is not closed.
The Task Force put too much emphasis on the principle of representation by population over the principle of effective representation in arriving at its recommendations to the Council of the City of Ottawa.
The terms of reference which guided the task force does not refer in any way to this concept of effective representation which Ms. Graham agreed under cross-examination was the most important factor in determining ward boundaries.
In response to this issue, the draft Terms of Reference attached provide greater prominence to the principle of “effective representation”.
As noted above, and directly related to the principle of “effective representation”, is the importance and proper recognition of the various “communities of interest” within Ottawa. On this point, the O.M.B. provided the following comments at p.20:
The reasoning of Madame Justice McLachlin in Carter, has been adopted in previous decisions of this Board where municipal ward boundaries were being reviewed. The Board must be satisfied in such a review that a change to ward boundaries will not run the risk [of] providing inadequate representation to different interests, localities and communities within the City.
The evidence supports the contention that the City of Ottawa does contain rural communities with historical economic and social differences. Rural concerns are not always understood in the context of urban policy and rural concerns often require a special understanding of rural issues. Members of council elected by urban voters may not always have the experience or the willingness to represent rural points of view. One-dimensional representation will eventually be harmful to the local economy.
By incorrectly concluding that the rural and suburban residents were a homogeneous sector, the Task Force failed to properly consider the importance of the communities of interest within the rural wards.
In a similar manner, the City’s “A Window on Ottawa’s 20/20” also identified the general need to “protect local identities” as follows:
The
Human Services Plan identifies strategies to help strengthen urban and rural
communities. The Official Plan takes
steps to protect rural communities and their distinct economic activities and
lifestyles from urban encroachment. The
Arts and Heritage Plan offers many strategies aimed at preserving local
identities.
In effect, there is a need for detailed socio-economic/service analysis in order to assist in the identification of “communities of interest”. This approach should include discussions around the rural interest and how it is defined and distinguished within the broader social and economic fabric of the City.
The terms of reference approved for the previous Ward Boundary Review set out that there would be no increase in the overall number of wards. However, late in the process, criticisms were raised as to why the alternative of expanding the size of Council had not been explored as an option to help address the representation issue. In its decision, the O.M.B. also emphasized the need for Council to consider increasing the total number of wards in order to deal with growth pressures in the suburban areas.
Therefore, Council must be clear on the implications of the possible Terms of Reference for a future Ward Boundary Review. The Municipal Act, 2001 provides City Council, subject to specific statutory restrictions, with both the authority necessary to “change the composition of its council” and to “divide or re-divide the municipality into wards or dissolve the existing wards.” It is important to recognize that there are both short-term transition costs and ongoing long-term operating costs associated with an expanded Council. This potential financial pressure will be discussed below in greater detail as well as in the draft Terms of Reference.
Dealing with complex appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board is an expensive and time-consuming process. It cost approximately $15,000 in external consulting fees and a substantial investment of staff time to address the appeals on the previous Ward Boundary Review. At this point, the issue of the award of costs by the O.M.B. remains outstanding. Should Council decide to initiate a second review, it is suggested that greater investment of time and resources in public consultation during the course of the review will pay dividends in terms of reduced risk of costs arising from an appeal.
Similar to Lesson No. 5 above, the key lesson learned from the various court cases initiated during the Ward Boundary Review (2001-2003) was how expensive and time-consuming civil litigation can be. External legal costs were approximately $90,000, while the Board’s final order was not issued until May 8, 2003, more than four months into the municipal election year.
On a more positive note:
1. The ability of the Provincial Government to intervene and stay proceedings at the appeal stage of municipal ward boundary cases has now been repealed; and,
2. The uncertainty surrounding the former Municipal Act and both the implementation date and various transition issues regarding the Municipal Act, 2001, will not arise should Council direct this project to proceed.
The Ward Boundary Review in 2001-2003 provided an opportunity for those residents opposed to amalgamation, particularly in the rural areas, to focus their frustrations at a discrete, single-City project. Given the outcome of the first Ward Boundary Review, it is important that the path selected this time be seen as both constructive and inclusive in nature.
The agricultural component of the
rural economy is beset by a number of economic pressures at this time. There is a continuing concern in that
community about the ability and willingness of “the City” to understand these
difficulties. Any representation review
that is undertaken will have to be sensitive to these concerns.
Lesson No. 8 – Timeline for
Action
As previously noted, by the time the O.M.B. decision was rendered in May 2003 with respect to the Ward Boundary Review (2001-2003), over 40% of the electoral period had already elapsed. This caused uncertainty in the elections preparation process both for candidates and for staff. The new Municipal Act, 2001 precludes this sort of delay of a decision into the election year. However, the basic lesson is that in order to have a new representation structure in place for the November 2006 municipal elections (i.e. by-law passed and any appeals addressed), the Ward Boundary Review would have to move forward promptly in order to avoid being frustrated by a lack of time. An illustrative timetable is presented in Section IV below.
WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW
(2004-2006)
The number of Members on Council and the boundaries of the wards are governed by the Municipal Act, 2001, Sections 217, 221, 222 and 223 respectively. These provisions override the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 which provided that, immediately after amalgamation, Ottawa City Council was to be comprised of a mayor elected at large and 21 members elected by ward. With the subsequent amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, the only restriction on the size and composition of City Council is that it must be comprised of at least five members, including a head of council who is elected by general vote.
While various options for changing ward boundaries are described in greater detail below, for both changing the size of Council and amending the ward boundaries, Council is required to first hold a public meeting. In addition, for the changes to Council composition or ward boundaries to be effective for the 2006 election, it is required that the by-law(s) come into force prior to the end of 2005. These requirements describe a statutory minimum and, as has been demonstrated in the previous Ward Boundary Review, meeting just the minimum requirements will likely not be sufficient in order to deal with potential appeals of the Council decision on ward boundaries to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Should Council decide to initiate a Ward Boundary Review in time for the November, 2006 municipal elections, several salient points should be emphasized. To begin with, it must be acknowledged that such a Ward Boundary Review is not about revisiting the Governance model or the Council/Committee structures that were considered by City Council in the Governance Report in December of 2003.
In addition, in light of the recent passage of the City’s Official Plan and the success of its Ottawa 20/20 program, it is also worth reiterating that a new Ward Boundary Review in 2004 and 2005 is about “effective representation”, not revisiting any development strategies or policies related thereto. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that, in the face of current financial constraints, the City’s various departments and branches have reduced resources relative to the previous Ward Boundary Review. In effect, it is likely that there is less capability to review, analyze and consult with the community-at-large and, as such, additional reliance must be placed on the purchase of external services to conduct such a Ward Boundary Review.
In this regard, and in order to expedite the process, Council’s concurrence will be sought to authorize the sole-sourcing of work to a specific consultant that has the necessary expertise to assist with whichever project direction is ultimately selected. The City Manager would exercise his delegated authority in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Purchasing By-law.
Finally, attached at Appendix “A” to this report are draft Terms of Reference which would outline and clarify the guiding principles to a future, more comprehensive Ward Boundary Review. These draft Terms include express references to the principle of “effective representation” as enunciated in the Carter decision, as well as the O.M.B. recommendations, among other matters.
There are diverse approaches that can be taken in order to address the current ward boundary/councillor workload issue. Three possibilities are discussed below to illustrate this broad spectrum of possible action. However, each of these options warrants careful consideration from the standpoint of both short term and longer-term representation, as well as budgetary, implications.
A clear alternative to initiating another review of the City’s electoral boundaries would be to adjust the budget allocations to accommodate the additional needs of the three growth wards. In fact, this option was recognized by the Citizens’ Task Force on Ward Boundaries, at p. 41, and briefly alluded to at p. 21 of the O.M.B. decision:
If Council wishes to address the issue of workload for the most populated
suburban wards, it is
open to it to make adjustments in its budget to provide for additional
resources so that the residents of those wards (3, 4 and 10) can be adequately
represented.
This type of internal review could be directed towards analyzing costs and developing a model that could allocate resources based on a new financial formula (e.g. per capita formula, or supplementary allocation for Councillors elected in wards which exceed the average population), rather than formally adjusting ward boundaries or the number of wards. This work, which could draw from the staff analysis previously done on this subject in the October 2002 report to the Member Services Committee, would be undertaken with the assistance of an external financial/operations consultant. It could examine various factors associated with the operation and functioning of a member’s office but, in particular, the correlation between volume of work and the population of the ward.
Once developed, the new formula would be considered by City Council as a basis for future budget determinations. This approach would not alter existing ward boundaries nor the current number of councillors and, hence, there is no provision for an O.M.B. appeal or procedural delays with respect to implementation. Resource requirements would include staff time and provision for up to $25,000 for an external consultant.
This option envisions a short term, less formal project committee being established, whereby affected Members of Council, with technical support from staff and some consulting assistance, would work towards reviewing the boundaries in the pressure areas, particularly the three suburban growth wards. This would be conducted in the first instance as an internal negotiation, taking into account the factors normally associated with a Ward Boundary Review. It would likely not entail detailed research, analysis or extensive public consultation.
While this more focused process would save cost and time and money over a more comprehensive approach, moving forward to a Council decision on a new ward structure would still be subject to all of the requirements set out in the Municipal Act, 2001 relating to adjustments to the size of Council and ward boundaries i.e. notice to the public, holding at least one public meeting, and consideration of public comments. It is anticipated that this type of approach to a review could cost in the order of $35,000. The decision of Council with respect to new ward boundaries would be subject to a right of appeal to the O.M.B.
A third option to consider would be for Council to authorize the implementation of a comprehensive Ward Boundary Review that would seek to overcome the problems that were identified by the O.M.B. in the 2001-2003 process. The possible scope and timetable for such an exercise are set out in the draft Terms of Reference attached.
In an effort to complete a Comprehensive Ward Boundary Review in time for the next municipal election, staff recommend that an external consultant be retained to lead the project and undertake the following:
§ supervise the data collection and formulation of public consultation materials;
§ manage the public consultation process, including the release of an interim discussion paper with preliminary ward boundary options;
§ formulate the final report and recommendations; and
§ if necessary, be the expert witness in the event of one or more appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.
If this option is selected by Council, an external consultant would be retained in early September through delegated authority under the City Manager’s direction. This person would likely be an expert in the field of local government relations and targeted to have the specific skills and credentials for a project of this sensitivity. Work would commence as soon as possible in September through the selected consultant and an internal project team led by staff reporting to the City Clerk. It is anticipated that communication materials would be prepared and released through the balance of the year in order to elicit public input, and draft ward boundary scenarios would be put out for comment early in the new year in the form of a discussion paper. A final report would be drafted and presented by the consultant with a view to delivery in early April 2005 and deliberations on it by CSEDC and then Council in late April to early May 2005. The anticipated cost for this option is in the order of $100,000.
III. Comparative Analysis of the Three Options
The following is an evaluation of the above-noted options based on the three criteria stated in the Council Motion of May 12, 2004. In essence, to what extent are the proposed options effective, efficient and objective?
Option 1: “Supplementary Allocation” Model
Briefly, this approach offers short-term assistance to the workloads of the three suburban growth wards. As such, it is arguably both efficient and reasonably effective. Another advantage of this budget-oriented approach is there is no statutory right of appeal to the O.M.B. However, such a model does not solve the longer-term representational issues which would therefore remain through the 2006-2009 term of Council. This approach would also constitute an ongoing budget pressure that would be reviewed annually by Council and would therefore be subject to other competing priorities for funding.
If Council endorses Option 1, then staff should be directed to bring forward a more detailed process and identify an external financial/operational consultant to lead and manage the budget review project. Report findings would be brought forward for inclusion in the 2005 Budget process.
Option 2: “Focused” Ward Boundary Review
This option would appear to meet the tests of being efficient and effective in terms of dealing with the need to respond to workload issues in the suburban growth wards for the 2006-2009 term of Council. Results could be forthcoming in a timeframe that would allow final Council consideration by early 2005.
However, this approach could be subject to criticism from the standpoint of lack of objectivity because of its emphasis on a negotiated outcome. It would appear to run counter to some of the “lessons learned” during the previous exercise, in particular the need for informed public participation and the appearance of an objective and transparent process. Finally, any recommended boundary adjustments may be difficult to defend, on appeal, if the review is seen as having been too narrow in its scope.
Option 3: “Comprehensive” Ward Boundary Review
This approach will obviously involve the most time and resources in terms of conducting such a review. It is stronger than Option 2 in terms of objectivity and effectiveness. It would appear to have a greater chance of success before O.M.B. on appeal, or of avoiding the Board altogether if consultation and analysis are effective. It is estimated that it would take 6 to 10 months from commencement of process to adoption of an implementing by-law. For convenience, the considerations with respect to process, consultation and timelines are dealt with in the attached draft Terms of Reference.
As with Option 2 however, an increase in the number of wards could well represent a significant budget pressure for an indefinite period into the future. This is discussed in more detail in Section V below.
The May 12, 2004 Council Motion asks that a timetable be
provided to indicate how the review process can be completed in 2004. It is anticipated that Options 1 and 2
provide approaches that would allow a review to be completed and a report
submitted to Council by the end of 2004 or early 2005. Option 3 is a more comprehensive approach
and will take longer to complete, with the final report being issued by April
of 2005.
In order to have any ward boundary changes in effect for the 2006 municipal elections, the Municipal Act, 2001 requires that a ward boundaries by-law must be in force by December 31, 2005. In essence, if the by-law is appealed to the O.M.B., the Board must have held its hearing and issued its order prior to that date.
Given this short timeline, the Chart presented below provides a timetable of deadlines by which various events must occur in order that the City have a new ward structure in place for the 2006 election. While this timetable allows for a full ambit of public consultation during the process leading up to the adoption of the by-law, including two meetings of Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, after the by-law is adopted the schedule is fairly aggressive in the case of Option 3. Should there be appeals to the by-law, the cooperation of the Board will be needed to ensure that a hearing can be scheduled and a decision issued in a timeframe that is somewhat shorter than that for most matters before the Board.
In the opinion of staff, June 22, 2005 is the latest that a ward boundaries by-law could be enacted with a reasonable expectation of a decision from the Board before the end of the year, should the by-law be appealed. The process allows for the ward boundaries recommendations to come before Committee twice, once at a formal meeting and then on a second occasion for the adoption and revision of the recommendations in the report. The deadline for any written submissions would be the same date as the formal public meeting in order to allow time for review and comment and the preparation of a revised report to Committee on May 17, 2005. Were it deemed desirable for the deadline for written submissions to be after the formal public meeting than the date of such meeting would have to be moved forward to April 3, 2005 in order to permit the revised report to continue to reach Committee on May 17, 2005.
Chart to Illustrate Possible
Timelines for Council Consideration of Options 2 and 3
|
Stage in Process |
Timing for Option 2 |
Timing for Option 3 |
|
Tabling of Consultant Report |
At least two weeks in advance of public meeting |
|
|
Public Meeting at Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee and deadline for written submissions |
January 18, 2005 |
April 19, 2005 |
|
Adoption/Revision of recommendations by Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee |
February 15, 2005 |
May 17, 2005 |
|
Council approval of report |
February 23, 2005 |
June 8, 2005 |
|
By-law Adoption |
March 9, 2005 |
June 22, 2005 |
|
End of appeal period |
April 25, 2005 |
August 6, 2005 |
|
Deadline for forwarding Appeal Record to the O.M.B. |
May 10, 2005 |
August 21, 2005 |
|
Pre-Hearing |
June 2005 |
October 2005 |
|
Hearing |
August 2005 |
November 2005 |
|
Decision |
October 2005 |
December 2005 |
In response to Direction No. 2 of the May 12, 2004 Council Motion, the following provides a summary of the long-term implications associated with the three options described above. This discussion focuses in the first instance on cost comparisons. Further, it is recognized that the principle of equitable representation is deferred by Option 1 whereas it will be addressed in Options 2 and 3.
The details of financial implications are being presented to serve as background for consideration of the other criteria that will be applied in arriving at a final decision on a Ward Boundary Review.
To begin with, it is not possible to provide an accurate forecast of the budget impact arising from the “supplementary allocation” approach described in Option 1. The budgetary assistance for the growth wards could derive in part from a reallocation within the existing budget envelope, but it would likely also require new funds. The total allocation could be in the order of $100,000 for each of the growth wards but this figure is for illustrative purposes only. The expectation is that the actual figure would flow from a formula based on factors identified in the study, akin to the methodology used for the Development Charges By-law. This extra money would represent a continuing budgetary pressure going forward into the future until such time as a more comprehensive ward boundary review is undertaken.
With respect to both Options 2
and 3, there is an expectation that the total number of wards will
increase. This could be either two or
three wards/councillors depending on how the study proceeds, public input, etc. In order to provide Council with a global
estimate of the costs associated with a potential increase in the number of
wards, staff have gathered some preliminary, financial estimates. These numbers are categorized in two areas:
initial capital/transition costs; and, ongoing operating costs.
It is anticipated that the
one-time capital requirement to establish two new Councillors’ offices is
roughly in the order of $320,000. This
estimate includes approximately $260,000 in renovation/relocation costs and an
estimated $60,000 for the intial IT fit-up of the offices. To accomplish this change, adjustments would
likely have to be made within and adjacent to the Councillors’ Office Area on
the second floor of City Hall. In the
absence of a more detailed review by RPAM, it is most likely that the Corporate
Security staff would have to be relocated elsewhere in order to make room for
the addition of two Councillors’ offices.
Furthermore, the capital/transition costs associated with the addition
of three new Councillors’ offices is estimated at $390,000 (i.e. $300,000 for
the renovations/relocations and about $90,000 for the IT fit-up).
With regard to the annual
operating budget, there would appear to be both direct and indirect costs
associated with the addition of City Councillors. It is anticipated that each additional office for a new Member of
Council will have an annual budget impact of about $320,000 (i.e. about
$314,000 in direct salary, benefits and office costs and an estimated $6,000
indirectly from travel, parking, etc.).
As such, the annual pressure on the operating budget for the addition of
two new wards would be approximately $640,000 while the estimated costs for
three new wards would be about $960,000.
These costs would be in addition
to the current funding envelope for existing Members of Council. It may be possible to look at reallocating
some funds from within the current budget for elected representatives in order
to help meet these anticipated pressures.
However, a similar motion aimed at reducing the office and salary budgets
of all Councillors (excluding the three growth wards) by 10%, or a total of
approximately $437,180, was defeated during the 2004 budget debates
CONSULTATION
This report is in response to the May 12, 2004 Council Motion and is preliminary in nature to any overall review that may take place. As such, no public consultation was necessary for its preparation. Staff in various Branches have provided input to assist in its formulation.
However, public consultation, as well as consultation with other stakeholders and Members of Council, will be an important element should a future review be authorized. Further information on the consultation timelines and mechanisms will be forthcoming should a specific option be selected. That consultation plan will take into consideration the lessons learned from the Ward Boundaries Review (2001-2003).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funds have not been budgeted in 2004 for any of the possible review exercises described in Options 1, 2 or 3 (estimated to be $25,000, $35,000 and $100,000 respectively).
Furthermore, the funding to accommodate the capital and operational costs associated with an increase in the number of wards would constitute budget pressures to be addressed as part of the 2006 budget process and thereafter.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
DISPOSITION
Depending on the option chosen by City Council, staff will implement same in the fashion described in this report.
|
Date |
Council/ Committee |
Activity |
|
13 June 01 |
Council |
Council motion by J. Harder
and A. Munter directing staff to prepare a report on: 1) legal requirements
to change ward boundaries; 2) options to review including consultation
process, timeline and estimated cost. |
|
03 July 01 |
CSEDC |
Report to CSEDC – “Ward
Boundary Review – Procedure” - responding to motion of 13 June. Committee Recommendation to
select Option C outlined in the report.
/ CARRIED |
|
11 July 01 |
Council |
Report #11 from CSEDC
meeting of 03 July considered by Council; Amending Motion to increase
population range from ±25% to ±33%
/ CARRIED |
|
04 Dec 01 |
CSEDC |
Report to CSEDC – “Ward
Boundary Review” - detailing terms of reference, public consultation
strategy, Citizens’ Task Force names and mandate / CARRIED |
|
12 Dec 01 |
Council |
Report #20 from CSEDC
meeting of 4 Dec to Council / CARRIED |
|
13 Dec 01 |
Public information |
Web site outlining ward
boundary review process activated, including detailed timelines, members of
Task Force, how to provide input; information brochure released; news release
on the commencement of the project; release of data map showing current wards
and population distributions; letter to community associations on Dec 17/01;
opening announcement ad on Dec. 21 |
|
29 Jan 02 |
Public information |
News release on public
meetings and encouraging dialogue; ads in daily and local papers; Public meetings advertised
on February 4, 5, 11, 12 in daily ads on Feb 1; also in community
papers; deadline for comments Feb
28; Public meetings held as per
schedule, and submissions received via mail, e-mail, fax and telephone to end
of Feb 02 |
|
March – April – May |
Analysis and report
writing |
Analysis of input,
consideration of principles, consideration of options; selection of preferred
concept; drafting of report |
|
10 Jun 02 |
Task Force report released
to Council and public for review |
Briefing for Council; briefing
for school boards; media briefing; report posted on web site; copies
distributed to Client Service Centres and libraries |
|
12, 14 Jun 02 |
Statutory ad |
Advertisement of statutory
public meeting for 18 June 02 |
|
18 Jun 02 |
CSEDC |
Report to CSEDC – “Ward
Boundaries Review – Final Report” - detailing outcome of ward boundary
review; CSEDC, acting under delegated authority of Council, conducted public
meeting on the Report Motions to amend report
TABLED for review by Council; Motion to provide for naming of wards TABLED
for review by Council; Motion to receive the
report / CARRIED |
|
26 Jun 02 |
Council |
Report #31 from CSEDC to
Council meeting of 26 Jun Motion to defer for one
month – Lost Motion 36/9 to adjust ward
16 and 17 boundaries CARRIED Motion 36/10 to adjust
wards 19 and 20 for Carlsbad Springs community – CARRIED Motion 36/11 ward names on
27 Nov 02 – CARRIED Motion to adjust wards 11
and 13 – LOST Motion to adopt report as
amended – CARRIED |
|
19 July 02 |
Statutory ad |
Notice of intention to
adopt by-law regarding ward boundaries, per Municipal Act requirements |
|
24 July 02 |
Council |
By-law 2002-316 adopted by
Council |
|
26 July 02 |
Statutory ad |
Notice of by-law 2002-316
having been adopted, and appeal opportunity to 15 August 02 |
|
12 Aug and 14 Aug 02 |
3 appeals under subsection 13.1(2) of the Municipal Act |
Appeals of the by-law
received from Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton community associations |
|
17 Oct 02 |
O.M.B. |
Commencement of Pre-hearing
Conference |
|
17 Oct 02 |
O.M.B. / Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing |
O.M.B. served with a Notice
of Deferral executed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in
accordance with the Municipal Act |
|
30 Oct 02 |
O.M.B. Decision |
O.M.B. Decision No. 1480 Memorandum of Oral Decision
delivered on October 17, 2002 and Order of the Board Re: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
has issued a deferral order staying the proceedings related to the
appeal. The matter is therefore
adjourned sine die. |
|
13 Nov 02 |
City of Ottawa |
City of Ottawa brought a
Motion to continue the hearing Application was dismissed
by the O.M.B. City sought to judicially
review the ruling of the O.M.B. and was successful |
|
22 Nov 02 |
O.M.B. Decision |
O.M.B. Decision No. 1604 Memorandum of an Oral
Decision on a Motion to Continue the Hearing delivered by R.D.M. Owen and R.
Makuch on Tuesday November 13, 2002 and Order of the Board |
|
13 Dec 02 |
Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court Ontario |
Endorsement filed to the
Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court Ontario Re: City of Ottawa v.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing |
|
13 Dec 02 |
Superior Court of Ontario – Divisional Court Ontario |
Decision of Madame Justice
Macdonald, Superior Court of Ontario, quashing the Notice of Deferral issued
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as being ultra vires |
|
21 Jan 03 |
O.M.B. Decision |
O.M.B. Decision No. 0080 Memorandum of Oral Decision
on 20 Dec 02 and Order of the Board Outline and dates
associated with O.M.B. hearing |
|
23 Jan 03 |
O.M.B. |
Pre-hearing Conference |
|
6 Feb 03 |
O.M.B. Decision |
O.M.B. Decision No. 0182 Memorandum of Oral Decision
on 23 Jan 02 and Order of the Board “This proceeding shall be
governed by the Procedural Order attached hereto as Attachment “1”” Assignment of O.M.B. Case
number and File number and outline of the procedural order |
|
Feb 03 – Mar 03 |
O.M.B. Hearing |
O.M.B. hearings held with
the associated Parties to the case:
(i) City of Ottawa; (ii) Osgoode Rural Community Association, Rideau
Rural Community Association Inc., and West Carleton Association Inc., and
(iii) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing |
|
17 Feb 03 |
Legislative Assembly of Ontario Report – Office of the Integrity Commissioner |
Report dated 17 Feb 03 from
the Honourable Coulter Osborne, Integrity Commissioner Re: The Honourable John Baird, Minister of
Energy, Minister of Francophone Affairs and Deputy House Leader Decision: No grounds for an inquiry. The complaint has not been
established. It is, therefore,
dismissed. |
|
8 May 03 |
O.M.B. Decision |
O.M.B. Decision No. 0605
handed down Disposition/Order:
“Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the Board hereby repeals By-law
2002-316 enacted on July 24, 2002 by the Council of the City of Ottawa” |
CSC
– Ward Boundaries ACS-CRS-SEC-0037 (Aug 04).doc Aug
8/04
DOCUMENT 2
To conduct a comprehensive review of the municipal ward boundaries in the City of Ottawa in order to arrive at a more equitable system of representation, with particular reference to the need to accommodate growth in the current west and south suburban wards. It is intended that the revised ward structure be in place for the 2006 municipal elections.
The review will be conducted within the following parameters:
Subject to the overriding principle of “effective representation” as set out in the Carter decision, the following criteria will be referred to for guidance in the conduct of the review:
An external consultant will be retained to undertake this project. The consultant will be responsible for the conduct of all aspects of the project including, research, public consultation, formulation of options, and the preparation of a final report and recommendations for the consideration of CSEDC and Council.
The consultant will be assisted by City staff in accordance with working arrangements to be developed as part of a more detailed work program and as set out below.
Timetable for Work
The consultant will be responsible for guiding the ward boundary review project, preparing ward scenarios and reports, and presenting final recommendations to CSEDC.
City staff will provide comprehensive technical assistance to the consultant. Within this task area, staff will assemble data on socio-economic profiles, servicing boundaries, and other data appropriate to the definition of communities of interest within the City.
City staff will develop and provide cost information with respect to increasing the size of Council. This information will be shared with the consultant and made available for public reference as part of the ward boundary review process.
The City Clerk will be responsible for overseeing the
contract for the consultant, ensuring that: necessary staff resources are
available; timelines are met; and, public consultation proceeds in accordance
with City policies and guidelines.