Council Workshop January 19, 2013

1/18/2013

Evaluation oj BrantJord Ward Boundary Options

federal and provincial electoral boundary reviews required under legislation after every Census to ensure "equitable representation" in Ontario municipalities, review of electoral boundaries (wards) neither subject to a stipulated schedule nor a standardized process section 222 (1) Municipal Act: a municipality authorized "to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards" by by-law

Evaluation ojBrantJord Ward Boundary Options

but the Act is silent on timing (note petitions s. 223) terms of reference processes since the by-law may be appealed to OMS (s. 222 (4)), successful reviews establish and adhere closely to criteria or guiding principles established beforehand OMS sustains appeals when criteria and/ or processes flawed or ignored

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

a ward design not permanent, whatever comfort zone incumbent councillors or citizens may inhabit in the present configuration City of Brantford has made only minor boundary adjustments (in 2006) to ward boundaries established in 1981 basic configuration since 1935: five wards each electing two councillors

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

an appropriate ward design is about both the present and the future - not the past as the community changes, so must the electoral arrangements has Brantford changed? how do we know? "does the shoe still fit?"

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Branlford Ward Boundary Options

in April 2012 Council approved a process and terms of reference for a citizens' committee to review remuneration, ward boundary and council structure options process to be led by City Clerk and staff -7 recommendation on a ward model from the citizens' committee "five Guiding Principles to be followed in evaluating various ward scenarios"

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Effective and Equitable Representation Criterion (ER): The ward configuration will lead to an "effective and equitable system of representation ." Natural Boundaries Criterion (NB): "Wards should recognize natural physical features or natural barriers/dividers." Preservation of Communities of Interest Criterion (PCI): "Wards should preserve communities of interest." Population Trends Criterion (PT): "Wards should recognize areas of growth/ decline, population trends, density." Accessibility and Communications Criterion (AC): "Wards should recognize accessibility/ communication issues."

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Accessibility and Communications Criterion lAC): "Wards should recognize accessibility/ communication issues."
accessibility = what is the ratio of elected officials to residents? communication are the wards as compact as possible? are the lines of communication within the ward obvious and well located?

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Population Trends Criterion IPT): "Wards should recognize areas of growth/decline, population trends, density."
City Planning Department's population estimates for 2011 and 2023 are used to anticipate overall and individual community change. simple descriptive code used to assess degree of variation from the optimal size (that is, the population of each ward if the City were divided into equal parts).

1/18/2013

EllQluation oj Brantjort! Wart! BounJ1ary Options

Interpreting Population Variation in the Wards

Code OR+ 0+ 0 0ORLabel
Outside the Range above Above Optimal Description greater than 25% above the
optimal size

Optimal Below Optimal Outside the Range below

6% to 25% above the optimal size within 5% above or below the optimal size 6% to 25% below the optimal size greater than 25% below the
optimal size

EllQluation oj Brantjort! Wart! BounJ1ary Options

Preservation of Communities of Interest Criterion (PCI): "Wards should preserve communities of interest. two perspectives: what is divided and what is
..,
"

communities are not to be divided inte;:/nalI Y; lines are drawn around communities, not ~ough them. to the extent possible, wards should group together communities ,vith common interests; e.g., the age, assessed value and configuration of housing, the life-stage and demographics of the residents and municipal service provision and amenities.

1/18/2013

Evaluation ofBra.ntford Ward Boundary Options

Natural Boundaries Criterion (NB): "Wards should recognize natural physical features or natural barriers / dividers."
includes both the natural topography (e.g. the Grand River) and "constructed" barriers (e.g. Highway 403). but also other arterial roadways or railway lines. these features considered suitable because they already separate residents from one another who happen to live on opposite sides of the boundary.

Evaluation of Bra.ntford Ward Boundary Options

Effective and Equitable Representation Criterion fER}: The ward configuration will lead to an "effective and equitable system of representation." paramount principle: effective and equitable final test of the overall design summary/comprehensive evaluation of more explicit principles subjective or qualitative element to capture intangible aspect of representation (a twoway relationship between residents and elected officials)

1/18/2013

EJialuatiolt

0/ Braltt/ord Ward Boundary OptiOIlS

Shouldn't equal population in each ward ("voter parity") be the overriding goal?

EJialuatiolt

0/ Braltt/ord Ward Boundary OptiOIlS

Shouldn't equal population in each ward ("voter parity") be the overriding goal?
In fact, it is only one criterion (and not the most important) ... Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan) (1991) [the Carter decision J

Madame Justice Beverly McLachlin: "The fundamental purpose of s. 3 [of the Charter) was not to ensure equality of voting power, but effective and fair representation conducive to good government: often cannot achieve effective representation without taking into account other factors, e.g. geography, community of interest

1/18/2013

Evaluation

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

a number of models for Brantford's future electoral arrangements developed by City Clerk in 2009

-? four options considered in 2012 by the Citizens' Review Committee and staff and evaluated by external expert the current five-ward system (the status quo) a "redistributed" five-ward system a six-ward system a ten-ward system

Evaluation
Word Redblfttwllon

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Current Wards

0--

1/18/2013

Ellaluation

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Population Trends Criterion (PT)

2011 1.26 0.94 0.88 1.01 0.91 2023 1.52 0.81 0.76 0.92 0.99

Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward

1 2 3 4 5

23500 17500 16,500 19000 17000

OR+

000 0-

33000 17500 16500 20000 21 500

OR+

0000

Evaluation

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Overall Assessment Current Wards

E.
NB
Meets Comment Criterion no at least two implausible erectoral groupings disparities in size of wards generates some

meouotv
no
three wards cross sigl1lficant natural bouldaries residential streets used as Ward 4 - Ward 5 bou>daN one neighbourhood divided internally at least two wards with very few common interests amonq the communitIes

PO

no
no

PT

population distribution for lOll very nearty unacceptable

projected population distribution shows Oflly

one ward in optimal range, ooe wa-d 1.5 tunes ootimal size

AC

no

wide disparity in access to counci/lors area and population relationship inYff5e of noon Internal road links lnad@quate in Ward I, component communities isolated in proposed

W""'.

1/18/2013

ElIaIuCltion of Brantford WClrd BOIlndClTY Options

Wc:wd .edlslrlbutlon

5 Wards. Redistributed - F;:in.:,:a::,'-r

"'1""_'"
\,

-3-

ElIaluCltion ofBrantford WClrd BoundClTY Options

Population Trends Criterion (PT)

2011 Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 14,500 19,000 22,000 19,500 18,500 0.77 1.01 1.18 1.04 0_99
00 0+

2023 22,000 20,500 22,000 20,500 23,500 1.01 0.94 1.02 0.94 1.08
0 00 00+

0 0

10

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Overall Assessment Five Wards Re-distributed

ER NB
Meets Criterion mixed

Comment
most wards plausible and coherent

disparities in access to councillors I generates some ineQuity in representation

mixed
Grand River a boundary

major arterial corridors used widely

three wards cross Highway 403 residential street used as Ward 2 - Ward 3 boundarY no neighbourhoods divided internally one ward lacks internal coherence population distribution for 2011 acceptable

PCI

yes yes

PT

projected population distribution shows all

wards within optimal range, divergence from

I ootlmal size acceotable

AC

mixed

wide disparity in access to councillors in 2011 and 2023 area and population relationship reasonable

component communities isotated from one another in proposed Ward 4

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

WClfd ledblrlbutlon

6 Wards

11

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Population Trends Criterion (PTj

2011 0.91 0.98 1.04 0.94 0.88 1.13 2023 1.24 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.99 1.02

Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward

1 2 3 4 5 6

14500 15500 16500 15000 14,000 18000

0-

0 0 000+

22500 17000 16500 16000 18,000 18500

0+ 0000 0

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

Overall Assessment Six Wards

ER
NB
Meets Criterion mixed Comment

disparities in access to councillors

mixed

some problematic innercity boundaries lack of coherence in one ward Grand River a boundary

major arterial corridors used widely

residential streets used as Ward 5 - Ward 6 boundarv residential neighbourhood east of CSD divided internally one ward lacks internal coherence

PCI

no
yes

PT

population distribution for 2011 acceptable

projected population distribution shows all wards within optimal range, divergence from

optimal size acceptable

AC

mixed

wide disparity in access to councillors in

2023
area and population relationship reasonable

in 2011 but less so in 2023

component communities isolated from one another in proposed Ward 4

12

1/18/2013

Evaluation 0/ Brant/om Ward Boundary Options

Evaluation 0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Population Trends Criterion (PT)

Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2011 9500 1.02 9 000 0.96 11 000 1.18 9500 1.02 7,000 0.75 10 000 1.07 9 000 0.96 7 000 0.75 11 500 1.23 10,000 1.07 0 0 0+ 0 00+ 0 00+ 0+ 2023 17 000 1.57 9500 0.88 12 000 1.11 9500 0.88 7,000 0.66 10 000 0.92 10 000 0.92 7 000 0.66 12 000 1.11 14,500 1.34 OR + 00+ 0OR 00OR0+ OR +

13

1/18/2013

Evaluation

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Overall Assessment Ten Wards

Comment Meets Criterion mixed overall population distribution polarized population growth makes four proposed wards unacceotable mixed several major arterial corridors used two wards straddle major natural boundaries (e.a. Highwav 403, Grand River) mixed no neighbourhoods dMded internany one ward dissimilar communities no population distribution for 2011 stretched across acceptable range projected population distribution shows four wards well outside cotimal range no access to councillors in 2011 generally good but unacceptable variation in 2023
area and population relationship reasonable

ER
NB
PCI PT

AC

in 2011 but not 2023

component communities isolated from one

another in proposed Ward 2

Evaluation

0/ Brant/ord Ward Boundary Options

Evaluations: current wards no longer constitute a realistic option ~ fail to meet any of the criteria for a successful ward system in Brantford six-ward option compromised by split neighbourhood east of CBD, lack of coherence in some wards, unbalanced populations, all compounded by layout of the City ten-ward option fails to address population gzowth and provides poor access in at least two wards

14

1/18/2013

Evaluation of Brantford Ward Boundary Options

"redistributed" five-ward option includes some problematic groupings of residential communities and some less-than-ideal boundaries to meet the population criterion least change for the citizens of Brantford and for candidates for Council in the 2014 municipal election most reasonable and viable alternative

15