(City Council, at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1) striking out Recommendations Nos. (6) and (8) embodied in the joint report dated March 12, 1998, from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(6) the appropriate staff develop plans which give effect to City Council's decision that there will be three Councillors from East York;

(8) Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public's input on the matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the Urban Environment and Development Committee;",

so that the recommendations embodied in the joint report dated March 12, 1998, from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, shall now read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council;

(2) the four commonly accepted principles on which ward boundaries options are to be evaluated be approved and that variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm;

(3) a Staff Working Group with representation from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Economic Development, Social Development and Corporate Policy and Planning be created to co-ordinate the process, liaise with Members of Council, and undertake the necessary research;

(4) existing ward boundaries within the new City of Toronto be used as the basis for the new ward boundaries, with minor refinements where needed;

(5) Council indicate its support for the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000;

(6) the appropriate staff develop plans which give effect to City Council's decision that there will be three Councillors from East York;

(7) the process and timeline outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards be approved for implementation;

(8) Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public's input on the matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(9) the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto."; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated April 16, 1998, from the City Clerk embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that Council determine that the petition is not properly before Council.' ")

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a joint report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on:

(a) the issue of allowing variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent; and

(b) the pros and cons of utilizing a single voters' list.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To outline principles, a process and timeline for defining ward boundaries within the City of Toronto, with a view to creating single Councillor wards by the next municipal election.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Some costs are anticipated as a result of the public consultation component of the boundary review process recommended in this report. It is assumed that the required resources will be found from within the existing budgets of City departments.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council;

(2) the four commonly accepted principles on which ward boundaries options are to be evaluated be approved and that variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm;

(3) a Staff Working Group with representation from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Economic Development, Social Development and Corporate Policy and Planning be created to co-ordinate the process, liaise with Members of Council, and undertake the necessary research;

(4) existing ward boundaries within the new City of Toronto be used as the basis for the new ward boundaries, with minor refinements where needed;

(5) Council indicate its support for the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000;

(6) should Council, in the future, elect to divide the former East York into three as opposed to two wards, this division be achieved as part of the boundary review process outlined in this report;

(7) the process and timeline outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards be approved for implementation;

(8) this report be forwarded to the Community Councils for information and input through the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(9) the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, approved, on an interim basis, recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, with amendments. Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report suggests that Council move to single-member wards by the next municipal election and that consideration be given to refining Community Council boundaries to reflect the historic associations of neighbourhoods. That portion of Recommendation No. (21) pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation was "referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council". The remaining component of the recommendation, dealing with Community Councils, was forwarded to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Council's action on Recommendation No. (21) was forwarded to the Chair of each Community Council in a communication from the City Clerk dated January 15, 1998. The Community Councils of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York have each considered the item and their recommendations are outlined below. The East York Community Council received the communication but took no action (Clause No. 10(l), Council March 4, 1998). The Toronto Community Council has not yet considered the matter.

The Etobicoke Community Council asked that the City Clerk submit a report that identifies issues to be considered and a process for refining boundaries. The Community Council also requested that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team not deal with the issue of one Councillor per ward until communities have been consulted on the matter. (Clause No. 14(k), Council March 4, 1998).

The North York Community Council referred the communication from the City Clerk to the City Solicitor for a report on a mechanism to move to one Councillor per ward during the present term, or at the end of the term, should Council so desire. The Community Council also requested a mechanism for changing Community Council boundaries. (Clause No. 32(c), Council March 4, 1998).

The York Community Council deferred consideration of the issue of reducing the number of Councillors from 56 to 28 to later in the year to allow the new Council to gain experience, to provide staff with time to prepare reports and to permit community consultation on the proposal. (Clause No. 7(ff), Council March 4, 1998).

The Scarborough Community Council endorsed the principle of splitting wards, directed that its position be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and requested that the City Solicitor report to that Committee on the process necessary to implement these changes. (Clause No. 18(aa), Council March 4, 1998).

All of the above recommendations pertaining to Community Council boundaries have been referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

This report responds to those recommendations and referrals pertaining to the review of ward boundaries. It includes a summary of legal issues impacting the boundary review process and an overview of existing models for redefining political boundaries. It also recommends principles to guide the development of ward boundary options and a process through which boundaries within the City of Toronto can be refined and divided by the next municipal election.

The City Solicitor has been consulted on the legal considerations, legislated requirements and process outlined in this report.

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

City Council's authority to change ward boundaries is obtained from both the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997. Section 5(2) of the latter permits Council to change or dissolve ward boundaries in accordance with guidelines, processes and criteria outlined in the Municipal Act.

Subsection 13(4) of the Municipal Act permits Council to pass by-laws dividing or re-dividing the municipality into wards or dissolving existing wards. The Act outlines a process with which Council must comply when adjusting ward boundaries. This process requires that Council give notice of its intent to pass a by-law impacting boundaries and hold at least one public meeting prior to such a by-law being approved.

Subsection 13(6) of the Municipal Act requires Council to consider any criteria governing boundary changes established through regulation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. To date, no such criteria have been prescribed. Nevertheless, the Ontario Municipal Board, while considering applications under an earlier version of the Act, identified factors to be considered when redrawing ward boundaries. These were equal representation by population, communities of interest, and similarities in socio-economic factors.

The Municipal Act also includes a process through which Council-approved boundary changes can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (Sub-section 13(1)). Notices of appeal must be filed with the Municipal Clerk within 35 days of the ward boundary by-law being approved by Council.

Finally, the Act dictates that boundary changes be approved by Council prior to January 1, 2000, if they are to be implemented by the next municipal election that same year.

The principles, process and timeline recommended in this report are consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Act.

While the Municipal Act provides general authority for municipal councils to change their total number of elected members and the number of members elected per ward, the City of Toronto Act, 1997 does not provide specific authority for the Council of the City of Toronto to do so. Rather, Subsection 3(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 specifies that City Council contain 57 members, including the Mayor, and that there be two elected officials representing each City ward. Accordingly, amendments to this Act are required should Council elect to change its overall size or move to single member ward representation. It is recommended that Council authorize the City Solicitor to request these amendments immediately.

Models for Redefining Ward Boundaries:

Processes for creating and refining municipal ward boundaries are governed, in general terms, by Provincial legislation. Provincial requirements often permit significant flexibility in designing and implementing these processes to reflect community needs. In preparing this report, models employed over the past ten years by a number of municipal governments, including the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, its Area Municipalities, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and the City of Calgary were reviewed. In addition, the process undertaken by the Government of Canada in its 1992 redefinition of Federal Electoral Districts was considered.

While each of these processes was intentionally tailored to meet the need of a specific government and constituency, they possess a number of critical similarities. All include a research component intended to identify significant population, geographic, social, infrastructure and economic trends and issues. They also include developing options as to where boundaries can be located and public consultation. Research activities traditionally required a significant commitment of time from government staff. Boundary options, on the other hand, were generally developed with input from staff, political representatives and, in some cases, members of the public.

Two primary differences exist in these models. The first concerns the ultimate decision-making authority and the second relates to the body assigned responsibility for managing the boundary review process. Again, in the case of municipalities, the decision authority is defined in Provincial legislation. In addressing boundary issues for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its Area Municipalities, the authority rested with Provincial Cabinet. In other models, including that outlined for the new City of Toronto, boundary decisions are given to Councils, with appeal processes to Provincial authorities.

There appear to be two common approaches to managing the boundary review process at the municipal level. The first involves the Provincial appointment of an independent Commission, which may or may not be the final decision-making body. The second assigns responsibility to municipal Councils. A commission may be preferred when boundaries are being invented for the first time or significantly redrawn as it enables an impartial review of communities and issues. The latter approach, which is prescribed for the new City of Toronto, is more feasible when existing boundaries are being refined and where overall change is minimal. In these circumstances, the involvement of individuals familiar with local geography and community interests and issues could result in a streamlined and cost-effective boundary review process.

The last time boundaries were reviewed within the geographic area now covered by the new City of Toronto was in preparation for the 1988 municipal election in which the Metropolitan Council was directly elected for the first time. During this process, Provincial direction was given through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1988. This Act defined the number of Metro Councillors per Area Municipality and invited each municipality to propose new regional ward boundaries and revisions to local ward boundaries. Proposals were submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and final decisions made by Provincial Cabinet. Cabinet ultimately amended seven of the eight Metro wards proposed by the former City of Toronto and two local wards in Etobicoke.

This Act also established certain parameters with which the Metro ward structure had to comply. Specifically, the number of Metro wards had to equal the number of Councillors. In Area Municipalities where the number of Metro and local wards were equal, the boundaries were to be identical and each local ward was to be located entirely within one Metro ward. The intent of these parameters was to maximize the accountability of individual Members of Council to their constituency and to facilitate understanding by residents of political boundaries, structures and community issues.

Discussion:

A number of assumptions underlie the principles and process proposed to guide the City's review of its boundaries. They are:

- that the City will be divided into single member wards by the next municipal election so as to increase the accountability of Members of Council and reduce confusion on the part of residents;

- that boundaries will be established for the long term and, as a result, will consider population, social and economic trends;

- that the least number of changes possible will be made to existing ward boundaries, again to reduce confusion on the part of residents and to protect existing neighbourhoods; and

- that the ward structure resulting from the boundary review process enable the continued cost efficiency of local government within the City of Toronto.

Principles Governing Boundary Decisions:

In reviewing existing models and past practices, it becomes apparent that there exists a set of commonly accepted principles or criteria that are traditionally considered when refining or defining political boundaries. These principles have been consistently applied in each of the municipal and federal models discussed in this report. In summary, they are:

(1) representation by population;

(2) representation of communities;

(3) recognition of distinct geographic and infrastructure features; and

(4) present and future population trends.

Each of these principles is discussed below.

Principle 1: Representation by Population:

Representation by population implies that, to the extent possible, each ward within a municipality will have a similar population. The principle is intended to ensure that residents have equal access to their elected representative and that the workload of these representatives is relatively balanced.

It is common for municipalities to permit variations from average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent. Such variations ensure the long-term relevance of boundaries by accommodating changing population patterns. Variations of greater than 25 percent are traditionally accepted when they prevent communities from being divided, consider significant population trends, incorporate densely populated areas that cannot be easily divided, or include a population that would otherwise become physically isolated. The 25 percent norm was applied to boundaries developed for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its Area Municipalities. It was also used in Ottawa-Carleton, the City of Calgary and the Federal Government in its review of electoral districts.

Principle 2: Representation of Communities:

This principle is intended to preserve the integrity of communities. It respects homogenous areas within a diverse urban setting. Such areas can be defined by their geographic location, history, socio-economic status, housing types, travel patterns, or proximity to shopping or recreation facilities. This principle is applied to avoid fragmenting neighbourhoods or diluting the political power of a specific group. The latter would occur if that group was divided between two or more wards.

Principle 3: Recognition of Distinct Geographical Features:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that highly visible, natural and man-made boundaries such as major roads and highways, breaks in land use, river valleys, and escarpments are recognized where possible. These features tend to naturally define communities and are often logical choices for easily identifiable ward boundaries.

Principle 4: Present and Future Population Trends:

If one assumes that ward boundaries are defined for the longer term, this final principle is of critical importance. The definition of wards must consider projected population trends within various communities. Thus, it may be appropriate for some wards to have populations below the average, if those wards are anticipating rapid growth in a relatively short period of time.

It is recommended that these four principles be adopted by the City of Toronto as guidelines for the development of ward boundary options and that a variation in average ward population of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm. Variations exceeding 25 percent are to be based on a sound analysis of population patterns and other issues.

The Basis for Ward Boundaries in the City of Toronto:

There are five possible approaches to refining ward boundaries within the City of Toronto. They are:

(1) dissolving the existing boundaries and creating new ones;

(2) adopting the 22 Federal Electoral Districts as ward boundaries;

(3) dividing each Federal Electoral District in two, thus creating 44 wards;

(4) accepting current City boundaries and reducing elected representation to one Councillor per ward; or

(5) accepting existing boundaries and identifying options for dividing each ward in two to create single member representation.

There are pros and cons attached to each of these options.

Dissolving existing boundaries and creating new ones, as is proposed in option one, requires a significant investment of time and resources. While this process could be completed by the January 1, 2000 deadline for including new ward structures in the next municipal election, it would require a significant investment of time and resources over a 20-month period. Appropriate timing is of concern in this option. With amalgamation still fresh in the minds of many residents, reinventing boundaries may be viewed as a further threat to communities and neighbourhoods. Compounding this, the City of Toronto Act, 1997, requires that the boundaries of Community Councils be coterminous with ward boundaries. It is, therefore, anticipated that implementation of this option would require revision to Community Council boundaries.

Options two and three adopt Federal Electoral Districts as the basis on which City wards are built. There are currently 22 Federal Districts in the new City of Toronto. If these boundaries were adopted as is, representation by population ratios would climb to more than 100,000 residents for each Member of Council. This would significantly increase the workload of Councillors and limit the access of residents to their elected official. Dividing each of these Districts in two, thus creating 44 City wards, addresses these concerns by reducing population per Member of Council to approximately 50,000.

Adopting and dividing Federal Districts offers a number of benefits. First, boundaries for federal, provincial and municipal purposes would be consistent. Public understanding of political structures and processes would, therefore, be facilitated. In addition, cost efficiencies could be realized in the managing of election rolls and processes and the City's operating costs would be reduced slightly as a result of a smaller Council.

On the down side, while population is fairly evenly spread across Federal Districts, the extent to which these districts accurately reflects communities of interest and neighbourhoods is unclear and requires further study. As was the case with option one, this approach to ward definition could be viewed as a threat to communities and neighbourhoods by a public that, at this time, is particularly sensitive to these issues. In addition, Community Council boundaries would require revision.

Options four and five use the existing City boundary structure as the basis on which wards for the new City are built. These options are attractive as they keep change to a minimum and, as a result, are less likely to be viewed as a threat to local communities. Population changes within the City in the ten years since these boundaries were created have been relatively minor in 60 percent of wards. In these cases boundaries, for the most part, continue to reflect natural and man-made divisions and comply with the plus or minus 25 percent average population variance principle discussed earlier. For the 30 percent of wards where growth has been substantial, study will be required to ensure that principles are applied in the development of new boundaries.

On the negative side, option four reduces the size of Council from 56 to 28 Members. On average, each Councillor would have upwards of 80,000 residents to serve. Like option two, this ratio would result in a larger workload for Council Members and reduced access by residents to their elected officials. It would, however, reduce the City's annual operating costs as a result of the smaller Council.

Splitting each of the existing City wards in two resolves these issues and is the most viable of the five options presented for splitting ward boundaries. The average ward population per elected official would remain at its current level of around 39,000. A minimal number of wards would slightly exceed the 25 percent guideline, with the largest being Scarborough Malvern with approximately 54,500 residents per Councillor. (The ward with the smallest population per representative is York Eglinton with a ratio of roughly 32,500 residents per Councillor. This is well within the 25 percent norm.)

Division of wards in some areas will be straightforward in that the present City ward includes two of the former local municipal wards. Analysis would be required, however, to ensure that the former division respected boundary review principles. Other wards will be more complex, containing three or four of their former local counterparts.

In light of this information, it is recommended that the existing ward boundaries for the City of Toronto, with some minor refinements, be the basis for creating single member wards and that the boundary review process focus on splitting each of these wards in two.

Should Council elect to divide the former East York into three as opposed to two wards, it is recommended that this be achieved through the boundary review process outlined in this report.

Refinement to the existing boundaries will be recommended only in those extraordinary cases where a community or property spans more than one ward.

Selection of this option does not preclude the further review and redefinition of ward boundaries at a later date. However, implementation of this option permits Council to address the single member representation issue in a timely and cost-effective manner prior to the next election. Again, proposed changes that adjust the overall size of Council or that move to single member ward representation will require legislation to amend to the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

Boundary Review Process:

A collaborative process that includes municipal staff, Members of Council and the public is required if the process for refining and dividing wards within the new City of Toronto is to be effective. To facilitate this, it is recommended that a Staff Working Group be created to guide and manage this process.

Specifically, the Staff Working Group will liaise with Members of Council, co-ordinate and administer the boundary review process, undertake research and trend analysis, ensure legal issues and legislated requirements are addressed, facilitate development of boundary options and co-ordinate consultations. This group will include representatives from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Social Development, Economic Development and Corporate Policy and Planning functions. Project leadership will be provided by the City Clerk.

The process builds on the strengths of models reviewed earlier in this report, reflects common principles for redefining political boundaries, and is consistent with requirements of the Municipal Act. It can be divided into four broad phases.

Phase one entails conducting the research and analysis necessary to make informed decisions on boundary options. Specifically, existing boundaries will be reviewed to identify where refinements may be beneficial; population, economic and social trends and issues will be reviewed and assessed; and, communities and natural boundaries within and between wards will be identified. Also included in this phase will be preliminary stakeholder consultation with representatives of the education, business, social service and other interest groups. The purpose of this consultation will be to flag issues impacting potential boundary decisions.

Phase two considers research findings, trend analysis, stakeholder feedback, assumptions and principles and develops options as to how each ward could be divided. It also assesses the impact and implications of each of the options identified. While some wards will be straightforward and may not require the development of more than one option, others will be complex and several options will be required.

Phase three is public consultation on refined options. It is recommended that this consultation take place through the Community Councils, with each Community Council dealing with those wards within its geographic boundaries. This will ensure a manageable number of meetings, place each ward in a broader geographic context, facilitate feedback from those most impacted by boundary decisions, and simplify the volume and complexity of information to be presented to those in attendance. A communications strategy will be developed for these sessions targeting stakeholder groups and the broader public.

The last phase involves finalizing recommendations as to how existing boundaries can be refined and wards divided. The report will be submitted to Community Councils, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and, ultimately, Council.

The following summarizes the phases and the timeline associated with the boundary review process:

(1) research, analysis and preliminary stakeholder May/June 1998;

consultation

(2) development of boundary options July/August/September 1998;

(3) public consultation September/October 1998;

(4) development of Boundary recommendations November/December 1998; and

(5) report Review and Approval Process December 1998/January 1999.

This timeline permits the submission of Council-approved boundary changes to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing early in 1999, 11 months in advance of the provincial deadline.

Conclusions:

There is a desire for the City of Toronto to move to single member wards by the next municipal election in the year 2000. The most viable way of achieving this is to divide the existing wards in two. These wards comply, for the most part, with common principles for designing political boundaries. This approach minimizes change and, as a result, limits public concern as to the impact on communities of new boundaries.

This report recommends principles through which ward boundaries can be refined and divided and outlines a boundary review process that is inclusive of Members of Council, communities of interest, the public at large and municipal staff. In addition, the process, which complies with provincial requirements for changing wards as defined in the Municipal Act, can be implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner. Changes in the overall size of City Council or implementation of single member ward representation will, however, require amendment to the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

Contact Name:

Ms. Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, 392-8668.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, the recommendations of the final report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled 'New City, New Opportunities', directed, in part, that the following Recommendation No. (21) embodied therein be referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council:

"Recommendation No. (21):

City Council should move to single-member wards for the next term of Council that begins in 2001. At that time, consideration should be given to further refining the community council boundaries to reflect historic associations among neighbourhoods."

The Urban Environment and Developments Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (February 26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council, on February 18, 1998:

(1) considered Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(2) endorsed the principle of splitting the Wards; and

(3) directed that Scarborough Community Council's position on this matter be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and that the Committee be requested to deal with this issue as expeditiously as possible.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested that the City Solicitor report to the Committee on the process necessary to implement this change.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a communication, dated January 15, 1998, from the City Clerk advising that City Council, on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, the recommendations of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, directed, in part, that Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report, pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation, be referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following joint communication (March 5, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, and Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto:

We are writing to you in reference to Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the TorontoTransition Team pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation, which was referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration.

Based on a review of the minutes of the Community Councils, it appears that the issue of one Councillor per ward has caused some confusion as to exactly what process is in place for dealing with Recommendation No. (21).

The York Community Council has voted to defer this item until "later this year". Etobicoke has asked the Clerk to prepare a report on the matter and has indicated a desire for community consultation. The North York Community Council has directed that Legal Services prepare a report on this issue, and East York wants further discussion and a process for dealing with this issue. The Toronto and Scarborough Community Council minutes do not indicate that they have yet dealt with this matter.

It is, therefore, quite apparent that a resolution of this issue is needed that provides for a clear and timely decision from your Committee and ensures that any direction to City staff is co-ordinated. Accordingly, we would ask that the attached motion be considered at the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. Thank you for your consideration.

Moved By: COUNCILLOR NUNZIATA

Seconded By: COUNCILLOR JAKOBEK

WHEREAS the Toronto Transition Team recommended that there be only one Councillor per ward representation for the next term of Council that begins in 2001; and

WHEREAS one Councillor per ward can effectively represent each constituency, similar to an MP or MPP; and

WHEREAS the reduction of the size of the City of Toronto Council by 50 percent would provide significant cost-savings to the taxpayers;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation No. (21) of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation be endorsed by Council;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council now refer this issue to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, which shall direct and oversee appropriate staff in preparing a report on the measures needed to be implemented, in order to ensure that Council can effectively move to single-member wards for the next term of Council.

Ms. Elaine Baxter-Trahair made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and also filed a copy of her presentation material.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton;

- Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial;

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber;

- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber; and

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.

(City Council on April 16, 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report is to bring Council up to date regarding the petition to divide the City into 22 wards.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council determine that the petition is not properly before Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As indicated in the report dated April 14, 1998 from the City Solicitor and me, my staff was checking to confirm that at least 150 signatures on the petition were those of electors.

Staff checked the voters' list from the 1997 municipal elections to determine if there were 150 electors signing the petition. They were only able to verify that 135 of the signatures were on the voters' list.

Conclusions:

As we have indicated, section 13.2 of the Municipal Act requires that the petition contain the signatures of 150 electors. Accordingly, the petition, in our view, is not properly before Council.

Contact Name:

Denis Kelly, Interim Lead, Elections and Legislative Services, 392-8019.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 7, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To respond to Committee requests for information regarding ward boundary review issues.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council receive this report for information.

Council Reference:

During consideration of a report on the ward boundary review process at its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk to submit a report directly to Council on April 16, 1998, regarding:

(i) the pros and cons of allowing variations in ward population size of plus or minus 25 percent from the average; and

(ii) the pros and cons of using a single voters' list.

Discussion:

Variations from Average Ward Population Size:

In approving ward boundaries, the Ontario Municipal Board's foremost principle is that all wards be approximately equal in population to ensure equality of representation within a municipality.

Recognizing that ward boundaries will remain in effect for a number of years, the OMB allows for variances in ward population size to account for: projected or expected population change (typically growth) in specific areas; the preservation of communities; and large areas with relatively low population densities. Inequalities in population size between wards thus reflect longer-term considerations or special local needs.

The appropriate degree of variance from the average cannot be "scientifically" derived. The aim is to restrict the variance in population size while retaining enough flexibility to accommodate communities of interest, physical features, and changing demographics.

Allowing for a plus or minus 25 percent variance from the average ward population has long been the norm in Ontario and other Canadian jurisdictions. The current City of Toronto ward boundaries were premised on a plus or minus 25 percent variance. In 1987, Metro Council recommended to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that this figure be adopted for the new Metro wards. The recommendation was based on provincial and federal guidelines for determining electoral districts and a research poll where two-thirds of the councillors voted for a plus or minus 25 percent variance and one-third voted for a less than 25 percent variance. The Province subsequently instructed the area municipalities to draw the new ward boundaries using the plus or minus 25 percent figure.

If the existing wards were divided into two, as recommended in the March 12, 1998 report from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, simply on the basis of population size and not accounting for other principles recommended in the report to govern the boundary review process, several of the new wards would still exceed the 25 percent variance from the average ward population size.

A variance of plus or minus 25 percent from the average ward population size balances equity and efficiency objectives. A figure larger than plus or minus 25 percent would undermine the principle of equality of representation. Citizens in the largest wards would have less access to their councillor, who in turn would face a larger ward-related workload. However, a figure larger than plus or minus 25 percent might better address community needs and would reduce the need for frequent boundary adjustments.

A figure smaller than plus or minus 25 percent would improve the equality of representation. Relative to the above case, citizens would have better access to their councillor, who would have a smaller ward-related workload. However, a figure smaller than plus or minus 25 percent lacks the flexibility to respond to changes in population arising from unevenly distributed growth and might result in fragmented communities. As well, the need for more frequent boundary adjustments would be increased.

A tighter plus or minus 15 percent variance, which emphasizes population size as opposed to community considerations, has been cited in recent federal, provincial, and OMB cases.

Pros and Cons of Using a Single Voters' List:

A single voters' list is designed to contain all applicable voter information for federal, provincial and municipal elections.

The Federal Government recently passed amendments to the Canada Elections Act providing for a National Register of Electors. This will be an automated database of qualified federal electors. The Register contains each elector's name, mailing address, municipal address, gender and date of birth. It can be updated using federal and provincial data bases.

This is significant because the Register could serve as a useful foundation for, or be combined with, the municipal voters' list. The Register will keep track of the approximately 20 percent change in elector information each year. It will do this by using data generated by income tax returns, drivers' licenses, citizenship papers and vital statistics. Unfortunately, the Register will not contain information about the five kinds of school support that is so important in a municipal election. This could be supplied from the municipal tax roll. The municipal tax roll could be combined with the Register to form a voters' list which is current within about three months. Amendments to the list during the revision period would bring the list up to date to the extent possible.

One major advantage of a single voters' list is cost. It would save the costs of enumeration. We understand that these are about $30 million for a federal election, $14 million for a provincial election, and about $10 million for the last municipal elections in Ontario. The ability to access current data would also make a single voters' list more accurate than the enumeration process. This is particularly true when compared to a mail-in enumeration tied to the assessment roll, as in the case of municipal elections in Ontario.

There are still some potential roadblocks to having a single voters' list. Privacy concerns would have to be addressed. The legislation would have to be amended to allow municipalities to access federal and provincial data and to use current municipal data in areas such as tax rolls and burial permits. Partnerships would have to be negotiated with the federal and provincial government and may have financial implications. Permanent staff may have to be hired to update and maintain the list. In our view the Province should allocate savings from the elimination of enumeration to allow for this staff. Coordinating access to the data within restricted election time frames could be a challenge.

Having a single voters' list would not necessarily mean a change to wards based on federal or provincial ridings. The data on a single voters' list could easily be manipulated to apply to municipal wards that do not mirror federal or provincial ridings.

Conclusions:

This report provides information regarding the pros and cons of allowing variations of plus or minus 25 percent in average ward population, and the pros and cons of using a single voters' list.

Contact Names:

Paul Hamilton, Planning Division, 392-8126; and

Denis Kelly, Clerk's Division, 395-7372.

This report has been prepared in consultation with the Interim Functional Lead for Planning.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (April 8, 1998) from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report advises Council of our receipt of a petition requesting Council to pass a by-law redividing the City into 22 wards using the Federal Government riding boundaries.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be receive for information

Background:

On March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Development Committee approved, with amendment, a joint report from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that, among other things, the City undertake a process to refine and divide existing City wards to create single member representation by the next municipal election. This report also recommends principles and a process for reviewing ward boundaries. This report will be considered by Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998.

On April 7, 1998 we received a petition containing about 315 signatures. The petition asks Council "to redivide the City of Toronto into wards of the same size as the Federal Government riding boundaries within the said City". In other words, the petition is requesting Council to approve a 22-ward model.

Subsection 13.2(1) of the Municipal Act provides that electors in a local municipality may present Council with a petition asking Council to pass a by-law dividing or redividing the municipality into wards or dissolving the existing wards. The petition must contain the signatures of 150 electors. Any of the electors who signed the petition can apply to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not pass a by-law in accordance with the petition within 30 days after receiving the petition. The Ontario Municipal Board would have the authority to make an order dividing or redividing the City into wards or dissolving the existing wards.

Conclusions:

Council should consider this petition in conjunction with the joint report dated March 12, 1998, from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on a ward boundary review process. Anyone who signed the petition can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not pass a by-law in accordance with the petition within 30 days of receipt of the petition.

Contact Name:

Denis Kelly, Interim Lead, Elections and Legislative Services, 392-8019.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (April 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report is to advise Council further regarding the petition to divide the City into 22 wards, and of the legal implications of this petition.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee approved, with amendment, a joint report from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services dated March 12, 1998, recommending that, among other things, the City undertake a process to refine and divide existing City wards to create single member representation by the next municipal election. This report also recommended principles and a process for reviewing ward boundaries. This report will be considered by Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998.

On April 7, 1998, the City Clerk received a petition containing about 315 signatures. The City Clerk is currently checking to confirm that at least 150 of these signatures relate to people who are on the voter's list. The petition asks Council to approve a 22-ward model using the Federal Government riding boundaries. A joint report from the City Clerk and City Solicitor dated April 8, 1998, asking Council to consider the petition in conjunction with the report dated March 12, 1998, will be considered by Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998.

The Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee has requested that the City Clerk and City Solicitor further report to Council at its meeting on April 16, 1998 with respect to a 22-ward system and the legal implications of the petition.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The report dated March 12, 1998, approved, with amendment, by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, considered the implications of a 22-ward system from the perspective of representation by population ratios, representation of communities of interest, and Community Council boundaries. A discussion of the implications of a 22-ward system is contained in the report dated March 12, 1998.

Provided that the petition is signed by 150 electors as required by subsection 13.2(1) of the Municipal Act., the petition may be presented to Council and Council may be asked to pass a by-law redividing the City into 22 wards. Pursuant to subsection 13.2(3) of the Municipal act, if Council does not pass a by-law in accordance with the petition within 30 days after receiving the petition, any of the electors who signed the petition may apply to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board") to have the City redivided into 22 wards.

Under subsection 13.2(4), the Board has the jurisdiction, on hearing the application, to make an order redividing the City into 22 wards, assigning a name or number to each ward, and providing for the composition and number of members elected to any local boards from each ward. The Board, however, has no jurisdiction to change the two councillors per ward system and the 57-member Council as prescribed by the City of Toronto Act, 1997. This would create practical problems for the Board in ordering the redivision of the City of Toronto into 22 wards, should an application under subsection 13.2(3) be made.

Furthermore, upon an application under section 13.2(3), the Board would likely consider a number of issues when determining ward boundaries. These issues include representation by population, protecting communities of interest, planning and other jurisdictional issues such as schools and recreation, historic boundaries, and unique geographical features. The report dated March 12, 1998, and approved with amendment by the Urban Environment and Development Committee indicates that many of the above-mentioned issues are not best addressed by a 22-ward system.

Conclusions:

A 22-ward system along the Federal Government riding boundaries has been considered by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and has not been recommended.

If Council receives the petition without passing a by-law in accordance with the petition, an elector who has signed the petition may apply to the Board for an order redividing the City of Toronto into 22 wards along the Federal Government riding boundaries. The Board has the jurisdiction to order a redividing of wards but lacks the jurisdiction to change the number of councillors elected per ward or the total number of members of Council.

Contact Names:

Christina Hueniken, Solicitor, 392-8429; and

Denis Kelly, Interim Lead, Elections and Legislative Services, 392-8019.)

(City Council, at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Province of Ontario be requested to increase the fine for red-light violations from $105.00 to $200.00;

(2) the Province of Ontario be reminded that the owner of a motor vehicle should be accountable when giving possession of their automobile to someone who drives through red lights; and

(3) the Mayor be requested to follow-up on the report previously requested by City Council at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, by its adoption of a Notice of Motion by Councillor Feldman, seconded by Councillor Fotinos, wherein the Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board was requested to submit a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on the feasibility of a City-run, unarmed constabulary to issue citations for all traffic violations.")

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(A) recommends:

(1) the adoption of the recommendations embodied in the report (March 18, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, viz.:

"That City Council repeat its request to the Province to make the necessary changes to provincial legislation which would:

(a) allow the issuance of a Notice of Violation based on data provided by automatic devices which record the running of a red light; and

(b) allow the City (municipalities) to keep the revenue from fines for any red-light running offence."; and

(2) the adoption of the Motion attached to the communication (March 19, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, viz.:

Moved by: COUNCILLOR NUNZIATA

Seconded by: COUNCILLOR MIHEVC

"WHEREAS in recent weeks accidents at Toronto intersections, which have resulted in one death and serious injuries in the others, have been as a result of drivers running red lights; and

WHEREAS traffic signal running is becoming increasingly prevalent in the City, increasing the chances of future fatalities or injuries to Toronto pedestrians; and

WHEREAS the use of red-light cameras at rotating intersections in other jurisdictions has resulted in a drop in the number of vehicles running red lights;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto endorse the use of red-light cameras at major intersections throughout the City on a rotating or permanent basis as deemed appropriate by staff;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act to provide the legislative authority for the City to implement this traffic safety control measure."; and

(B) submits, for information, the communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown:

Years of experience show that red-light monitoring cameras are a sure-fire way to curb red-light running; but Toronto can use cameras only if the Province makes changes in legislation to:

(a) allow the issuance of a Notice of Violation by automatic devices to the licence plate of the red-light running vehicle; and

(b) allow the City to keep the revenue from fines.

Metropolitan Council at its meeting on September 24 and 25, 1997, during consideration of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 19 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Monitoring of Red-Light Violations at Traffic Control Signals - Status Report No. 2; and Traffic Enforcement of Red-Light Violations", voted to request the Province to make these changes.

Then-Transportation Minister Palladini flatly turned down the request.

Several manufacturers of cameras (including Canadian) are ready to make proposals or tender. The Toronto Police Service strongly supports the use of cameras. Even though last year the Police managed to catch 1,000 red-light runners a month, they know that thousands go undetected everyday. Without the revenue from fines, the City cannot dream of buying the cameras ($70,000.00 a piece) or have the Police operate them. The cameras quickly pay back their capital costs through revenue from fines.

Metro tests show that one in 256 drivers deliberately runs a red light. You are aware of several deaths and two grave injuries in just the last ten days reportedly caused by red-light runners. There is now a new Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Tony Clemens, who seems to be taking a personal interest in traffic safety issues. I would, therefore, suggest that City Council appeal to him on the matter of red-light running.

I would ask your Committee to recommend that City Council repeat its request to the Province to make the necessary changes to provincial legislation which would:

(a) allow the issuance of a Notice of Violation based on data provided by automatic devices which record the running of a red light; and

(b) allow the City (municipalities) to keep the revenue from fines for any red-light running offence.

This request is confined to the offence of red-light running. It does not suggest that the City also be permitted to keep the revenue from fines for other moving violations. Revenue from the latter offences, under provincial law, would continue to be remitted to provincial general revenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 19, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber:

I am sure you have read the recent media reports regarding the spate of accidents occurring as a result of drivers running red lights at certain intersections.

The latest tragedy involved one of my constituents, Irma Barberio, at the intersection of Jane Street and Eglinton Avenue West, located in my constituency of York-Humber. While the Mayor and others have publicly called for the installation of red-light cameras at major intersections in the City, I want to ensure that the request for such cameras is not confined to the media and, in fact, is actually made to the Provincial Government through the appropriate channels as part of the public record.

Accordingly, I am requesting that the attached motion be considered by your Committee with the sense of urgency that this issue deserves.

Thank you for your consideration.

Moved by: COUNCILLOR NUNZIATA

Seconded by: COUNCILLOR MIHEVC

"WHEREAS in recent weeks accidents at Toronto intersections, which have resulted in one death and serious injuries in the others, have been as a result of drivers running red lights; and

WHEREAS traffic signal running is becoming increasingly prevalent in the City, increasing the chances of future fatalities or injuries to Toronto pedestrians; and

WHEREAS the use of red-light cameras at rotating intersections in other jurisdictions has resulted in a drop in the number of vehicles running red lights;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto endorse the use of red-light cameras at major intersections throughout the City on a rotating or permanent basis as deemed appropriate by staff;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act to provide the legislative authority for the City to implement this traffic safety control measure."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park:

I enclose a letter from Ms. Laura McMurchie regarding an innovative red-light camera developed by her brother.

I think it would be appropriate to consider requesting a report on this issue at the same time that the red-light camera issue is dealt with at your Committee.

I understand you are committed to resolving the problem of drivers running red-lights and plan to engage the Provincial Government in finding a way of reducing the number of traffic tragedies. I have an idea which you and Premier Harris might find interesting.

The current technology being discussed would ticket red-light violators. This would certainly be a deterrent but wouldn't necessarily have prevented this week's fatal and near-fatal accidents. Had there been traffic-cams at these intersections, the violators would soon be receiving tickets in the mail but the victims would not have suffered any less.

My brother, Neil McMurchie, is a mechanical engineer with a specialty in computer automation. While working for an imaging technology company in the United States, he designed an "intelligent" digital camera system which could:

- monitor the speed of traffic and detect if a car is going too fast to stop before the light turns red. The system would then delay the green light for cross-traffic for up to five seconds. This means that all four lights would be red when a car drives through an intersection against traffic signals;

- dial a certain number using cellular phone technology and alert police if a car had gone through several red lights;

- continuously download images to a central computer, enabling police to monitor intersections for accidents and to track dangerous drivers; and

- would also photograph cars which run red-lights, permitting police to ticket violators.

This system's software could be adapted to the technology currently in use at police stations.

Neil has a history of creating innovative computer-automated equipment--under budget. Please call me if you want to learn more about how his system could reduce traffic injuries and fatalities in Toronto.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown; and

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber.

(City Council on April 16, 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint communication (March 19, 1998) submitted by Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, addressed to Mayor Hazel McCallion, City of Mississauga and Chair of the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee, from the Minister of Transportation and the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services:

Thank you for advising us of the resolution passed by the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee at your January meeting indicating support for the introduction of photo enforcement technologies at the municipal level.

It is a priority of this government to keep the roadways safe for the travelling public. Our government shares your concern about aggressive driving behaviours, including drivers running red lights and speeding and the serious safety hazard of these behaviours. It is for this reason that the Ministries of Transportation and Solicitor General and Correctional Services, over the past year, have undertaken a review of the policy on photo enforcement technologies. The result of this review is that it continues to be the Government's position, as expressed upon the cancellation of photo radar, that it is essential to hold drivers responsible for any moving violations under the Highway Traffic Act. It is not only the assignment of fines but the accumulation of demerit points and consequent sanctions, such as higher insurance rates, that serve as a strong deterrent to the continuance of aggressive driving behaviours by drivers caught disobeying traffic laws.

Unfortunately, it is our understanding that current technology does not allow this goal to be achieved. We are, however, willing to consider proposals to introduce red light cameras if a municipality can demonstrate the following:

- the program identifies and charges only the driver with the offence, not the vehicle owner;

- the program is acceptable to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner; and

- municipalities pay for provincial services required to assist in the administration of the program on a cost recovery basis.

We continue to share strong common interest in improving road safety, including reducing the instances of red-light running. The Ministry of Transportation will continue to ensure its public education and community road safety marketing programs address the problem of drivers who choose to run red lights.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (March 18, 1998) from the Chairperson, Red Light Task Force, Scarborough Safety V.I.N.E. (Vehicle Injury-Prevention Network & Exchange), expressing concern about the issue of red light running and forwarding information on V.I.N.E., together with a summary of V.I.N.E.'s Drivers' Safety Survey Report; and

(ii) (April 8, 1998) from Mr. R. Iannone, Communications, Canadian Driver's Awareness Society, requesting that City Council consider exploring the benefits of making it mandatory for all drivers guilty of running a red light to attend a driver awareness course; and

(iii) (September 15, 1996) addressed to Councillor Anne Johnston, from Dr. Robin P. Humphreys, Neurosurgeon-in-Chief, The Hospital for Sick Children, in support of surveillance cameras at intersections.)

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, March 23 and 24, 1998

(Report No. 4A of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998.)

Clause Page

1 Ward Boundary Review Process. 3219

2 Monitoring of Red-Light Violations
at Traffic Control Signals. 3240