town of ajax report · 2018. 11. 15. · town of ajax report report to: general government...

TOWN OF AJAX REPORT REPORT TO: General Government Committee SUBMITTED BY: Nicole Wellsbury Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk PREPARED BY: Alexander Harras Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Ward Boundary Review – Results of Public Consultations WARD(S): All DATE OF MEETING: March 20th, 2017 REFERENCE: GGC Report, October 11, 2016 – ‘Ward Boundary Review Terms of

Reference & Proposed Ward Boundary Models’

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the report titled ‘Ward Boundary Review – Results of Public Consultations’ be received for information.

BACKGROUND: In late 2016, the Region of Durham announced that the new Regional Council composition had received the necessary triple majority approval in order to be officially in effect for the 2018 Municipal Elections. As of the 2018 Municipal Elections, the Town of Ajax will receive one additional seat on Durham Regional Council, necessitating a change to Ajax Council’s composition and the Town’s ward boundaries. On October 11, 2016, General Government Committee received a report outlining the terms of reference and proposed options for the Town of Ajax 2016/17 Ward Boundary Review. The report and terms of reference established a public consultation phase to begin in January of 2017 and to conclude by March of 2017, in order to generate feedback from the public regarding how Ajax residents envision the Town’s new three-ward system. Council approved the Terms of Reference and selected seven options to proceed to public consultation. The public consultation phase of the Ward Boundary Review project consisted of three public open house meetings between January and February at each of the Town’s community centres, as well as on-line and print advertising throughout this period. The Town’s website featured a Ward Boundary Review sub-site that shared past reports, background information, details on all proposed ward boundary options, and answered commonly asked questions. Residents were invited to submit their comments through a feedback survey, available both on-line and in print format. School boards were formally notified and invited to comment as well, as school boards have the option to use the Town’s wards to elect their members. While several school board

Subject: Ward Boundary Review – Results of Public Consultations P a g e | 2

trustees actively participated in the public consultation sessions, no official responses from the school boards have been received to date. On February 8th, 2017, Statistics Canada released the population and dwelling counts from the 2016 national census. This information was used to update population data for the ward boundary options presented during the public consultations. Approximately 50 individuals attended the Town’s public consultation sessions, and 130 responses to the feedback survey were received. The results of the feedback survey and public consultation sessions are presented in this report and are intended to provide Council with information about the general preferences of the public towards the options available and the factors considered most important when designing the Town’s wards. A final recommendation report will be presented at the Community Affairs and Planning Committee (CAP) meeting on April 3rd, 2017, at which time it is expected that Council will make a decision regarding the Town’s three-ward model for the 2018 municipal elections. This will be a public meeting setting where members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Committee and provide final input.

DISCUSSION: The survey asked questions regarding the following subjects:

Guiding principles that survey respondents felt were most important to follow

Which communities respondents felt belonged in the same ward with their own

Which ward boundary options they preferred, and why

Other factors that should be considered when designing the Town’s wards Guiding Principles Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of the guiding principles used in the ward boundary review process according to a scale of high, medium, or low importance. For reference, the guiding principles used in the Ward Boundary Review are as follows:

Representation by Population o All wards should have roughly equal population sizes. This ensures that each

resident’s voice at Council is fairly represented.

Current and Future Population Trends o The wards should balance populations today and into the future. Changing the

ward system too frequently isn't desirable; it's important that the ward system continues to work into the future as Ajax grows.

Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods o Wherever possible, boundary lines should be drawn to include whole communities

and neighbourhoods, not divide them between multiple wards. This ensures that council members represent distinct areas that have common interests.

Physical Features as Natural Boundaries o Using features such as roads, rail lines, transportation corridors, rivers and creeks,

and other identifiers will ensure that ward boundaries are clear, relatively straight, and easy to understand.


Respondents provided the following feedback about the importance of each guiding principle:

Respondents indicated that they valued representation by population most highly, while the other principles were of relatively even importance. More respondents indicated that clear boundaries were of low importance to them compared to the other guiding principles. Additionally, respondents provided feedback on other subjects to consider. The following comments received were indicative of feedback heard from respondents:

Businesses, services & public amenities o “Public services workloads - i.e. each boundary ward requires the same amount of

resources to provide services” o “Have a Recreation Activity site in each ward. Have a library in each ward if

possible.” o “Business to residence ratio”

Unifying or dividing existing communities and neighbourhoods o “Neighbours should be in the same ward. That's why the physical boundaries are

so important. It should be a major road or physical boundary. I shouldn't be in a different ward from my neighbour across the street. We would have shared interests and concerns that make it important to group neighbours together.”

o “Having wards that combine old and new neighborhoods. North South lines rather than east west.”

Composition of Council and method of election

o “As you are going from four to three, you need to make sure that the councillors that are elected can manage a higher population in their individual ward.”

o “Since the Town is undertaking a Ward Boundary review, I think it would be appropriate at this time to also address the question of electing our Regional Councillors at large and get feedback from residents on this issue.”

With respect to businesses, municipal services, and public amenities, ward boundaries only establish the means by which the community chooses its representatives on local and regional Councils, and sometimes school boards. Changes to the ward boundary structure will not

68%54% 58%

52%

28%

36% 29%

24%

4%10% 13%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Representation ByPopulation

Future Population Trends Communities of Interest Physical Features asBoundaries

Importance of Guiding Principles

High Medium Low


materially affect how municipal services or amenities are provided. Similarly, the presence or absence of municipal facilities and public spaces such as libraries and community centres in certain wards does not prevent residents from other wards from attending and utilizing the services at those locations. Regarding the arrangement of wards to unify or divide existing neighbourhoods, comments were received on both sides of this issue. Many respondents argued that identifiable areas should be unified under singular wards in order to ensure that the interests of residents in that area have a clear voice on Council. Conversely, some respondents suggested that the Town’s north, middle and south areas should be divided between the three wards to ensure that ward councillors consider the interests of all residents when making decisions. This subject will be addressed in greater detail in the final recommendations report on April 3rd, 2017. Some comments were received through the survey and during the public consultation sessions regarding the composition of Council and method of election for regional council seats, specifically regarding Council size and electing regional councillors at large rather than by ward. These matters were addressed early in the process through a report to the General Government Committee on June 13, 2016. Council resolved to remain at seven members, consisting of three regional councillors, three ward councillors, and the mayor. Additionally, Council resolved to continue electing regional councillors by ward. While these issues are beyond the scope of the ward boundary review presently being undertaken, they will be addressed in greater detail in the final recommendations report. Communities of Interest & Neighbourhoods Respondents were asked to indicate which neighbourhood they were located in, and which of the surrounding neighbourhoods they felt were most appropriate to be included with theirs in a singular ward. Responses were received from almost all neighbourhoods across Ajax, and were well distributed between neighbourhoods north and south of the 401.

Applecroft7% Audley

4%Carruthers Creek

2%

Clover Ridge9%

Discovery Bay11%

Downtown4%

Duffins Bay4%

Hermitage5%

Lakeside7%

Lake Vista2%

Meadow Ridge2%

Memorial Village5%

Midtown5%

Nottingham2%

Pickering Beach4%

Riverside5%

Salem Heights6%

Southwood2%

Village3%

Westney Heights9%

Don't Know / Not Listed

2%

Respondents' Neighbourhoods


The Town’s 23 neighbourhood catchment areas identified in the 2013 Strong Neighbourhood Strategy were used to define the Town’s communities and neighbourhoods. The purpose of the question was to determine which areas of the Town respondents viewed as contiguous communities. Based on the responses, the following contiguous areas were identified: Area 1: South Ajax

Many respondents indicated strong connections between the communities in southern Ajax. Some respondents indicated connections between the midtown area and southern Ajax as well.

North of 401, 54%

South of 401, 44%

Distribution of Respondents North/South of 401


Area 2: West Ajax

Respondents indicated strong connections between neighbourhoods from the western boundary of Ajax and proceeding east to Harwood Avenue. Respondents indicated connections with both the Meadow Ridge and Midtown areas as well, though these connections were less evident than between the Riverside, Hermitage, Westney Heights, Village and Applecroft neighbourhoods. Area 3: Northeast Ajax


Respondents in the Audley and Salem Heights neighbourhoods indicated a strong connection with one another, including the Nottingham neighbourhood to the west along Rossland Road. Generally speaking, Council should be mindful of these community affiliations when selecting ward boundaries that may unify or divide these areas. Preferred Ward Boundary Options Respondents were asked to identify which of the seven options they preferred, in no particular order. Respondents could select as many options as they liked for this question. Additionally, respondents were asked if there was a particular option that was their favourite and what features they liked about that option. If respondents had no preferred option, they were asked to explain why. The seven options received the following support:

No particular option enjoyed significantly greater preference than any other. With respect to which singular option respondents liked best, a slightly clearer answer emerged:

Option A14%

Option B15%

Option C13%

Option D16%

Option E22%

Option F13%

Option G7%

Preferred Ward Boundary Options

Option A14%

Option B12%

Option C14%

Option D14%

Option E29%

Option F7%

Option G10%

Favourite Ward Boundary Option


Option E was the favourite amongst a plurality of respondents, though no option enjoyed majority support. Options F and G were the least favourite. Respondents provided a wide range of comments with respect to why they liked particular options, some of which are highlighted below. For reference, options A through G are included in ATT-1 to this report, and have been updated to reflect the 2016 census data. Option A:

“I feel that Option A keeps the traditional neighbourhoods of Ajax in one ward, as they share issues that will be different from the expanding areas of Ajax.”

“Residents in older parts of Ajax have different concerns than those in newer parts of Ajax” Option B:

“The boundaries seem more clearer/even to me”

“I think it reflects the unique features of the various areas of Ajax.” Option C:

“It appears to me to be the most appropriate combination of population balance, community relevance and commonality”

“Establishes Highway 401 as a major boundary and minimizes ward extension north of 401. Respects the west to east, lakeshore community of interest.”

Option D:

“D satisfies both the North and South feel to the Town while preserving the heritage of Pickering village.”

“It keeps the historic Pickering Village and related areas together, and provides a clean north/south split of the rest of the town.”

“It looks like it takes into consideration boundaries and population and neighbourhoods the best.”

Option E:

“As a resident south of the 401 I feel there is a distinct difference between north and south Ajax and would like to be represented as such”

“It follows the 401 (a simple and logical boundary), thus gathering most of the historic and historically active part of the town within it.”

“Equal population and keeps geographical issues as best as can be… north, middle and south Ajax”

Option F:

“Allows at least two wards to influence/direct opinions towards the waterfront decisions”

“I like that the boundaries don’t pit north and south Ajax and promote inclusion.” Option G:

“G would give the reps a better overall view of Ajax. Something is needed to integrate south and north.”

“Both F and G transverse the great north/south divide the best. However, G is probably better as it commences and maintains the best population size balance”

Other Comments Lastly, respondents were asked if there were any other comments they wished to share. Some of the comments received included the following:


“It is about time, given our population growth that Ajax had more of a voice on regional council. The ward realignment is a positive and necessary step”

“Can it be put in place that the boundaries be reviewed every X number of years 5 or 7 but not more frequently”

“The issues in north Ajax are different than those in south Ajax which is why I prefer a horizontal alignment.”

“I think it is very important to have the Wartime homes north of the 401 on both west & east side of Harwood in a single ward. The residents of that community fought to keep their homes & community in the 1940's. They need to be reunited into one ward to preserve their heritage.”

“People from similar areas are more likely to speak to each other and meet each other in public spaces. North/South Wards make no sense to me.”

“Keep the Canadian mosaic in mine. VERY IMPORTANT.”

“Thank you for making it easier for community members to participate in this process online so easily.”

Peer Review To ensure that the Town has followed an appropriate process that is in keeping with best practices, a peer reviewer was retained to assess the process followed by staff and independently evaluate the ward boundary options. Dr. Andrew Sancton and Dr. Timothy Cobban were retained to perform this task. They are both highly regarded experts in the field of municipal governance and are well versed in electoral boundaries and democratic reform, having participated and led ward boundary reviews for several other municipalities as well as participated in provincial riding re-districting in Ontario. Initial comments from the peer review on staff’s process are included as ATT-2 to this report and confirm that the Ward Boundary Review exercise has followed best practices and industry standards established for this exercise. A full report from the peer reviewers will be included with the final report and recommendations, which will comment on the defensibility of each option presented during the public consultation process and their recommendations regarding the most appropriate option for Ajax. Next Steps Recommendations for approval of the Town’s new ward boundaries will return to the Community Affairs and Planning Committee (CAP) meeting on April 3rd, 2017. This will be a public meeting where members of the public may address the Committee on this matter before the Committee makes its decision. It is expected that staff will recommend 2-3 options for final consideration and will comment on the defensibility of each option and the reasons for their selection. Following the Committee’s decision, the necessary by-laws will then be brought to the Council meeting on April 18th, 2017 for approval. A 45-day appeal period begins after a notice of passing for the by-laws has been published, wherein any person may appeal Council’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Following the expiration of the appeal period or a decision of the board through a hearing, the Town’s new ward system will be in place for the 2018 Municipal Elections.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications resulting from the recommendations of this report. The public consultation component of the Ward Boundary Review was conducted in-house using resources from the Town’s Legislative Services, Information Technology Services, and Communications teams. Project costs will be summarized in the final recommendations report.


COMMUNICATION ISSUES: This report provides information on the results of the public feedback process, which will be used to inform the subsequent report that will propose final recommendations for the Town’s new ward boundaries. All reports will be posted to the Town’s Ward Boundary Review webpage for review by residents in advance of consideration of the final recommendations on April 3rd, 2017. Notice of the upcoming public meeting on April 3rd, 2017, was published online and in the Ajax News Advertiser throughout the month of March, advising members of the public of the final opportunity to provide comment. Additionally, all survey respondents were notified by e-mail of the public meeting opportunity.

CONCLUSION: Residents were asked to provide their feedback on how the Town’s new three ward system should be designed. The Town received 130 responses through the feedback survey and approximately 50 individuals attended the public consultation sessions. The feedback received was rich and informative, providing a wealth of information about residents’ views that will help shape the final recommendations for Ajax’s new three ward system.

ATTACHMENTS: ATT-1 Ajax Ward Boundary Review Options A through G ATT-2 Peer Reviewers’ Initial Comments

Nicole Wellsbury – Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk

Alexander Harras – Manager of Legislative Services / Deputy Clerk

Ajax Ward Boundary Review

35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION A

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION A

2016 2021 2031

37.5k40.5k

46.4k 45.2k41.6k

47.6k 47.5k43.2k

39.0k

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3

2016 2021 2031Ward Area (ha) Pop. Target Pop. Target Pop. Target

1 1,740 37,493 -6% 40,540 -8% 41,608 -9%

2 3,166 43,166 8% 46,376 5% 47,632 4%

3 2,175 39,018 -2% 45,249 3% 47,512 4%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 5,673 15% 5,835 14% 6,024 14%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION B

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION B

2016 2021 2031

38.1k 40.9k45.6k 45.6k

42.1k46.9k 47.8k

42.9k38.7k



1 1,883 38,064 -5% 40,919 -7% 42,077 -8%

2 2,662 42,933 8% 45,628 4% 46,884 3%

3 2,536 38,680 -3% 45,619 4% 47,791 5%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 4,869 13% 4,708 12% 5,713 14%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION C

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION C

2016 2021 2031

40.9k43.9k 42.6k

45.6k 45.1k 46.9k44.8k42.9k

35.9k



1 1,963 40,886 2% 43,910 0% 45,068 -1%

2 2,662 42,933 8% 45,628 4% 46,884 3%

3 2,456 35,858 -10% 42,628 -3% 44,800 -2%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 7,075 20% 3,000 7% 2,085 5%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION D

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION D

2016 2021 2031

41.2k 42.1k45.6k44.5k 42.2k

46.8k 47.8k

39.8k 38.7k



1 1,178 41,200 3% 42,072 -5% 42,162 -8%

2 3,367 39,797 0% 44,475 1% 46,800 3%

3 2,536 38,680 -3% 45,619 4% 47,791 5%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 2,520 7% 3,547 8% 5,628 13%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION E

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION E

2016 2021 2031

40.8k 44.3k 44.3k 43.6k46.6k

44.3k 45.8k42.1k

36.8k



1 2,981 40,765 2% 44,332 1% 46,646 2%

2 1,688 42,096 6% 44,258 0% 44,258 -3%

3 2,413 36,816 -8% 43,586 -1% 45,848 1%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 5,280 14% 736 2% 2,388 5%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION F

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION F

2016 2021 2031

41.4k45.4k 46.4k

40.4k

48.7k

40.4k

47.6k

37.8k40.5k



1 2,512 41,351 4% 45,395 3% 48,725 7%

2 1,637 37,821 -5% 40,417 -8% 40,417 -11%

3 2,933 40,505 2% 46,353 5% 47,610 4%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 3,530 9% 5,936 15% 8,308 21%


35180926

35180887

35180915

35180548

35180586

35181084

35180591

35180356

35180922

35181078

35181067

35180583

35180406

35180829

35181080

35180889

35181081

35180924

35180890

35180892

35181072

35180834

35180409

35181076

35180808

35180566

35180551

35180394

35181079

35181083

3518035835180405

35180899

35181066

35181077

35180891

35181040

35180375

35180404

35181082

35181085

35180593

35180588

35181069

35180913

35180403

35180361

35180568

35180368

35180908

35180408

35180397

35180562

35180921

35181065

35180381

35180366

35180365

35181052

35180573

35180372

35181071

35181070

35180560

35180549

35180363

35180564

35180567

35180581

35180555

35180828

35180380

35180401

35180385

35180914

35180399

35180407

35180382

35180827

35180590

35180357

35180833

35181055

35180373

35180589

35180916

35180582

35181068

35180920

35181038

35180371

35180934

35180563

35180936

3518036435180360

35180940

35180938

35180909

35181039

35180359

35180556

35180393

35180584

35180398

35180392

35180389

35180935

35180557

35180525

35180570

35180937

35180585

35180569

35180918

35180554

35181053

35180391

35180576

35180402

35180912

35180905

35180369

35180553

35180574

35180910

35180939

35180911

35180388

35180919

35180550

35180558

35180362

35180571

35180400

35180907

35180370

35180374

35180559

35180383

3518090635180917

35181051

35180941

35180565

35180367

35180925

35180893

35180895

35180901

35180903

35180894

35180943

35180900

35180587

35180896

35180897

35180898

35180942

35180902

35180904

CH

UR

CH

WE

ST

NE

Y

SA

LEM

LAK

E R

IDG

E

TAUNTON

ROSSLAND

KINGSTON/HWY 2

HWY 401

BAYLY

RA

VE

NS

CR

OFT

HA

RW

OO

D

AU

DLE

Y

PIC

KE

RIN

G B

EA

CH

SH

OA

L P

OIN

T

OPTION G

Ajax Ward Boundary ReviewOPTION G

2016 2021 2031

40.4k43.7k 44.0k44.5k 44.8k 46.7k 45.2k

41.2k38.1k



1 2,341 40,431 1% 43,665 -1% 44,823 -2%

2 1,444 41,151 3% 44,525 1% 46,697 2%

3 3,297 38,095 -5% 43,975 0% 45,232 -1%

Total 7,082 119,677 132,165 136,752

Pop. Target 39,892 44,055 45,584

Diff. Lrg to Sml 3,056 8% 860 2% 1,874 4%

Ajax Ward Boundary Review Peer Review

Preliminary Report In November 2016, we were hired by the Town of Ajax to conduct a peer review of the staff-led Ward Boundary Review. Our main tasks are to evaluate and review the process and methodology of the Ward Boundary Review, review all project work performed by staff, provide written advice for strengthening the project, and provide professional assistance in the event that the outcome of the project is appealed to the OMB. The purpose of this report is to provide our preliminary comments on the project thus far. It is a brief document for two reasons. First, we are reserving our more substantive comments for our final report, which we will submit to staff in approximately two weeks. Second, there is simply not much for us to say at this point, other than to commend staff for conducting an exemplary review. The guiding principles for the review are conventional and sound. The proposed ward boundary models flow logically from those principles, and are informed by accurate data. The public engagement component is appropriate for a boundary review of this nature: the project website is clear and informative; the citizen survey is well-designed; and the public meetings—both in number and format—are more than suitable. The population figures deserve special mention. When conducting ward boundary reviews, it is crucial to use the accurate data available to estimate current and projected ward population levels. In most cases, this means combining available census population data with development information from planning and building departments. That is precisely what Town staff have done. They have even incorporated the 2016 census population figures when they were released in early February. The Town of Ajax will be one of the few municipalities (and perhaps even the only one) to elect councillors in the 2018 municipal election through ward boundaries based on the 2016 census. It is also worth mentioning that the Ajax WBR has been well-served by developing and proposing ward boundary models where no ward has a population that exceeds the average by 10% or more. Although citizens may support the principle of representation-by-population—at least in the abstract—those that participate in electoral boundary reviews invariably seeking to adjust boundaries in ways that make them less equal, not more. By beginning with wards roughly equal in size, it is possible to consider such arguments and make changes without having to grossly violate voter equity. Obviously, this can lead to new or revised ward boundary models, which some believe must be presented again to the public. In our professional opinion, this is unnecessary, not the least because the logical extension of this view is a commitment to seemingly endless rounds of public participation. More to the point, we can identify a number a ward boundary reviews (including one of our own) that recommended options that were developed following public consultation. Our position is also well-supported by existing OMB decisions on cases involving municipal ward boundaries.

AHarras

Typewritten Text

ATT-2

Prepared by: Dr. Andrew Sancton Dr. Timothy Cobban 434 St. George St. 797 Hellmuth Ave. London, ON London, ON N6A 3B4 N6A 3T6 519.619.3646 519.709.1757 [email protected] [email protected]

February 24, 2017

town of ajax report · 2018. 11. 15. · town of ajax report report to: general government...

Documents