HomeMy WebLinkAboutLGS-002-21Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: January 4, 2021 Report Number: LGS-002-21
Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: GG-015-21, C-014-21
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Ward Boundary Review — Final Report
Recommendations:
1. That Report LGS-002-21 be received;
2. That the Final Report on Clarington's Ward Boundary Review, of Watson &
Associates Economists Ltd., be received;
3. That, should Committee wish to change Clarington's Ward Boundaries, Council
directs Staff to prepare a by-law for the January 18, 2020 Council meeting for Ward
Boundary Option ; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-002-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report LGS-002-21
Report Overview
Page 2
This Report provides background information on Clarington's Ward Boundary Review,
including the final report from the consultants and public engagement. The final report
includes recommendations from the Consultants, based on information gathered to date, on
different options for ward boundaries within Clarington. This Report also contains
information on the next steps of the project.
1. Background
Council Direction
1.1 In November, 2016, arising out of Report CLD-036-16, Council approved the following
Resolution #GG-574-16:
That Report CLD-036-16 be received;
That Council authorize a ward boundary review;
That the ward boundary review be undertaken by Staff in 2019 such that any
recommended ward boundary changes may be considered by Council such that
they can be in effect for the 2022 Municipal Elections;
That all interested parties be advised of Council's decision.
1.2 In 2019, the Provincial government undertook a Regional Governance Review project
which may have resulted in an effect on Clarington and ultimately the ward boundary
review. As a result, the Ward Boundary Review was delayed until after the release of
the Regional Governance Review, which took place October 25, 2019. The Review did
not affect Clarington, so the Ward Boundary Review proceeded.
1.3 Since there was a delay between 2016 and 2020, Staff canvassed other municipalities
to gather an understanding of work involved and possible costs. As a result, it was
determined that Staff do not have the experience or resources to undertake the review
in-house.
1.4 Based on the review, Staff estimated that costs had increased since 2016 (from
$50,000 to $65,000), Staff included the item in the 2020 Budget with a recommendation
to use $50,000 from the Election Reserve and $15,000 from tax levy. This matter was
approved at the March 2, 2020 Council meeting, as part of the budget.
Municipality of Clarington
Report LGS-002-21
Page 3
1.5 With the approval of Report COD-014-20 on May 4, 2020, regarding the Request for
Proposal (RFP) for the Ward Boundary Review, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd
(Watson) were awarded the contract.
1.6 Watson submitted their interim report as part of Report CLD-014-20 to the Joint
Committees Meeting of September 14, 2020, which was received for information.
2. Next Steps
2.1 Based on the recommendations contained in Watson's Final Report (Attachment 1),
Council may choose to either:
• Adopt one of the proposed options and direct Staff to prepare a by-law for the
January 18, 2020 Council meeting; or
• Direct the Consultants to prepare a different option (NOTE: This work is
outside of the scope of the RFP and would require further funds.); or
• Direct the Consultants to obtain further public engagement (NOTE: This work
is outside of the scope of the RFP and would require further funds.); or
• Receive the report for information (resulting in an end to the Ward Boundary
Review process).
2.2 Should Council decide to make a change to the Clarington ward boundaries, and the
by-law is passed at the January 18, 2021 Council, and if there is no appeal, the end of
the appeal period will be complete by the third week of March. If there is a delay in
Council's consideration of the final report, or passing a by-law, or there is an appeal, the
process is lengthened.
2.3 As noted in Report CLD-014-020, although legislatively, any changes to ward
boundaries need to be in place prior to December 31, 2021, realistically any changes
need to be in place (including the appeal period) by May 1, 2021 in time for planning of
the 2022 municipal elections. This timing is necessary because the Clerk's Procedures
for the Municipal Elections must be in place prior to December 31, 2021, in accordance
with the Municipal Act. The creation of the Clerk's Procedures will be more of a "from
scratch" approach due to the switch to internet/telephone voting and therefore will take
time to research and develop.
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
Municipality of Clarington
Report LGS-002-21
4. Conclusion
Page 4
It is respectfully recommended that Council provide direction on what action to take
regarding the recommendations on the Ward Boundary Review.
Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, 905-623-3379 ext. 2102 or
jgallagher@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Ward Boundary Review — Final Report from Watson
Interested Parties:
Persons subscribed to the webpage, www.clarington.net/wardboundarvreview
Committees and Groups that took an interest in the process, or participated in the
consultation process:
• Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington
• Clarington's Accessibility Advisory Committee
• Clarington's Diversity Advisory Committee
• Bowmanville Older Adult Association
Attachment 1 to Report LGS-002-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
December 14, 2020 info@watsonecon.ca
In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams and
Dr. Zachary Spicer
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction and Study Objectives...................................................................1
2. Context................................................................................................................1
3. Project Structure and Timeline..........................................................................3
4. The Discussion Paper and Interim Report .......................................................
3
5. Population and Growth Trends.........................................................................4
5.1 Historical and Existing Population..............................................................5
5.2 Population Forecast, 2020 to 2030............................................................
7
6. Public Engagement............................................................................................
8
6.1 Online Engagement...................................................................................
9
6.1.1 Website.........................................................................................
9
6.1.2 Surveys.........................................................................................9
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement..........................................................
12
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions...................................................................
12
6.3 Interviews and Direct Community Outreach .............................................
13
7. Principles..........................................................................................................14
8. Clarington's Existing Ward Structure.............................................................14
9. Recommended Options...................................................................................18
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions.....................................................................
25
AppendixA................................................................................................................
A-1
AppendixB................................................................................................................
B-1
AppendixC................................................................................................................
C-1
AppendixD................................................................................................................
D-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
1. Introduction and Study Objectives
In May 2020, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson), in association with Dr.
Robert J. Williams and Dr. Zachary Spicer, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant
Team, was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to conduct a comprehensive ward
boundary review (W.B.R.).
The primary purpose of the W.B.R. is to prepare Clarington Council to make decisions
about whether to maintain the existing ward structure or to adopt an alternative
arrangement. The project has a number of key objectives in accordance with the
project terms of reference, as follows:
• Develop a clear understanding of the present ward system, including its origins
and operations as a system of representation;
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present ward system on the basis
of identified guiding principles;
• Conduct an appropriate consultation process to ensure community support for
the review and its outcome;
• Identify plausible modifications to the present ward structure; and
• Deliver a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to
ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for Clarington, based on
the principles identified.
This phase of the study provides Council with a final report and alternative ward
boundary structures for their consideration, as presented herein.
2. Context
The basic requirement for any electoral system in a representative democracy is to
establish measures to determine the people who will constitute the governmental body
that makes decisions on behalf of electors. Representation in Canada is organized
around geographic areas, units referred to as constituencies in the federal and
provincial parliaments and typically as wards at the municipal level, as is the case in the
Municipality of Clarington.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
At present, Council is comprised of seven members, consisting of a Mayor, who is
elected at large, and six councillors, two of whom serve as Regional Councillors. The
existing ward structure is presented in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Clarington Current Ward Structure
TOWNSHIP [Ciff-ington
OF SCilGOG
. Regis
� — a
i'
JReg"ional Rd 3'IRS= R
� = m
Q m =
Xt
p p� 407`WI . -
r---
--407
d�
Taunton
uInash
01
Road= C
nal /y,
Bloor Streety1 m
tea- a
a n o= ix F
a1a �ai�;
Base
Ward 1
Ward 2
3i\
CITY OF
KAWARTHA
CAKES
3511111115111111
115 35
1' J -
�407- -
Ganaraska"Road
Ward 3
Lake Ontario
i
Ward 4
cn
12
WUzaEMjh I
V2 Li-I.6` i
401 —
Clarington is divided into four wards, each of which elects one local Councillor, who sits
only on Clarington Council, and two Regional Councillors, who are each elected in a
pair of wards. The Mayor and the two Regional Councillors sit on both the Regional and
Clarington Councils.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
The number and distribution of Councillors representing local municipalities on the
Regional Council is determined through a process established in the Municipal Act,
2001, s. 218. A by-law passed in 2016 by Durham Regional Council under these
provisions affirmed that the number of Clarington Regional Councillors would remain at
two for the 2018 and 2022 municipal elections and cannot be modified unilaterally by
Clarington Council.
The wards in which Councillors are elected in Clarington have remained unchanged
since 1996. Population data from 2016 and 2020 indicate that the wards are
unbalanced in population and that the overall population of Clarington will grow by
approximately 30,000 by 2030, primarily within the urban settlement areas
(Bowmanville, Courtice, and Newcastle).
3. Project Structure and Timeline
The W.B.R. commenced in May 2020 and is anticipated to be completed in December
2020.
Work completed to -date includes:
• Research and data compilation;
• Interviews with Councillors, the Mayor and municipal staff;
• Population and growth forecasting and data modelling to 2030;
• Development of four preliminary ward boundary alternatives;
• Preparation of a Discussion Paper, released to the public on July 15, 2020;
• Public consultation on existing ward structure and preliminary alternatives; and
• Development of final options and recommendations, and preparation of a Final
Report (this document constitutes the Final Report).
4. The Discussion Paper and Interim Report
A Discussion Paper was released to the Clarington community on July 15, 2020 and is
available on the Municipality's website: https://www.clarington.net/en/town-
hall/resources/Clarinaton-2020-Ward-Boundarv-Review-Discussion-Paaer.Ddf.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
That Discussion Paper serves as a platform for the Final Report since it includes:
• An explanation of the Terms of Reference and Objectives for the W.B.R.;
• An outline of the format and timeline for the project;
• The context and background for the W.B.R.;
• A detailed discussion and explanation of the guiding principles that frame the
study;
• An analysis of the distribution of the present municipal population and a forecast
of population growth over the 2020 to 2030 period;
• An analysis and preliminary evaluation of the present wards within the context of
the guiding principles.
An interim report was released in September 2020 which provided preliminary
alternative ward options that were developed by the Consultant Team. That report is
available here: https://weblink.clarington.net/WebLink/0/edoc/328658/CLD-014-20.pdf.
The Final Report does not explore the topics discussed in either the Discussion Paper
or Interim Report in detail except in summary form to provide context and assumes that
those interested in the recommendations included herein have reviewed both
documents.
5. Population and Growth Trends
One of the basic premises of representative democracy in Canada is the belief that the
geographic areas used to elect a representative should be reasonably balanced with
one another in terms of population. In order to evaluate the existing ward structure and
subsequent alternatives in terms of representation by population in the existing year
(2020), a detailed population estimate for the Municipality and its respective wards and
communities was developed by Watson.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
5.1 Historical and Existing Population
Clarington's wards were developed in 1996 when the population of the Municipality was
approximately 60,600 people.' The 2016 Census of Canada reports a population of
approximately 92,000, growth of over 31,400 (50% increase) over the 20-year period.2
A mid-2020 population estimate was derived through a review of building permit activity
from 2016 through the year end of 2019. During this time, the Municipality of Clarington
grew by approximately 3,065 units from 32,835 to 35,900 units. This increase in units is
estimated to represent a growth of 6,925 persons, bringing the population from 92,000
to 98,940 excluding the Net Census Undercount.3 Including a Net Census Undercount
of approximately 4%, the Municipality of Clarington's 2020 population is estimate at
102,900 persons. A further review took place to understand population at a sub -
municipal level, by settlement areas (Bowmanville, Courtice and Newcastle) as well as
at a ward -by -ward basis. As shown in Table 5-1 below, 45% of the population currently
resides within Bowmanville, 28% within Courtice, 11 % within Newcastle and 16% within
Orono and rural communities. Approximately 84% of the Municipality's 's population
resides within urban communities.
' Statistics Canada, 1996 Census of Population.
2 Excludes net Census undercount.
3 The Net Census Undercount is an adjustment to the population to account for the net
number of persons who are missed (i.e. over -coverage less under -coverage) during
enumeration and is estimated at approximately 4% by the Region of Durham.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Table 5-1: 2020 Population Estimates by Geography
Population
By Geograph
Tota 'I
Geography
Population
Population
Urban
2020
83,040 86,360
Bowmanville
2020
44,640 46,430
Courtice
2020
27,430 28,530
Newcastle
2020
10,960 11,400
Rural/Orono
1 2020
15,9001 16,540
Total
1 2020
98,9401 102,900
Note: Population may not add up due to rounding.
1 Population includes census undercount of approximately4.0%.
84%
45%
28%
11%
16%
100%
The 2020 base population was developed at a sub -municipal level, which allowed the
Consultant Team to aggregate these blocks to determine populations for existing and
alternative ward options. As shown below in Table 5-2, Ward 2 currently has the
highest population of 33,700 (33%) followed by Ward 1 with a total population of 32,030
persons (31 %). These two wards currently make up approximately two thirds of the
total population, with the remaining population being split between Ward 3 (19%) and
Ward 4 (17%).
The population projections and allocations developed for this study and reported below
have been produced by Watson using the 2016 Census with the addition of building
permits through 2016 to year-end of 2019 to estimate a 2020 population base for the
purposes of this W.B.R. These numbers differ slightly from 2020 estimates provided by
the Municipality and as reported in the initial Ward Boundary Review Discussion Paper.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Table 5-2: 2016 and 2020 Population Estimates by Existing Ward Structure
Populationmmmm"mm
Wa
2016
S re
PopulationWard
2020
Ward 1
30,763
33%
32,030
31 %
Ward 2
27,651
30%
33,700
33%
Ward 3
17,675
19%
19,890
19%
Ward 4
16,071
17%
17,280
17%
Total
92,160
102,900
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020
5.2 Population Forecast, 2020 to 2030
The Consultant Team, in consultation with Municipal planning staff, prepared a
population forecast for Clarington through 2030. The Consultant Team considered
active development applications and secondary plans to develop a forecast that
conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan targets of 140,300 persons (including the
net Census undercount) by 2031. During this process, intensification opportunities were
also reviewed as it is mandated by the Province and associated policies, that the
Municipality achieve an intensification target of 32% over the 2015 to 2031 period.
The Municipality of Clarington's population is anticipated to grow to approximately
136,500 (including net Census undercount) by 2030, a growth of 33,600. Watson
developed this population target as part of the W.B.R. analysis. Of the anticipated
population growth, 87% is anticipated to occur within Municipality's urban settlement
areas. From 2020 to 2030, it is anticipated that Bowmanville will receive approximately
47% of the Municipal -wide population growth while Courtice and Newcastle are
anticipated to accommodate 26% and 14%, respectively as displayed in Table 5-3.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Table 5-3: Population Growth by Geography
Population
By GeographAlmr-011111111111111111111
Total "
Populationj
Urban
2020
83,040
86,360
2030
113,810
118,360
Bowmanville
2020
44,640
46,430
2030
61,170
63,610
Courtice
2020
27,430
28,530
2030
34,650
36,040
Newcastle
2020
10,960
11,400
2030
17,990
18,710
Rural/Orono
2020
15,900
16,540
2030
17,420
18,120
2020
98,940
102,900
Total
2030
1 13112301
136,480
Note: Population may not add up due to rounding.
1 Population includes census undercount of approximately4.0%.
6. Public Engagement
The W.B.R. employed a comprehensive public engagement strategy, in which the
Consultant Team solicited feedback from staff, Council, and citizens of the Municipality
of Clarington through a variety of methods:
• Online engagement through surveys, social media outreach, and a public -facing
website;
• Public consultation sessions; and
• Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, key members of staff, and direct
outreach to citizen -run and municipal organizations.
Information on the W.B.R. process was communicated through the website, as well as
through social media posts on Facebook and Twitter, and additional notices were
provided through local news media and newsletters. A full list of the engagements can
be found in Appendix A with additional materials in Appendices B to D.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
6.1 Online Engagement
6.1.1 Website
The website was established using the "Bang the Table" public engagement software,
which helped to raise awareness about the W.B.R., to disseminate information about
the process, and to give Clarington residents an opportunity to provide feedback
(available at https://engageclarington.ca/ward-boundary-review). Through this platform;
residents could access the online surveys, view recordings of the public engagement
sessions, view proposed ward boundary options, review background material, including
the Discussion Paper and Interim Report, and provide feedback directly to staff and the
Consultant Team. A purpose-built Whiteboard Animation Video was also posted, which
distilled some key information about the W.B.R. into an accessible format (available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXwolm8z59Q&feature=voutu.be).
Engagement with Clarington's W.B.R. website was moderate. As of November 29,
2020, it had received 2,023 visitors, with a peak of 125 in a single day. Of these visitors,
1,586 simply visited the page but demonstrated little further engagement, and so were
categorized by the "Bang the Table" software as "Aware." Two hundred and forty-nine
people visited the Key Dates page, the FAQ page, or visited multiple project pages, and
so were categorized as "Informed." Meanwhile, 188 visitors were categorized as
"Engaged Participants," having completed online Quick Polls. For example, in Phase 2
a Quick Poll asked whether participants felt Clarington's wards should be changed —
there were 46 respondents, with 67% favouring a change and 33% no change. Note,
however, that these metrics refer to engagement through the Municipality's W.B.R.
website, and do not convey the full extent of public engagement with the W.B.R.
process as whole — for example, others may have completed the longer -form surveys
(191 respondents in round 1 and 108 respondents in round 2; see section 6.1.2), or
participated in the Public Consultation Sessions. Detailed website engagement metrics
are available in Appendix B.
6.1.2 Surveys
The surveys provided the Consultant Team with an opportunity to gauge public
preferences using both qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. Surveying
was done at two different stages of the public consultation process — an initial round to
evaluate public priorities and perspectives on the existing ward structure, and a later
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
survey which asked respondents to assess and rank a set of preliminary ward boundary
options. The Phase 1 survey was open from June 23 to July 31, 2020 and resulted in
191 responses. Respondents were asked to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing wards, and to rank the guiding principles in terms of priority. In general,
residents of Clarington indicated that representation by population and effective
representation were more important than the other guiding principles, and many
respondents communicated a strong sense of identity with their local communities
within the Municipality of Clarington. A detailed description of the results from the initial
survey round are available in the Interim Report.
One hundred and eight (108) people participated in the Phase 2 survey. Of these
respondents, 50% indicated that they felt the current number of councillors in Clarington
is appropriate, while 42% said there are too few, and 8% said there are currently too
many. Respondents then ranked the preliminary ward boundary options, and each
option was given a score aggregating these rankings. The 5-ward option — Option C —
received the highest score, with 30% of respondents ranking it first, and only 14%
ranking it last. Option B (4 wards) was close behind as it was also ranked first by 30%
of respondents, but a greater number ranked it as a less preferred option. Option A —
the other 4-ward option — as ranked first by only 19% of respondents, but 38% ranked it
second, suggesting that, while it isn't ideal for many respondents, it is at least
acceptable to many. The 6-ward option was the least popular, ranked first 21 % of the
time, but was ranked last by 42%.
It may be expected that when ranking preferred options respondents would simply
pursue personal interests, and so those residing in more rural wards might opt for
greater rural representation, while urban residents opt for more urban representation. It
is interesting to note, however, that while residents of each ward did express some
variation in their preferences, the overall picture was quite consistent. Preliminary
Option D had the lowest score in all four wards, and Option C had the highest ranking in
three wards. Those respondents residing in Ward 2 expressed a stronger preference
for the four -ward options, ranking Option B highest, followed by Option A. This
discrepancy may be attributable to the strong sense of community identity felt by the
inhabitants of Bowmanville, many of whom desire that their community be represented
as a single voice. For instance, one participant acknowledged the population disparity
in Option B, but still ranked it highest, stating that "Bowmanville should be one ward."
Several other residents of Ward 2 also cited concerns about the tax burden associated
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
with increasing the number of wards and prioritized Options A and B as a result. A full
breakdown of Preliminary Option Preferences by ward is available in Appendix D (Table
D-4).
Throughout both rounds of surveying, the open -form comments provided key insights
into public preferences and the issues in play. The Consultant Team evaluated these
comments for general themes and identified insightful responses that highlighted crucial
issues. One recurring sentiment was a sense of identification with the local
communities within Clarington, rather than identifying with Clarington Municipality as its
own entity. As a result, many respondents prioritized options that keep like -
communities together. However, representation by population was also recognized as
an important factor and so there was some appetite for increasing the number of wards
as a way to help keep communities together while allowing something closer to
population parity.
In order to better visualize recurrent themes in the open -form comments sections, the
written responses from both survey rounds were used to populate a word bank, which
was statistically analyzed and used to create the word cloud depicted in Figure 6-1,
below.
Figure 6-1: Clarington Word Cloud
courtI.Unp,eople
ehane
ear different., separa a 1sSUe
Coun 1-0) to community
7oundarles growth •
based u r b a n B ovum a n v i ], l e
increase
smaller
way council �,option
a rattersouth number al area + a,
x
0:jr
a use ion
a keep best together distributions-'
a)
town
p C
larj—ngton now ��_.,to
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i, interest
E area wi l l 0
r U� r a
N
'Newcastleonmaskeg�hrbetter glue
VO1Ce current n d s L
mun�cipa is p i i t o
east
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement
While some degree of community outreach was achieved through more traditional
avenues such as radio and print advertisements (details on specific initiatives available
in Appendix A), the greatest success was through social media engagement. This was
made evident by a question in the Phase 2 survey that asked respondents to indicate
how they became aware of the W.B.R. — "Social Media" accounted for more than half
(57%) of responses. Similarly, traffic sources analysis from the Engage Clarington
website indicated that of the visitors directed there from external sources, 40% were
from Facebook, more than any other avenue (the Municipality of Clarington website
came in second at 30%).
Social media engagement occurred through Twitter and Facebook, on which notices
were posted informing the public of the PICs, the survey, and the website. In total, 52
notices were sent on each platform. On Twitter, the notices generated 31,508
Impressions, 25 Retweets, 30 Likes, and posted links were followed 246 times.
Visibility was somewhat greater on Facebook, on which the notices generated 58,890
Impressions, 93 Reactions, 15 comments, 57 Shares, and posted links were followed
435 times (further details are available in Appendix B).
In addition, a 9-question brain teaser survey entitled "How Well Do You Know
Clarington?" was circulated online, which quizzed respondents on their knowledge of
their municipality. It was intended to be a fun method for informing the public, which
would hopefully generate excitement about the W.B.R.
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions
The Consultant Team also held a series of public consultation sessions with Clarington
residents. Following public health guidelines put in place due to the COVID-19
outbreak, four public open houses were conducted virtually on July 8, 2020 and July 15,
2020 after the release of the Discussion Paper, with two, hour-long, virtual consultation
sessions each day. Residents had the option of participating either online through a
video conferencing platform, or by calling in via telephone. Feedback from these
sessions was used to inform the recommendations provided in the Interim Report. After
the release of the Interim Report, four more virtual open houses were held on October
1, 2020, October 15, 2020, October 28, 2020 and November 10, 2020. Again, each
session was 60 minutes in length. It should be highlighted that, while these Public
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Consultation Sessions had to be held virtually due to COVID-19, there were eight
sessions in total, which is more than the number of in -person sessions that would have
occurred under normal circumstances. Thus, while gathering restrictions may have
posed some barriers to public engagement, such additional measures helped to
mitigate any disruption. The Consultant Team's presentation and other information
about the review, including the audio recording of the Public Meetings, is available
online at.https://engageclarington.ca/ward-boundarV-review. Further, the posterboards
presented in the Public Consultation Sessions are also available in Appendix C of this
document.
6.3 Interviews and Direct Community Outreach
In addition to the public engagement, it was crucial for the Consultant Team to benefit
from the perspectives of professionals in government and community organizations
throughout the Municipality. A series of interviews was conducted with the Mayor and
members of Council, as well as with senior staff in the Municipality. Sessions to discuss
and review the Preliminary Options were arranged with the Municipality's Accessibility
Committee, Diversity Committee, and in the first round of engagement a presentation
session was held with the Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing was also advised of the commencement of the Review.
In addition, information and materials were provided to community organizations like the
Bowmanville Older Adults Association, the Kiwanis Group, the Bowmanville Community
Group, the Enniskillen Community Board, the Hampton Community Association, and the
North Courtice Neighbourhood Association (further outreach described in Appendix A).
This outreach helped to ensure that members of the community were aware of the
project and of the different avenues for engagement.
The feedback and comments received through the consultation process are reflected in
the analysis and have helped inform the findings and recommendations. While public
input from consultation provides valuable insight into the review, it is not relied on
exclusively. This is in part because only a subset of the population participated in the
W.B.R., which may not be representative of Clarington's population as a whole. The
Consultant Team utilized the public input in conjunction with its professional expertise
and experience in W.B.R.s, along with knowledge of best practices, to develop the
recommended options.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Detailed information on the public engagement process, including statistics on each
engagement tool, is provided in Appendix 1. Additional information about responses to
the first round of consultation is also available in the Interim Report.
7. Principles
The Municipality of Clarington has established core principles and other directions for
an electoral review:
• Representation by Population
• Population Trends
• Community Access and Connections
• Geographic and Topographical Features
• Community or Diversity of Interests
• Effective Representation
These principles are discussed at length in section 3.5 of the Discussion Paper, but
deserve revisiting briefly in this final report, given that the choice before Council requires
a thorough consideration of the importance of each principle and a considered
evaluation of which of the principles is most important for determining an appropriate
system of representation for the 2022 municipal election in Clarington.
The principles contribute to on -going access between elected officials and residents, but
they may occasionally conflict with one another. Accordingly, it is expected that the
overriding principle of effective representation will be used to arbitrate conflicts between
principles. Any deviation from the specific principles must be justified by other
principles in a manner that is more supportive of effective representation.
The priority attached to certain principles makes some designs more desirable in the
eyes of different observers. Ultimately, the ward design adopted by Clarington's
Council should be the one that best fulfills as many of the guiding principles as possible.
8. Clarington's Existing Ward Structure
A preliminary evaluation of the existing ward structure in Clarington is found in section 5
of the Discussion Paper. That discussion, along with input received through the public
consultation process, rigorously applied the guiding principles to the individual wards
and the overall design, found in Table 8-1.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
The analysis suggests that the existing ward boundary configuration in Clarington does
not fully meet the expectations for five of the six guiding principles. In other words, it
would be improbable that a review aiming to meet the principles set out for this W.B.R.
would recommend a structure that follows the existing ward boundaries.
Table 8-1: Existing Clarington Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary
Representation by
Population
Population Trends
Community Access
and Connections
Geographic and
Topographical
Features
No
M
Fr- -I
Comment
Population data suggest that
two wards are outside of the
acceptable range of variance
and a third is approaching the
lower end of the defined range
of variation. None can be
considered to fall within the
range of "parity."
The current ward structure
would not suitably
accommodate future population
growth. Population disparities
throughout the wards would be
expected to worsen through the
2022, 2026 and 2030 election
cycles.
Existing ward system runs
narrowly from north to south,
capturing both rural and urban
communities that have few
natural social or economic
connections.
Existing ward boundaries take
Partially successful advantage of prominent
geographical features, such as
major transportation routes and
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Community or
No
Diversity of Interests
Effective
Representation No
historical markers. Boundaries
are easy to comprehend and
follow easily recognizable
features.
While the existing ward structure
provides adequate support for
the three major urban
communities of interest, they
largely fail to account for certain
economic or cultural
communities that are distributed
over several wards.
The current population
disparities between wards are
too great to achieve effective
representation. These
disparities are likely to grow in
the future.
1 The degree to which each guiding principle is satisfied is ranked as "Yes" (fully satisfied),
"Largely Successful," "Partially Successful" or "No" (not satisfied).
The existing ward boundaries confront two main challenges: providing for population
parity between wards and accounting for communities of interest.
The objective of population parity (every councillor generally representing an equal
number of constituents within his or her respective ward) is the primary goal of an
electoral redistribution with some degree of variation acceptable in light of population
densities and demographic factors across the Municipality. The indicator of success in
a ward design is the extent to which all the individual wards approach an "optimal" size.
Optimal size can be understood as a mid -point on a scale where the term "optimal" (0)
describes a ward with a population within 5% on either side of the calculated optimal
size. The classification "below/above optimal" (O + or O -) is applied to a ward with a
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
population between 6% and 25% on either side of the optimal size. A ward that is
labelled "outside the range" (OR + or OR -) indicates that its population is greater than
25% above or below the optimal ward size. The adoption of a 25% maximum variation
is based on federal redistribution legislation and is widely applied in municipalities like
Clarington that include both urban and rural areas.
Based on the Municipality's overall 2016 Census population (92,160) and municipal
population estimates for 2020 of approximately 102,900, the optimal population size for
a local ward in a four -ward system in Clarington would be 25,725.4
Table 8-2: Population by Existing Ward, 2016 and 2020
1
30,763
1.34
1.20
0.77
0.70
Optimal
OR
O +
O -
OR-
23,040
32,030
33,700
19,890
17,280
102,900
' 1.251
1.31
O +
2 27,651
3 17,675
0.77
O -
4 16,071
Total 92,160
0.67
25,725
Optimal
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020
Note: 2020 population estimates have been rounded.
Population data suggests two wards are outside the acceptable range of variance and
the other two are at or close to the outer edge of the acceptable range of variation.
None of the wards can be considered to fall within what is referred to as the "optimal"
range, that is, within 5% on either side of optimal. By 2031, the Municipality of
Clarington is estimated to reach a population of 140,300.5 Much of this growth is
expected in the larger southern population centres of Courtice, Bowmanville and
Newcastle. Without adjustment the disparities between the wards will continue.
Responses to the survey and participation in the public consultation sessions have
largely shown that Clarington residents have a strong affinity towards their individual
4 Population and growth trends for Clarington are included in the Discussion Paper,
pages 11 to 13.
5 Source: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, 2018.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
communities, such as Bowmanville and Courtice. The consultation process also
revealed that there are strong rural and agricultural interests and many well -established
hamlets that are not specifically represented on Council. It is clear that these
communities have interests that are distinct from the larger, more populated
communities in the south, but the current ward boundaries group extensive rural areas
and northern hamlets with those larger urban and suburban settlements in the south,
which has at times diluted their voice.
All told, analysis of the current and future population trends, along with feedback
received during the public consultation leads to a recommendation that Council should
consider alternate ward configurations.
9. Recommended Options
As mentioned in the Discussion Paper and Interim Report, Clarington provides a unique
challenge when finding a suitable ward boundary system. Clarington is a community
created through amalgamation with three large population centres (Courtice,
Bowmanville, and Newcastle) that are rapidly growing. These communities are all
located in the south, along Lake Ontario, and have very different economic and social
patterns than the more sparsely populated hamlets in the north. One of these large
southern population centres, Bowmanville, is also much larger than the other two, which
provides an additional challenge in keeping that community within a single ward. As
such, balancing communities of interest with population parity has been a steep
challenge for the Consultant Team.
Ultimately, the choice of ward system is a decision for Council. Taking the guiding
principles of the review into consideration, along with feedback from residents and the
expertise and experience of the Consultant Team, three options have been prepared for
Council to consider below. Each places emphasis on the different values incorporated
throughout the review process and takes into account their relative importance as
identified through the consultation process. Council must implicitly decide which of the
guiding principles it values the most. Doing so will make the decision about which
system to adopt much easier. As discussed above, it is not recommended that Council
retain the current ward boundary system.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Recommended Option: Option A
The first option presents a four -ward system and places an emphasis on population
parity. As mentioned above, the unique settlement patterns in Clarington make it
difficult to place each defined community of interest into a single ward. Option A
preserves some communities of interest, but also allows for a much more balanced
distribution of the population between the wards than the current system.
Ward 1 stretches from Lake Ontario in the south towards the northern municipal
boundary using Highway 418 as a boundary in the south, before heading east along
Taunton Road towards Highway 57 and then running northward. Wards 2 and 3 contain
Bowmanville, using Highway 418 in the west, the Darlington -Clarke Townline in the
east, Lake Ontario in the south and Taunton Road in the north as boundary lines.
Bowmanville is bisected along Bloor/Concession Street, which interviews and public
consultation have identified as a much more natural divider through Bowmanville than
Liberty Street, which is currently used to separate Wards 2 and 3. Ward 4 runs from the
Darlington -Clarke Townline in the west towards the municipal boundary in the east and
then to the municipal boundary in the north. Highway 57 separates Wards 1 and 4 in
the north.
While the population in Wards 1 and 2 are higher than in 3 and 4, this disparity begins
to slightly diminish over time, providing an adequate population distribution between the
wards now and through the two following elections.
By selecting Option A, Council is affirming its preference for achieving better population
parity between the wards than is possible in the present configuration.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure 9-1: Recommended Option A
Recommended Option A
Ward 1
Total
Population
2020
33,350
M
130%
Total
Population
2030
41,530
I
122%
Ward 2
26,630
104%
36,530
107%
Ward 3
22,370
87%
29,820
87%
Ward 4
20,560
80%
28,590
84%
Total
102,900
136,470
Average
25,725
34,120
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020.
Note- Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Recommended Option: Option B
The second option presents a four -ward system and places an emphasis on the
preservation of communities of interest. This option proposes a distinct northern ward,
placing many of the rural and agricultural communities in Clarington into a single ward.
As mentioned earlier, the Consultant Team heard that a distinct voice for rural and
agricultural interests was needed on Council. Clarington's current ward boundaries
capture both densely populated, urban communities in the south and sparsely
populated rural communities in the north. Option B changes this dynamic, ensuring that
the north would have a distinct voice in Council. Option B also creates distinct wards for
Courtice, Newcastle and Orono. The majority of Bowmanville is contained in Ward 2,
which is why the population is much higher for this ward as compared to the others.
Overall, this option largely preserves the distinct communities of interests within
Clarington while still maintaining a four -ward system.
Wards 1 and 2 use Pebblestone Road in the north and Lake Ontario in the south as
boundaries. Holt Road separates Wards 1 and 2. Lambs Road provides an eastern
boundary for Ward 2. Ward 3 uses Taunton Road as a northern boundary, running
towards the eastern municipal border. Ward 4 contains the entire northern portion of
Clarington. While this option does provide for a much -needed voice on council for the
northern communities and agricultural interest in Clarington, it fails to achieve
population parity. Ward 4 contains only a very small percentage of Clarington's
population, but covers nearly half its geography.
By selecting Option B, Council is affirming its preference for basing political
representation on Clarington's distinct communities of interest.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure 9-2: Recommended Option B
4
;r
1�
lk
�.r1h ■�wa,�
J
Recommended Option B
Ward 1
Total
Population
2020
29,640
Varianc
1
115%
Total
Population
2030
37,210
109%
Ward 2
47,170
183%
60,960
179%
Ward 3
17,480
68%
28,740
84%
Ward 4
8,610
33%
9,570
28%
Total
102,900
136,470
Average
1 25,7251
34,120
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020.
Note- Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Recommended Option: Option C
As mentioned above, finding the right system for Clarington would be challenging given
the municipality's unique geography and settlement patterns. While adding wards is not
explicitly in the mandate of this W.B.R., striking a balance between communities of
interest and population parity requires exploring the option of a fifth councillor. We
present this option below.
To be clear, the Consultant Team has heard through interviews and the public
consultation process that adding additional voices to the Council table may be prudent
to contribute to the democratic needs of the community in the future. Among the
comments were statements like, "Rural needs are different from the urban needs,"
"Need to create a new ward for North Clarington" and "would love to see the northern
residents have a ward to themselves." Given that councillors in Clarington serve on a
part-time basis, the cost to add councillors would be modest and would likely increase
the quality of representation across the municipality. A ward system with an additional
ward, or two, would be reasonable to consider as an alternative to the current model.
One complication of this Option would be identifying equitable combinations of the five
wards to elect two Regional Councillors. An alternative would be to elect the two
Clarington Regional Councillors at -large (like the mayor) but this has never been done
and the legislative authority is unclear.
Wards 1, 2 and 3 use Nash/Concession Road as a northern boundary. Lake Ontario
serves as a southern boundary for each ward. Highway 418 divides Wards 1 and 2,
while Liberty Street bisects Bowmanville and separates Wards 2 and 3. Highway 115
separates Wards 3 and 4, while Ward 4 extends to the eastern municipal boundary and
is separated from Ward 5 by the Darlington -Clarke Townline. Ward 5 encapsulates the
territory north of Nash/Concession Road to the northern municipal boundary. Relative
population parity is achieved in this model by including some of the growth emanating
from Courtice and Bowmanville in Ward 5. Ward 4 contains Newcastle and Orono,
which again helps to balance the population in comparison to the other wards.
By selecting Option C, Council is affirming its preference for achieving improved
population parity while still providing voices for Clarington's communities of interest.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure 9-3: Recommended Option C
l
1
M
Recommended Option C
Total
Total
Population
Variance
Populatio
Variance
2020
i
Ward 1
20,120
98%
26,830
98%
Ward 2
27,960
136%
36,420
133%
Ward 3
16,920
82%
24,380
89%
Ward 4
18,420
90%
26,300
96%
Ward 5
19,480
95%
22,540
83%
Tot
102,900
136,470
Average
20,580
27,294
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020.
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions
This report will be presented to Council at a meeting scheduled for January 4, 2021.
During their deliberation, Council has a series of choices to make. Councillors must
decide if they value the preservation of communities of interests or population parity
between the wards as the leading criterion on which to base their decision. If they do
not wish to decide between either, they have a third option, which strikes a balance
between both but adds an additional councillor. Council must decide if they believe this
trade-off is best for the community.
One final course of action for Council is to take no action at all. Council may view the
current ward system as adequate and endorse it by not selecting an alternative option.
In doing so, they must clearly affirm the reasons why they believe the current ward
system still serves the residents of Clarington well. Within this report, the Consultant
Team has highlighted deficiencies in the current ward boundary system in relation to the
guiding principles. These deficiencies have led the Consultant Team to conclude that
the current ward boundary system no longer serves the residents of Clarington well and
ought to be changed. The public engagement efforts throughout this review have been
consistent with this view: in the online quick poll on the review website, 67% of
respondents favoured a change, of some kind, to the ward system. Only 33% wanted
to see no changes made. Council is reminded that taking no action on this matter
constitutes a deliberate decision and there must be a defensible rationale for that
decision both publicly and at LPAT, if required.
Depending on Council's decision related to the Final Options contained in this report,
ratification of a by-law to implement the preferred option is expected to occur shortly
after the January 4, 2021 meeting.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Appendix A
Public Engagement
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Figure A-1: List of Public Engagement Tools
Description
MMM
A dedicated engagement website was developed for the
W.B.R. Study at
https://www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview. The
Engage Clarington
webpage included an informative whiteboard video, links to
Website
public engagement sessions and surveys and up-to-date
messaging to inform the public of the status of the Ward
Boundary Review Project.
See Appendix B for Engagement Metrics
2 rounds of 4 open houses were held:
• Round 1:
July 8, 2020 (x2 — 2PM & 7PM)
Public
July 15, 2020 (x2 — 2PM & 7PM)
Consultation
• Round 2:
Sessions
October 1, 2020 (x1 — 3PM)
October 15, 2020 (x1 — 10AM)
October 28, 2020 (x1 — 7PM
November 10, 2020 (x1 — 7PM)
See Appendix C for additional Information.
Public 2 surveys corresponded to each round of public open
Engagement houses.
Surveys See Appendix D for a summary of the results.
• Bowmanville Community Group, Ontario Canada
• Bowmanville Community Connection
• Burketon Station, Ontario, Canada
• Courtice Community Connect
Community Group • Enniskillen Community Board (Ontario)
Outreach • Hampton Community Association
• Kiwanis Groups
• Newcastle, Ontario
• North Courtice Neighbourhood Association
• Orono, Ontario
• The Town of Bowmanville community page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
• Accessibility Committee
Organizational . Agricultural Advisory Committee
Outreach . Diversity Committee
• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Interviews with Each Member of Council was invited to participate in a one -
members of hour discussion with the consultant. Five of the seven
Council Members of Council participated.
Newspaper Ads 14 ads were published in Clarington This Week and 13 in the
Orono Times.
In Phase 2, Mayor Foster was interviewed on Durham Radio,
Radio about the W.B.R.
Notices were posted via Twitter and Facebook informing the
Social Media public of the PICs, the survey, and the website (Appendix B).
Additionally, a "brain teaser" survey was circulated.
Informational newsletters sent to 261 recipients; 204 opened
Direct Outreach the email; 4 individuals clicked on the links to the W.B.R.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Appendix B
Online Engagement
Metrics
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-1
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Project Report
10 November 2017 - 29 November 2020
Engage Clarington
Ward Boundary Review
Visitors Summary
500
1 JA'20 1 0020
_ Pageviews Visitors
Highlights
TOTAL MAX VISITORS PER
VISITS DAY
2.1 k 125
NEW
REGISTRATI
ONS
1
ENGAGED
INFORME
AWARE
VISITORS
VISITORS
VISITORS
188
249
1.6 k
Aware Participants
1,586
Engaged Participants
188
Aware Actions Performed
Participants
Engaged Actions Performed
Registered
Unverified
Anonymous
Visited a Project cr Teel Page 1,566
Informed Participants
249
Contributed on Forums
Participated in Surveys
0
0
0
0
0
0
Informed Actions Performed
Participants
Contributed to Newsteeds
0
0
0
Viewed a video 0
Participated in Quick Polls
2
0
186
Viewed a photo
0
Posted on Guestbocks
0
0
0
Downloaded a document
0
Visited the Key Dates page
9
Contributed to Stories
0
0
0
Visited an FAQ list Page
66
Asked Questions
0
0
0
Visited Instagram Page
0
Placed Pins on Places
0
0
0
Visited Multiple Project Pages
54
Contributed to Ideas
0
0
0
Contributed to a tool (engaged)
188
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-2
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Engage Clarington _ Summary Report Ior10 November 2017 to 29 November 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
0
2
2
0
N-ws FFF�c
glJl(•(P:71 L G
(;IJFS7s0^KS
0
0
0
Tcol Type
Contributors
Engagement Tool Name
Tool Status
visitors
Registered
Unverified
Anonymous
Newsfeed
Ward Boundary Review Interim Report now
Publis
1
0
0
0
available
Newsfeed
Phase One Virtual Public Information Sessions
Published
0
0
0
complete
Quick Poll
Which guiding principle do you think will provide
Drall
157
2
0
1113
the mos...
Quick Poll
Do you think Clarington's wards should stay the
Published
46
0
4
A6
same or c...
Engage Clarington : Summary Report tor10 November 2017 to 29 November 2020
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
0
0
0
1
0
VI}ECS
FACE
KEYDAI'ES
Widget Type
Engagement Tool Name
Visitors
ViewsfDownloads
Fags
taps
66
78
Key Cates
Key Date
9
13
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-3
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Engage Clarington :Summary Report for10 November 2017 to 29 November 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: QUICK POLL
Which guiding principle do you think will provide the most effective and
equitable system of representation for Clarington residents?
Visitors ® Contributors 0 CONTRIBUTIONS
Which guiding principle do you think will provide the most effective and equitable
system of representation for Clarington ...
42 (2s.o%)
41 (2a.3%)
co 5 r r.c�t
Question options
0 Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 0 Ward 4 0 Not sure
Mandatory Question (145 response(s))
Ouestion type: Radio Button Question
O
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-4
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Engage Clarington : Summary Report for10 November 2017 to 29 November 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: QUICK POLL
Do you think Clarington's wards should stay the same or change?
Visitors m I Contributors 0 CONTRIBUTIONS m
Do you think Clarington's wards should stay the same or change?
15 (32.6%)
31 (67A%)
Question options
Stay the same lib Change
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
O
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-5
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
All
Sent Metrics
Total Sent
Impressions
Retweets
Likes
Post Link Clicks
Twitter Facebook
Received Metrics
Total Received
Tweets
Direct Messages
Retweets
Quote Tweets
New Follower Alerts
Totals
52
31,508
25
30
246
Totals
3
2
0
0
1
0
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-6
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
All Twitter Facebook
Sent Metrics
Total Sent
Totals
52
Impressions
58,890
Average Reach per Post
1,027
Reactions
93
Comments
15
Shares
57
Post Clicks (All)
1,460
Post Link Clicks
435
Received Metrics
Totals
Total Received
5
Posts
0
Comments
5
Ad Comments
0
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-7
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Appendix C
Public Consultation
Sessions
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-1
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Project Overview and Objectives
Ensure residents are fairly represented by elected officials on Clarington
Council;
00 Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present wards on the basis
of identified guiding principles;
Ensure an open and transparent public engagement process with
thoughtful and fulsome consideration of community feedback;
Identify plausible changes to the present ward structure; and
Deliver a report that will set out recommendations, for Council to
consider, on possible alternative ward boundaries, based on the
principles identified.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-2
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Guiding Principles
The following principles will be used to evaluate the existing ward structure
and subsequent alternative options:
REPRESENTATION BY POPULATION
Ensure that every Councillor generally represents an equal number
of constituents while allowing for some variation
COMMUNITY OR DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS
Recognize community groupings and trying to keep them intact
EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION
Evaluate the capacity of each ward to give residents an effective
voice in decision making
POPULATION TRENDS
Consider projected growth and population shifts over a three -
election cycle
COMMUNITY ACCESS AND CONNECTIONS
Reflect customary transportation/communication relationships
among communities
GEOGRAPHIC OR TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
Ward boundaries should be recognizable and where possible use
permanent/natural features
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-3
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Population and Growth Trends
Clarington's population has grown by approximately 50% since the
existing wards were created in 1996;
Clarington's 2020 population is approximately 102,900 persons;
Approximately 85% of Clarington's current populations resides within
urban settlement areas (Bowmanville, Courtice, and Newcastle);
15% of Clarington's population resides within rural communities; and
The Municipality's population is expected to grow to approximately
140,300 persons (Including 4.0% census Undercount).
35,000
30,000
25,00O
20,OOO
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Est. Population 2020
Population 2016
ulation 2011
1 2 3 4
WARD
■Population 2011 ■Population 2016 ■Est. Population 2020
O
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-4
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Existing Ward Map
TOWNSHIP
C�l[1
OF 5CIIGOG
CITY OF
KAWARTHA
LAKES
— �
—
�\
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII""'IIlIiE1511111111111
p a Regional\ d 20r \ 35
�\ Regional Rd 3
p = o —_\ v \ 11535
707
407 w — e _ \ Ganaraska Road
Taunton Rc - \2 ,.
C
[ — \
�o 'o1
Nash Road= '[ Concession Rd 3 �'u•
A t
4iooa! w - l
Hi 13
o -
81oor Street �ii ? c K ars
`"o__s�- B5se3ine Road�
Ward '[ � ►Hard 3
Ward 2
Lake Ontario
Regional Highway
401
Ward 4
O
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-5
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Clarington — Preliminary Option A
'1
r Scu9�6
1
NawaMaLekee
Lfl�an Mnna9nan
`\�t0��
� Gail Ropu
Tav��R
lEMc
s on Rd
m
o a a
moommEz=Km
Preliminary
A
Ward 1
Total
opulation Variance
POption
020
33,350
Population
130%
Total
2030
41,530
122%
Ward 2
26.630
1040/6
36.530
107%
Ward 3
23.180
90%
31,650
93%
Ward 4
19,750
77%
26,760
78%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-6
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Clarington — Preliminary Option B
�
S"�9°y
Kaaaimn izkes
C aaen wlenagnan
_ _ ..--. _. _
7
I
{
xaen iie
1 {, �
r�
�
I.syrnd
it �
o 2
a
w
mmmmmrz=Km
Preliminary
B
Ward 1
Total
opulation Variance
POption
2020
29,640
Population
115%
Tota I
1 1
37,210
109%
Ward 2
47,170
183%
60,960
179%
Ward 3
17,480
68%
28,740
84%
Ward 4
8,610
33%
9,570
28%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-7
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Clarington — Preliminary option C
N
-� a�[M1a LaMes �
--------------
1.
1
ort Mope
l TAP n
Leyand � I r f � ca �--an sr
L
D 2 4
nmmmmEz=Km
Total
a -
Preliminary
Option
Ward 1
2020
20,120
9 8 %
1 1
26,830
98°/
Ward 2
27,960
136%
36,420
133%
Ward 3
16,920
82%
24,380
89°%
Ward 4
18,420
90%1
26,3001
96°%
1 ."] F
I lqdRnI1
99 -;anl
AR
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-8
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
O
Ward Boundary Review �
2020 •
Clarington — Preliminary Option D
■pIN
s""9°v
„{
na..artna saxes
r � I
i
P
Legend
0 2 4
IIIIMMKz:=Km
Total
Total
OptionPreliminary
Ward 1
28,850
168%1
36.370
160%
Ward 2
25,870
151 %
35 760
157
Ward 3
22,310
1300%.
29,770
131%
Ward 4
12,110
71%
19 440
85%
Ward 5
5,650
33%
6,130
27%
51U—i R
A inn
d7e/
Q nnn
dn,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-9
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Appendix D
Public Engagment Survey
Results
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-1
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Municipality of Clarington
Public Engagement Survey — Phase 1
Don't Know
5
2%
Figure D-1
Which ward do you live in?
Responses by Ward
Table D-1
Which Ward Do You Live In?
....
Ward 1
30
16%
•..
Estimate
32,252
.. .
Rate
0.09%
Ward 2
57
30%
32,860
0.17%
Ward 3
42
22%
20,122
0.21 %
Ward 4
57
30%
17,652
0.32%
Don't Know
5
3%
0
NA
Total Respondents
191
100%
102,886
0.19%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-2
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure D-2
of the six Guiding Principles outlined, please indicate the two principles that you believe should be given the
greatest priority as we look at assess and redesign the current ward makeup in Clarington.
Effective representation,
Community or diversity of interest
(recognize community groupings/avoid
fragmenting communities of interest),
3S%
Municipality
Clarington
Geographical & topographical
features (easily recognizable,
make use of permanent natural
features), 26%
Representation by population
(relative population parity), 46%
Population trends (consider
population for three election
cycles), 29 %
Community access and
connections (reflect customary
transportation and
communication relationships),
23%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-3
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure D-3
of the six Guiding Principles outlined, please indicate the two principles that you believe should be given the
greatest priority as we look at assess and redesign the current ward makeup in Clarington.
46
50%
Representation by population (relative population parity)Ell 60%
24%
100%
Population trends (consider population forthree election cycles)
Community access and connections (reflect customary transportation and
communication relationships)
Geographical & topographical features (easily recognizable, make use of
permanent natural features)
Community or diversity of interest (recognize community groupings/avoid
fragmenting communities of interest)
38%
OW26%
0%
■ Municipality Share
23%
29%
W20%
■ Ward 1 Share
20%
■ Ward 2 Share
0%
■ Ward 3 Share
26%
■ Ward 4 Share
33%
='23%
■ Don't Know Share
24%
0%
35%
13%
7
29%
54%
0%
41%
0jr637%
8%
Effective representation
52%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-4
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure D-4
Which community or hamlet do you live in?
Bowmanville
47.51%
Brownsville
0.00%
Burketon
■ 0.55%
Courtice
M 12.15%
Enfield
0.00%
Enniskillen
� 2.76%
Hampton
0.00%
Haydon
■ 1.10%
Kendal
2.21%
Kirby
■ 0.55%
Leskard
0.00%
Maple Grove
M 1.10%
Mitchell Corners
0.00%
Newcastle
17.68%
Newtonville
M 1.10%
Orono
� 6.08%
Salina
■ O.SS%
Tyrone
3.31%
Rural (not in a hamlet or town)
3.31%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-5
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Figure D-5
Select up to three additional communities or hamlets in
Clarington that you are connected to? (e.g. shopping, work,
school)
Bowm anvil) e
Brownsville
m 2%
Burketon
m 2%
Courtice
Enfield
2%
Enniskillen
� 9%
Hampton
1 15%
Haydon
3%
Kendal
3%
Kirby
2%
Leskard
■ 1%
Maple Grove
� 9%
Mitchell Corners
— 4%
Newcastle
Newtonville
� S%
Orono
24%
Salina
m 2%
Tyrone
� 7%
Rural (not in a hamlet ortown)
� 7%
0% 10% 20% 30%
34%
65%
� 45%
40% 50% 60% 70%
O
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-6
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx
Municipality of Clarington
Public Engagement Survey — Phase 2
Figure D-1
Q1 Which ward do you live in? (See map below for reference.)
Answered:108 Skipped:0
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Outside.
CLar i ngton
Don't know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Table D-2
ANSWER CHOICES
Ward 1
Ward 3
Outside of Clarington
can't know
TOTAL
RESPONSES
16.67%
31.48%
20.37%
28.70%
2.78%
0.00°fn
18
34
22
31
3
0
108
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-7
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Figure D-2
Q2 Using the guiding principles adopted by Council (and presented below)
as a base, please rank the ward boundary reconfiguration options from 1
(favourite) to 4 (least favourite). Please refer to the maps and graphs or
the Interim Report (linked below) for details on each option.
Answered: 108 Skipped:0
Preliminary
Option A (Fo...
Preliminary
Option B (Fa...
Preliminary
Option C (F...
Preliminary
Option D (Si...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Table D-3
1
2
3
4
TOTAL
SCORE
Preliminary Option A (Four wards, Bowmanville split into two wards)
19.44%❑
37.96%
14.81❑/❑
27.713%
21
41
16
30
1D8
2.49
Preliminary Option B (Four wards, Bowmanville remains in one ward)
29.63%❑
25.00%
28.701A
16.67%❑
32
27
31
18
108
2.68
Preliminary Option C (Five wards)
29.63%❑
26.85%❑
29.63%❑
13.89%
32
29
32
15
108
2.72
Preliminary Option D (Six wards)
21.30%❑
10.19%❑ .
26.85%❑
41.67%
23
11
29
45
108
2.11
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-8
Clarington wBR Final Reportdocx
Table D-4
Preliminary Option Preferences by Ward
OPTION
RANKING
TOTAL
SCORE
27.8%
22.2%
22.2%
27.8%
Preliminary Option A (Four wards, Bowmanville split into two wards)
5
4
4
5
18
2.50
27.8%
27.8%
27.8%
16.7%
Preliminary Option B (Four wards, Bowmanville remains in one ward)
5
5
5
3
18
2.67
22.2%
44.4%
27.8%
5.6%
Preliminary Option C (Five wards)
4
8
5
1
18
2.83
22.2%
5.6%
22.2%
50.0%
Preliminary Option D (Six wards)
4
1
1 4
9
18
2.00
20.6%
47.1 %
11.8%
20.6%7
Preliminary Option A (Four wards, Bowmanville split into two wards)
16
4
7
34
2.68
41.2%
23.5%
26.5%
8.8%
Preliminary Option B (Four wards, Bowmanville remains in one ward)
14
8
9
3
34
2.97
23.5%
23.5%
35.3%
17.6%
Preliminary Option C (Five wards)
8
8
12
6
34
2.53
14.7%
5.9%
26.5%
52.9%5
Preliminary Option D (Six wards)
2
1 9
18
34
1 1.82
13.6%
36.4%
9.1 %
40.9%
Preliminary Option A (Four wards, Bowmanville split into two wards)
3
8
2
9
22
2.23
22.7%
22.7%
40.9%
13.6%
Preliminary Option B (Four wards, Bowmanville remains in one ward)
5
5
9
3
22
2.55
45.5%
18.2%
31.8%
4.5%
Preliminary Option C (Five wards)
10
4
7
1
22
3.05
18.2%
22.7%
18.2%
40.9%
Preliminary Option D (Six wards)
4
5
1 4
9
22
2.18
16.1 %
38.7%
19.4%
25.8%
Preliminary Option A (Four wards, Bowmanville split into two wards)
5
12
6
8
31
2.45
22.6%
25.8%
25.8%
25.8%
Preliminary Option B (Four wards, Bowmanville remains in one ward)
7
8
8
8
31
2.45
29.0%
29.0%
19.4%
22.6%
Preliminary Option C (Five wards)
9
9
6
7
31
2.65
32.3%
6.5%
35.5%
25.8%
Preliminary Option D (Six wards)
10
2
1 11
8
31
1 2.45
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-9
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Figure D-3
Q4 Do you think Clarington's Council has the right number of Councillors?
Answered:98 Skipped:10
Yes ■
No -Too few,
IF
No - Too many
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Table D-5
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes 50.0)% 49
No - Too few 41.84% 41
No - Too many 3.16❑/0 8
TOTAL 9B
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-10
Clarington WBR Final Reportdocx
Figure D-4
Q5 How did you hear about the Ward Boundary Review? Check all that
apply.
Answered:100 Skipped:8
NewspaperAd-
Social
Website I
Word of mouta
Other(pl-;M
specify
0°/ 10% 20°! 30% 40°% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Table D-6
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Newspaper Ad
14.00%
14
Social Media
75.001/.
75
Wehsite
26.00%
26
Word of mouth
6.00%
6
Other (please specify)
11.00%
11
Total P.espondents: 100
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1 Probus Newsletter
1ll1112020 9:06 AM
2 BOAA
11/1012020 10:33 AM
3 Orono Times
11/312020 1:34 PM
4 Twitter
10f3112020 6:27 PM
5 Social media
1042912020 12:27 PM
6 Facebook
10f2812020 7:46 PM
7 Just doing my homework on the Municipality that I live in!
10f1212020 10:47 AM
8 Newspaper story
10f512020 8:21 PM
9 Facebook
W2412020 8:32 AM
10 Email
9f2312020 142 PM
11 Email from Municipality of Clarngton News
W2212020 5:35 PM
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-11
Clarington WBR Final Report.docx